This article is from page 10 of the 2007-07-31 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 10 JPG
AN BORD Pleanala has overturned a ruling by its own inspectors and Clare County Council to give the go- ahead for a contentious holiday home development near Lahinch.
Last year, Clare County Council re- fused permission on grounds linked to the famous west Clare railway that has been defunct for over 40 years.
Tom O’Keeffe of Roslevan, Ennis had lodged plans with the council to construct 20 holiday homes at Creg,
Lahinch with the plan later being re- duced to 12.
However, the council refused plan- ning permission on three grounds including that a number of the homes would be built over the line of the west Clare railway.
The North Clare Area Plan 2005 states that developments should only be allowed on or adjacent to the west Clare railway which will not conflict with or restrict the recreational po- tential of the line.
In his appeal, Mr O’Keeffe point-
ed out that the railway bridge to the south-east was removed presumably by the council some 40 or 50 years ago and that over the years, the west Clare railway has been ploughed out across the subject site and was not now visible except for the bridge abutment and a small area adjacent to it.
The west Clare railway — immortal- ised in song by Percy French — was closed by the Government in 196] with the 27-mile line from Ennis to Miltown Malbay losing £23,000 per
annum.
However, the council’s view was endorsed by the board inspector who recommended refusal on four sepa- rate grounds with one of those re- lated to the preservation of the west Eee eee
The inspector was overruled, An Bord Pleanala recommending instead that planning permission be granted as the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicin- ity, would be acceptable in terms of
traffic safety and convenience and would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sus- tainable development of the area.
The board explained, “In deciding not to accept the inspector’s recom- mendation to refuse permission, the board took account of the zoning of the site, the final design and the in- formation received in response to the section 132 notice.”
The board also ruled out one home that was located across the route of the west Clare railway.