This article is from page 8 of the 2009-11-17 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 8 JPG
A CLARE businessman, who along with his partners is paying ©20,000 in interest on a planned retail park in Shannon, has made a last ditch at- tempt to save the development.
Last month, Clare County Council refused planning permission to Sean Halpin and Greenband Investments for the neighbourood component of a €60m retail park planned for Smith- stown in Shannon.
Mr Halpin confirmed that he and his business partners purchased the 17.5 acre site zoned for commercial development for €8 million in 2005 and have since paid ©2 million in interest.
Confirming that interest payments are costing ©20,000 per month, Mr Halpin said, “The interest is some- where north of €2 million. This is not some cosy arrangement with the bank where we have interest rolled up.”
In all, Mr Halpin estimates that the exposure to date is €10.5m.
Now, in a last ditch bid to save the development, they have lodged an ap- peal with An Bord Pleanala against the council’s decision to refuse plan- ning to the neighbourhood compo- nent of the scheme.
The council stated that the centre would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Shannon town and contravene Department of the Environment retail guidelines
relating to the location of neighbour- hood centres.
The Greenband development was due to create 250 direct jobs, 200 in- direct jobs and 180 jobs during the construction phase.
In their appeal, the developers “se- riously contest the reason for refusal of the neighbourhood centre of the proposed scheme.
‘The proposed development would in fact not detract from the town cen- tre but serve the remainder of the proposed development and immedi- ate surrounding areas.
“The reasons for refusal cited by the council do not accord with the retail planning guidelines, which specifically recognises the local role
neighbourhood centre’s play in the retail hierarchy.”
However, the plan faces outright rejection, with the McAllen family lodging an appeal against the coun- cil decision to grant planning to any aspect of the development.
The local family state that their health and safety is of paramount importance and “any detrimental environmental impacts in the area, that put our health and safety under threat, will be subject to full legal ac- tion on our behalf.”
‘There 1s an over-intensification of commercial use on the site; loss of privacy and the design is of poor ar- chitectural quality.”
A decision is due in 2010.