This article is from page 20 of the 2009-08-11 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 20 JPG
AN BORD Pleanala yesterday gave the green-light for contentious plans for a 64-unit housing estate in the south-east Clare village of Ard- ueeKeva Ut orem
In giving Joe McMahon planning permission to construct the homes, the appeals board ignored the strong recommendation of its own inspector to refuse and local residents’ opposi- tion.
Mr McMahon has been seeking to develop the site since 2006, and first applied for 176 homes at the site.
The application before the board 1s
the third application Mr McMahon made for the site.
However, the inspector in the case concurred with the views of local residents opposed to the plan.
At the end of his 15-page report examining the proposal, the board inspector stated that “whilst there would appear to be no technical bar- riers to a grant of permission in this instances, I have fundamental con- cerns that the scale, form and overall design of the development proposed and its relationship to the broader settlement would represent a poorly conceived and insensitive extension to the settkement which would de-
tract from its overall character and appearance’.
He added, “Whilst recognising that the form and intensity of develop- ment has been modified significantly from the previous application, the reduction in density and the revised form and layout are insufficient in my view to overcome the previous objections to the development.
“The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, design and layout, would constitute a suburban form of housing estate in a rural village which is not designated for major ex- pansion and does not have the range of physical, community, educational
and commercial services or the transport services required to serve such a development.
“The proposal would therefore fail to provide for the orderly, planned de- velopment of Ardnacrusha, seriously injure the character and amenities of the area and would conflict with the zoning objectives of the site,” he concluded.
However, the board over-ruled his strong recommendation to refuse.
It stated, “In deciding not to ac- cept the inspector’s recommenda- tion to refuse permission, the board had particular regard to the planning history of the site and to the reduced
scale of the proposed development and considered that the proposed development would be acceptable on these zoned lands.”
The appeals board gave the pro- posal the go-ahead “having regard to the residential zoning of the site, the pattern of the development in the vic- nity and the scale and layout of the proposed development”.
An Bord Pleanala stated “that the proposal would not seriously in- jure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would be acceptable in terms of traf- fic, safety and convenience”.