This article is from page 18 of the 2006-01-31 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 18 JPG
THE west Clare businessman sentenced to three months in jail last year for failing to comply with a court order, has failed in his bid to secure retrospective planning for his oil and transportation business at Moyasta in west Clare.
Last September, at Kilrush District Court, Judge Joseph Mangan jailed Oliver Marrinan of Henry St., Kilrush over his failure to remove an authorised oil depot at Moyasta in west Clare.
Mr Marrinan is on bail pending his appeal and his solicitor, Michael Ryan, failed in an attempt to have the district court matter adjourned pending the outcome of Mr Marrinan’s appeal to An Bord Pleanala.
The appeal was in response to last August’s decision by Clare County Council, who refused Mr Marrinan’s application to retain his business on the main Kilkee-Kilrush Road on four counts.
However, the appeals board has refused Mr Marrinan’s appeal on three counts.
“It is the policy of the Clare County Development Plan to encourage the location of industrial and commercial development into established and designated settlements.
“It is also policy to safeguard the rural amenities of the county.
“Having regard to the location of the development proposed for retention and completion in an unserviced rural area, it is considered that the development by itself and the precedent it would create for other services facilities, would conflict with the Development Plan, contribute towards an erosion of the rural amenities of the area and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”
The Board also refused planning permission with regard “to the nature of the development proposed for retention and completion, and its location in proximity to Poulnasherry Bay, which is the site of established shellfish harvesting activity and a designated area of nature conservation (National Heritage Area, Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation).”
As a result, the appeals board ruled that the development “would be prejudicial to public health and would adversely affect the integrity of the said nature conservation designations and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”
The appeals board also found that “the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users.”
Mr Marrinan is due to appear at the Circuit Court next month in relation to his appeal. He declined to comment on the decision this week.