This article is from page 17 of the 2007-09-11 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 17 JPG
AN EAST Clare man has won his planning battle to secure planning permission for a home for the carer of his 16-year daughter who has cer- ebral palsy.
Mike Keegan from Caher in east Clare has secured planning retention for the home despite Clare County Council refusing permission and an An Bord Pleanala inspector recom- mending refusal.
According to the appeal lodged by
Mr Keegan, he is the single parent of the girl who is also a wheelchair isto
The inspector’s report states that Mr Keegan obtained planning per- mission for the main house and then built a small annexe with a view for retention as a carer’s annexe.
The report states: “In terms of be- ing injurious to the amenities of oth- er residential property in the vicinity, the nearest neighbour is 90m away and cannot see anything of the an- nex. The annexe and the main house
are both owned by Mr Keegan and will always be both functionally and physically linked together.”
Mr Keegan lodged letters of support from a senior clinical psychologist at the Health Service Executive West, a senior occupational therapist at Clare Children’s Services, a coordinator of East Clare Community Support Ltd, a coordinator of the Disabled People of Clare and a network support of- ficer with Clare Network of People with Disabilities in Ireland.
The council refused permission last
March to the development stating that the proposed development would be viewed as an independent dwell- ing house which would seriously in- jure the amenities of other residential properties in the vicinity.
The inspector recommended that the proposed development would be viewed as an independent dwell- ing house which would create an undesirable density of development, presenting an overcrowded and dis- orderly appearance thereby seriously injuring the amenities of other resi-
dential properties in the vicinity.
However, the board disregarded the inspector’s recommendation stating that the carer’s annexe proposed for retention was generally compatible with the policies in the development plan and would not seriously injure the amenities of the area.
As aresult, the appeals board ruled that having regard to the nature of the building, it 1s considered that the proposal would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of prop- erty in the vicinity.