This article is from page 31 of the 2007-10-30 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 31 JPG
A DEVELOPER in east Clare has been given to go ahead for conten- tious plans to build 27 homes in Tua- mgraney — only after An Bord Plean- ala disregarded the recommendation of its inspector to refuse permission for the development.
Earlier this year, Conor Daly se-
cured planning permission for the housing development in the east of the village. Mr Daly secured permission for the development in spite of strong local opposition. with local residents stat- ing that “it is not too late to learn from the mistakes made in other villages and towns that now have de- velopment but inadequate water and sewerage facilities, increased traffic hazards and a ‘commuter’ popula- nto) ae
However, local residents appealed
the decision and outlined their con- cerns in relation to a lack of public facilities and highlighted the serious lack of water pressure and supply, the traffic generation from the pro- posed development an implications for safety and the contemporary and suburban nature of proposed houses.
They stated that, “The present situation with regard to waste water treatment and public water facili- ties in the Tuamgraney-Scariff area is unsatisfactory and no further de- velopment should be permitted until iW slontomrsDUoMUN Osea eALOloLem
“Public water supplies are grossly inadequate serving existing develop- seTS ale
“We are aware that there are plans to upgrade the sewage system in late 2007, but are unaware of any plans to upgrade the existing water sup- ply that is already seriously deficient — we may be another seven or eight
years waiting for this.
An Taisce also pointed out that the development would be premature pending water and wastewater sys- tems installation.
The site is zoned for housing, how- ever, the inspector in the case recom- mended that planning be refused.
The inspector stated, ““Whilst ac- knowledging the land use zoning of the proposed site, I do not consider that its development should take place in the absence of a detailed master plan which should include the land to the east and address the crucial issue of traffic safety in the overall context.
“IT am not satisfied based on the information submitted that the traf- fic and safety implications of the proposed development are properly addressed. Arising from my assess- ment above therefore I recommend that planning permission be refused
for the proposed development for one reason.
However, the appeals board ruled that planning permission for the de- velopment should be granted, stating that further submissions made on ap- peal dealt with the concerns of the inspector.
The board ruled that having regard to the residential zoning of the site and the submissions made in regard to the appeal, it 1s considered that, subject to compliance with the con- ditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously in- jure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would be acceptable in terms of traf- fic safety and convenience.
The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable de- velopment of the area.