This article is from page 11 of the 2007-08-28 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 11 JPG
AN independent county council- lor is once more leading opposition against revised plans by a Shannon- based company to establish the first crematorium in the west of Ireland.
In a formal objection against the planned development, Cllr Gerry Flynn claims that the proposed de- velopment is in contravention of the south east Clare development as the site is zoned ‘open space’ and not for commercial development.
The plan is proposed by [llauma- managh Ltd, steered by two former members of Clare County Council, Sean Hillery and Tony McMahon.
Plans were first lodged for the pro- posal in 2005 and last November, Ilaumamanagh Ltd withdrew their plans to allow the company revise the scheme.
The proposal was re-lodged last month. However, Cllr Flynn — who objected to the previous plan — claims that the proposal is on land owned by the public adjacent to the local grave- yard of [llaumanagh. He claimed that, “The planned future expansion of the graveyard could be curtailed if the proposal is granted permission.”
In a separate objection, Ray and Margaret Keohane stated, “We are concerned that a commercial devel-
opment such as a crematorium is be- ing proposed in this area.
“The proposed commercial devel- opment would be of great concern to us on the grounds of increased traffic movement. The crematorium in Cork is located away from residential de- velopment at Ringaskiddy whereas the proposal for Shannon would be located near residential, sporting and an existing graveyard in need of ex- pansion.”
In a submission lodged by the com- pany, they accept that the plan would be in contravention of the Develop- ment Plan. It stated, “However, the proposed development is an appro- priate ancillary development to the adjacent graveyard and it is suggest- ed that a decision to grant permis- sion in contravention of zoning for this specific development would be appropriate and would not set prec- edents for other developments in the area due to its unique nature.
“The proposed development is an appropriate addition to the range of services and facilities within the area. The development is a unique use in a unique location and is not likely to establish a precedent for further similar developments in the future.”
A decision is due on the applica- tion later this year.