This article is from page 24 of the 2008-04-08 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 24 JPG
A €10 MILLION retail development will need the support of three quar- ters of Clare County Council mem- bers in order to proceed.
Tom Lavelle and Adrian Callanan’s plan to construct 56 units at Boherar- oan, Newmarket-on-Fergus materi- ally contravenes the County Devel- eo) eee lm ate
The plan includes 16 commer- cial units, 22 duplex apartments, 11 apartments, a medical facility and six office units, and the council noted that the site is zoned for commercial non-retail purposes.
They state: “While the principle of a mixed use commercial and resi- dential development is acceptable on site, it is also considered that it is contrary to the zonings of the site. Consequently, a material contraven- tion would be required.”
As a result, the planning applica- tion will need to go before a council meeting in the coming months. The developers have been requested to lodge a revised design for the scheme ‘as any development should have re- gard to the character of the existing village”.
The proposed development is locat- ed about 200 metres east of Lough Gash turlough candidate Special Area of Conservation (CSAC).
The council states: “The proposed development has the potential to have significant effects on the SAC and its conservation objectives.”
The retail plan also faces opposi- tion from local resident, Patrick J Hannon, who owns land to the rear of the development.
Mr Hannon pointed out to the coun- cil, “No details are submitted with the application to the retail impact the proposal will have on the village
of Newmarket-on-Fergus. I contend that there is a substantial need for the retail development proposed and the applicant has failed to show this.
“As elsewhere, out of centre retail developments should not be allowed as this development is likely to lead to a reduction in the range of local facilities in the town that will affect the diversity of shops and lead to a loss of general retailing from the vil- lage centre.
“It would appear as an aggressive and incongruous feature in the area, contrary to the requirements of the development plan.”
He added, “The proposed develop- ment has an unduly monolithic form, arising from the absence of any re- lief from fenestration thus producing an unattractive facade to all public views.”
A decision is due on the application next month.