This article is from page 11 of the 2005-09-06 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 11 JPG
CONTENTIOUS _ holiday home plans by a Doolin busi- ness man have been thrown into doubt, after 50 Doolin residents appealed the deci- sion to An Bord Pleanala.
Last month, Clare County Council granted planning permission to Joseph Gar- rihy to develop 26 homes, including 19 holiday homes on O’Connor’s campsite in Doolin.
However, in their appeal, the residents and local busi- ness people stated, “It 1s ac- cepted that the tourism prod- uct of Doolin needs to be enhanced and developed to sustain tourism in this part of the country. We would argue however, that the cur- rent proposal, taken in con- junction with other similar proposals recently before the Council add nothing to the tourism product of Doolin.”
The appellants state, “There is no need for more
‘holiday homes’ in Doolin at present. There are already 65 holiday homes built, or in the process of being built, in the area of Doolin.
“What is proposed will ad- versely impact on the exist- ing B&B and other residen- tial accommodation, which would be at a commercial disadvantage when compet- ing with what is essentially tax-driven rather than mar- ket-driven accommodation.
“The scale of what is now proposed would be totally out of scale with what has been, to date, organic growth DONO Tom BUNT NoCommN ONG OM OT eB Kee acted slowly to the ebb and flow of commercial life.”
The appellants also argue that the development “‘is premature in the absence of a public sewerage treatment system and would be preju- dicial to public health”.
They state: “In hydro geo- logical terms, the Ground Water Protection Scheme for County Clare categorises the
area at this location as con- taining a regionally impor- eOlMreLO LUND ol
The vulnerability of the acquifer is stated to be in the extreme category.
“We do not consider it to be good planning in these circumstances to permit ef- fluent from a large scale de- velopment to be directed to ground.
“The development is not essential. It could be argued that if the village itself was being stagnated…this is not the case here. What is in- volved is, effectively, a holi- day home development be- ing driven by tax incentives which have dictated that the development be built by a Carne sens oMe
The appellants also claim that the development would not be in the interests of traf- fic safety and the layout is defective from an amenity OLOvee IMO) Ma ales
A decision is due on the application in December.