This article is from page 35 of the 2008-02-19 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 35 JPG
CLARE County Council has been accused of acting outside its powers in its bid to end the construction of holiday homes in Kilkee.
Last month, the council refused an application by building firm, Keel- erove Construction Ltd to allow a portion of the homes as holiday homes. The council concluded that up to a thousand holiday homes in Kilkee should be used for permanent occupancy.
The developers have now appealed that decision to An Bord Pleanala.
In their appeal, Keelgrove state that Zoning provisions in the west Clare
local area plan do not restrict the oc- cupancy of houses on the site nor is it stated in any section of the plan that a restrictive occupancy condition will be attached to residential devel- opments in Kilkee.
They claim that the council’s posi- tion is unreasonable and unenforce- able as the houses will be sold to in- dividual third parties over which the developer will have no control.
Keelgrove maintain that the coun- cil decision is unreasonable “as the developer cannot be held responsible for the future actions of potential house purchaser, who may or may not use the dwelling as their princi- ple private residence.
“The condition is not enforceable as there is no way of regulating or ensuring that potential purchasers use such dwellings as permanent residences in the future.
“It is unreasonable to restrict the future occupancy of all 64 residen- tial units to permanent homes when population projections in the plan detailed that there will only be a re- quirement for 62 new units in Kilkee over the period.
“If the council applies the restric- tion to all future housing in the town, then the plan is failing to provide for a key sector of the housing and tour- ism market and this could adversely impact on the economy of the town.
“In the interest of fairness and equality, that should such a condition be considered necessary and funda- mental to the overall grant of per- mission, then only a percentage of the residential units within the devel- opment granted should be restricted to permanent occupancy.
“For example, a requirement to provide 20 per cent of the overall site for permanent occupation would ne- cessitate that 12 houses are restricted to such use. Such a condition if prop- erly defined and qualified would be considered reasonable,” the develop- ers conclude.
A decision is expected on the ap- peal later this year.