This article is from page 22 of the 2007-09-04 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 22 JPG
A WEST Clare man faces the possi- bility of having to demolish his home as constructed if he does not secure planning permission for the develop- ment.
Earlier this year, Thomas Sexton lodged plans to retain his home at Drumellihy, Cree.
However, neighbours Niall and Sheila Kampff, through Kilrush le- gal firm O’Kelly Moylan, lodged an objection against the proposal.
The original applicant in the case was Peter Roche.
The Kampffs claim in response to the latest planning application, “The boundaries were not as submitted in the planning application; the house was not constructed in the location advised in the application for which planning permission was granted; the percolation area was not con- structed in the location advised in the application and for which plan- ning permission was granted.”
It continues, “The planning per- mission required that the house be occupied by the then applicant Peter Roche as a place of permanent resi- dence for a minimum of five years. We are instructed that Peter Roche never resided at the property and the current resident is Thomas Sexton,
not Mr Roche.”
“Tt is our client’s contention that the retention planning process is now be- ing sought to be used by Mr Sexton to overcome the issues which arose in the lack of compliance with origi- nal planning permission. In fact, this is Mr Sexton’s second retention ap- plication in respect of the same prop- erty, the first being refused by the council.”
The Kampffs’s solicitors state that- the council recommended the appli- cant re-submit as application to “re- tain house”.
The letter states, “Our clients are most concerned that the council is providing such recommendations on a means of submitting retention ap- plications on properties the subject of ongoing Council Enforcement Proceedings.
“It is clear that the retention appli- cation seeks to retain the same non- compliant aspects of this develop- ment as retention application which the council refused, namely the house, the percolation area, the re- vised boundaries and the occupancy clause.”
The council’s website yesterday confirmed that Mr Sexton has with- drawn his application and in order to regularise the situation a fresh appli- cation 1s anticipated.