This article is from page 13 of the 2006-01-24 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 13 JPG
A NORTH Clare-based legal firm faces the prospect of having to demolish an extension to offices it built without planning permission.
Clare County Council has refused planning permission to Chambers & Co to retain an extension to its offices on Parliament Street, Ennistymon.
Already, the council has served a Warning Letter on the firm after finding that the extension was built without planning in Ennistymon’s Architectural Conservation Area (ACA).
In response, the company lodged plans to retain the development. However, the plan provoked opposition from the company’s neighbours on Parliament Street, Sean and Carmel Conway.
In their objection, the Conways told the council, “This extension has had a very serious and detrimental effect on our home, our privacy and our natural light.
“This illegal development by Chambers & Co solicitors has resulted in the virtual loss of light to a substantial part of the upstairs of our house.
“Prior, we benefited from sunlight for much of the morning and early afternoon. Now, we have virtually no daylight and do not benefit from sunlight. The structure built is not appropriate or suitable for Ennistymon, a town that has a wealth of history and tradition.
“This development is built with no consideration whatsoever to the obvious effect it was going to have on our home.”
The council opted to refuse planning permission following a recommendation by the council’s conservation officer, Risteard Ua Cronin, who stated that the development will set an unwelcome precedent in the town.
Mr Ua Cronin was also critical of the visual design and materials of the structure.
In its decision, the council ruled that the proposed development, by reason of scale and location in close proximity to the side boundaries of the site and to private gardens and windows of neighbours, would lead to overshadowing of these properties and loss of light.
The council ruled that the proposal would therefore seriously ignore the residential amenities of adjacent properties and be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
The council also pointed out that the proposed development was located within an ACA, where it was council policy to conserve the character and appearance of the area.
The council stated that the proposal would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.
It is now open to Chambers & Co to appeal the council’s decision to An Bord Pleanála.