This article is from page 27 of the 2008-01-01 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 27 JPG
CONTENTIOUS plans by voluntary housing organisation, RESPOND in Shannon, are now in doubt after Clare County Council refused to ex- tend the organisation more time to complete a 28-unit housing develop- ment in the town.
Five years ago, RESPOND secured planning permission for 28 homes in the face of strong local opposition. To date they have constructed eight two-bed bungalows and two three-
bed semi-detached houses out of the total proposed.
The housing association lodged an application to extend time to allow for the completion of the project.
However, a submission from the Combined Residents Association from Tullyvarraga Hill and Brook- fields claimed that the site had been landscaped and surrounded by a boundary fence, and the contractor had left the site some months ago.
“There is little likelihood that the work, involving as it does consider-
able civil and ground work, could be completed within a reasonable time. In our opinion, there is no justifica- tion for extending the perfectly ad- equate original period,” the residents Sr BKGE
‘Furthermore, the imminent 1m- plementation of plans to extend the town centre area, with commercial and residential developments, chang- es the whole basis of planning.
“The only sensible course is to re- ject the extension and for RESPOND to re-apply for planning in light of
the new circumstances.
“There is an adequate supply, even a surfeit of apartments in Shannon, which are intrinsically better, more attractive and cheaper than the pro- posed mini-blocks and to spend pub- lic money on such a project is unac- ceptable,” the residents’ submission maintained.
“In our opinion, the mini-blocks are of defective design, would not serve the needs of Shannon and would be an irresponsible use of public money. They would be intrusive and dimin-
ish the area visually and in quality of life and in value terms.”
A report from the council’s planning inspector said that an additional four years was sought by the applicants to complete the development and this was not a reasonable timeframe for the works to be completed.
The council ruled that the exten- sion be refused “as substantial works had not been carried out to date in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000”.