This article is from page 8 of the 2008-01-29 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 8 JPG
AN TAISCE came under fire yes- terday after it appealed to An Bord Pleanala a ruling by Clare County Council to give the go-ahead for a home beside the Western Rail Cor- ridor.
The national trust has lodged the appeal — the only instance it has ap- pealed a decision relating to a one- off home in Clare in the past year —in spite of Iarnrod Eireann having no objection against the proposal.
Last month, Clare County Council eranted outline planning permission to Monica McMahon to construct one home at Bearnafunshin, Barefield. _In the planning process, larnrod Eireann initially had reservations due to the proximity of the home to the Ennis-Galway rail-line which is oLeSUITSMGUDUReIILOMAmUNOscau-lelsrem
Green Party councillor, Brian Meaney said, “I believe that the functions that An Taisce carry out are necessary, but intervening in a case like this — when the compe- tent authority, Iarnrod Eireann sees
no problem — damages An Taisce’s crest ae
“Iarnrod Eireann adopts a very hard line when developments en- croach very close to the rail line and you would think if Iarnré6d Eireann didn’t have a problem, An Taisce shouldn’t.
“IT would have to question if this is a good use of An Taisce’s resources and time and there are other develop- ments that it could be concentrating
on.”
In its appeal, an Taisce state, “It is submitted that notwithstanding the alleviation of the concerns by Jarnrod Eireann on the impact of the proposal of the operation of the upgraded railway crossing, the pro- posal because of its location, would be of poor residential amenity qual- ity because of its proximity to the level crossing.
“While historically, all across the country, there are railway crossing keepers’ houses and houses already existing in proximity to railway cross- ings, outside of urban areas, the gen- eral principle should be maintained of restricting development in proximity to railways crossings for reasons for residential amenity, particularly in this case, since no site specific need has been advanced for development of this kind, and there are alternative development locations.”
An Taisce conceded that the rail company no longer objected to the eben