CONTENTIOUS plans by voluntary housing organisation, RESPOND in Shannon, are now in doubt after Clare County Council refused to ex- tend the organisation more time to complete a 28-unit housing develop- ment in the town.
Five years ago, RESPOND secured planning permission for 28 homes in the face of strong local opposition. To date they have constructed eight two-bed bungalows and two three-
bed semi-detached houses out of the total proposed.
The housing association lodged an application to extend time to allow for the completion of the project.
However, a submission from the Combined Residents Association from Tullyvarraga Hill and Brook- fields claimed that the site had been landscaped and surrounded by a boundary fence, and the contractor had left the site some months ago.
“There is little likelihood that the work, involving as it does consider-
able civil and ground work, could be completed within a reasonable time. In our opinion, there is no justifica- tion for extending the perfectly ad- equate original period,” the residents Sr BKGE
‘Furthermore, the imminent 1m- plementation of plans to extend the town centre area, with commercial and residential developments, chang- es the whole basis of planning.
“The only sensible course is to re- ject the extension and for RESPOND to re-apply for planning in light of
the new circumstances.
“There is an adequate supply, even a surfeit of apartments in Shannon, which are intrinsically better, more attractive and cheaper than the pro- posed mini-blocks and to spend pub- lic money on such a project is unac- ceptable,” the residents’ submission maintained.
“In our opinion, the mini-blocks are of defective design, would not serve the needs of Shannon and would be an irresponsible use of public money. They would be intrusive and dimin-
ish the area visually and in quality of life and in value terms.”
A report from the council’s planning inspector said that an additional four years was sought by the applicants to complete the development and this was not a reasonable timeframe for the works to be completed.
The council ruled that the exten- sion be refused “as substantial works had not been carried out to date in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000”.