This article is from page 8 of the 2007-07-10 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 8 JPG
TWO. separate developments op- posed by local residents in Doolin have been refused planning permis- sion.
Clare County Council refused plan- ning permission to Finbarr Tierney to develop six permanent homes. The planning authority also expressed “serious concerns” in relation to a proposed hotel extension in Doolin.
In their opposition against the planned 20 bedroom extension to the existing Tir Gan Ean Hotel, which also includes four new holiday homes, local residents stated that ad- ditional holiday homes in the village would result in a “dead” settlement for much of the year.
The objection also claimed that “there 1s no need for more holiday homes or for more long term rental properties in Doolin at present. There are already 65 holiday homes built or in the process of being built.”
‘Further development is premature in the absence of public sewage sys- tem… acting on the precautionary principle, the development is prema- ture. We have no objection in princi- ple to the hotel extension when the public sewage system is installed,” it added.
In putting the proposal on hold,
the council stated: “The planning authority has serious concerns with regard to the design and height of the proposed development and its proxi- mate location to the adjacent build- ings to the south-west. Please submit revised plans.”
Separately, the council refused planning for six permanent homes at Coogyulla in Doolin, which was also opposed by local residents who claimed that the proposal was premature in the absence of public sewerage facilities. Residents also argued that there is an over-supply of holiday homes in the area.
The proposal was refused on a number of grounds including con- cerns “with regard to the high water table and the poor percolation prop- erties of the soil on this site, it 1s con- sidered that the proposed develop- ment site would be unsuitable for the disposal of domestic effluent.
“Having regard to the suburban design and layout of the proposed dwelling units, it is considered that the proposal would be out of charac- ter with the existing pattern of devel- opment in the vicinity and of future occupants.’
The council also ruled that the “proposed development would set an undesirable precedent for other such developments in the area”.