This article is from page 11 of the 2007-11-20 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 11 JPG
THE PLIGHT of people applying to Clare County Council for planning permission to build homes, who fall foul of the Local Rural Person rule, was hotly debated at a meeting of the local authority yesterday.
Councillor PJ Kelly (FF) said that interpretations by planning staff was giving rise to situations whereby someone who had lived “nine years and nine months in the county can be given planning permission as a local rural person but someone who was born here and went away for the last couple of years and then came back is deemed not to be a local rural per- son’.
The councillor quoted High Court judgements against other local au- thorities which showed, he said, that planning staff were “precluded from interpreting the county development plan. It is the courts’ preserve”.
He told the meeting that in one case for which he was giving reference details to the officials, “a non-local can get planning permission in 33 days but a person whose family has been living here for four generations can’t. What interpretation resulted in those decisions?”
Meanwhile, Cllr Bernard Hanra- han (FF) raised the issue of people seeking permission who had been lo-
cal rural people but who had been re- classified as urban after the extension of town boundaries under “decisions which are outside their control.
“They have been rural people all their lives but when they want to build a house in a rural area, they are turned down because a line on a map was moved.”
Mayor of Clare, Cllr Patricia Mc- Carthy (Ind) said that the committee which had been set up to examine the issue and definition of a local rural person had been meeting regularly. They had been debating that question with the planners over the last two months and were “working very hard to come up with a solution which we can live with and which the ordinary people of Clare can live with”.
She asked Cllr Hanrahan if he would agree to defer the motion he had on the issue before yesterday’s council meeting until that commit- tee finished its debate. The council- lor agreed but said that he wanted to see a report in the near future as the issue had “caused untold suffering to people around this county”’.
Councillors told the officials at- tending the meeting that the issue of what constituted a local rural person was one with which they were faced regularly, particularly where people had fallen foul of the planning proc- ess.