This article is from page 23 of the 2008-05-06 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 23 JPG
AN TAISCE has claimed that the planned €10 million explosives fac- tory at Cahercon would constitute an inappropriate extension of the in- dustrial development of the Shannon estuary.
Appealing Clare County Coun- cil approval for the development of an explosives plant on the northern shore of the estuary, An Taisce point out that there 1s already extensive in-
dustrial development on the southern shore at Foynes Port and Auginish Alumina.
An Taisce Heritage Officer, Ian Lumley has cautioned against the cumulative effect on the proposal in relation to shipping movements on the estuary and night-time lighting impact.
“The application site at Cahercon Pier would result in the development of a Seveso facility which would re- quire high security measures and a
cordon sanitaire.
“The proposal would therefore be prejudicial to the development of sustainable uses of the area.”
Mr Lumley said that Shannon Ex- plosives failed to resolve the reason for refusal by An Bord Pleanala to the previous plan in 2003.
“This decision was made on erounds of the extent of filling on the site; the likely significant effect of the works on local and adjacent houses; and that a significant element of the
proposal was not subject to Environ- mental Impact Assessment.”
‘The applicant has not resolved the primary grounds of planning refusal of the previous application, namely the extent of fill material required on this sensitive estuary site in order to accommodate the proposed develop- ment.
Mr Lumley said the applicants had not provided the required Foreshore License or legal entitlement to carry out the proposed development.
“The applicants have not demon- strated the required legal title to accommodate the proposed marine access at Cahercon Pier and resolved or addressed issues which relate to establishing public rights of way, in- cluding public rights of way to fore- shore and marine access.
“Since An Bord Pleanala has no retrospective power to validate and invalid application, this application should be dismissed,’ Mr Lumley concluded.