This article is from page 16 of the 2006-08-01 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 16 JPG
THE Whelan Group has strenuously rejected accusations from objectors to its planned multi-million euro expansion of its flagship operation at Fountain, Ennis that the company is a “cowboy developer”.
In company documents to An Bord Pleanala, the Whelan Group states: “We do not accept the very offensive allegation of the Cairn Hill Protection Environmental Group that this company is a “cowboy developer”.
A four day oral appeal hearing concerning the planned expansion of the quarry ended last month and a decision is due in the case later this year.
Clare County Council has limited the life-span of the quarry to 10 years, while local residents have outlined their opposition to any extension.
However, in documents submitted to Bord Pleanala, the Whelan Group states that it has operated quarries in Cork, Limerick and Roscommon. It acknowledges that the company has received warning letters under the Planning Acts in relation to some of its operations, but the vast majority of these warning letters have been found to be unfounded allegations.
In relation to its Fountain operation, the company states that the quarry has been in operation prior to 1963 and doesn’t require planning permission.
The company points out that a number of ancillary facilities have been constructed at the Fountain operation, including two tar plants, offices, two stores and extend an existing laboratory and that planning permission has been granted for all those developments.
They state: “We do not accept the appellant’s contention that this company is a cowboy developer. As it is clearly demonstrated that the applicant has extensive planning history in the existing quarry at Fountain Cross, which currently is in the registration process under Section 261 of the Planning and Development Act.”
The Whelan Group also points out that the Cairn Hill Environmental Protection Group Ltd “has been very active in objecting to every single development or application for license that this company has put before the council since its formation. . .
“While we fully respect the group’s right to appeal any development, we are deeply concerned that in fact the sole objective of the group is to appeal any development proposed by this company.”