This article is from page 10 of the 2006-07-25 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 10 JPG
IF PLANNING permission is granted for the Whelan Group’s multi-million euro extension to its flagship operation at Fountain, Ennis, it will be the first time that quarrying activity on the site will be within the control of Clare County Council.
That is according to solicitor John Shaw, in his closing statement on behalf of the council, to an An Bord Pleanála hearing.
“In relation to the enforcement on this site over a period of time, it is only fair to say that if permission is granted, this will be the first time that quarrying activity on this site will be within the control of the planning authority.
“It is important to emphasise that. Any powers that we had before were strictly in relation to licensing matters.
“From the objectors point of view, all quarrying would be subjected to the rigours of the planning and development act and the controls therein.”
The oral hearing took place over four days in Ennis last week and the Whelan Group, led by two senior counsel spent an estimated €250,000 over the four days in providing 22 expert witnesses and legal advice in a bid to secure planning for the extension to the quarry. The life-span of the quarry will be limited to only a further 10 years if the council’s conditional planning is affirmed by An Bord Pleanála, endangering the jobs of the 110 workers at the site.
Mr Shaw said that this decision was appropriate and the 10 year gap could allow for development in technology and law to allow planning permission be reviewed.
Acting on behalf of the Whelan Group, Eamon Galligan SC in his closing statement said that the proposed development was acceptable and would have no significant adverse impacts on the existing environment. Mr Galligan said that the Whelan Group had put in place a considerable degree of infrastructure and it would be undesirable to transfer it elsewhere.
Consultant for the objectors, Peter Sweetman, said that the proposal should be turned down on a number of grounds: that the entrance to it represents a traffic hazard; that the proposal would result in a consolidation and intensification of an unauthorised development on site.
He said that the Board could not be satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable risk to groundwater pollution with regard to the location of the site within the Drumcliffe Springs.
He said that the proposal was completely unsustainable as a development.
Mr Sweetman said, “No decision should be made on the application as it is distinctly part of two other planning applications.”
A decision on the application is due towards the end of this year.