This article is from page 8 of the 2007-06-19 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 8 JPG
CLARE County Council has been accused of acting outside its pow- ers by imposing a condition that a €25 million housing development not be used as holiday homes but be the permanent homes of the owners concerned.
Last month, Clare County Coun- cil granted planning permission to Paddy Madden, Barry Madden, Jerry O’Sullivan and Paul O’Connell for a 60 home development at Dough, Kil- kee.
However, in granting planning for the homes the council states: “The dwellings shall be occupied as princi- pal placed for permanent residences. In this regard, the developer shall en- ter a legal agreement with the council under the provisions of Section 47 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. This shall be included in the sales agreement of each dwelling.”
The developers’ planning appeal states: “It is submitted to the board that the zoning provisions do not re- strict the occupancy of houses on the site nor is it stated in any section of the plan that a restrictive occupancy condition will be attached to residen- tial developments in Kilkee…
“It 1s argued that the council have acted ultra vires in attaching such a condition to the grant of permission and in this regard, it is requested that
the board omits the condition.
The developers propose a require- ment to provide 20 per cent of the overall site for permanent occupa- tion, This would necessitate that 12 homes be restricted in use.
The appeal adds: “It is further con- sidered that such a condition would facilitate the integration of different housing needs within the town of Kilkee and would prevent secularisa- tion of holiday and permanent hous- iba
“It is not clear from the plan wheth- er the occupancy condition is to be afforded to all new development in the town. However, if this is the case, then having regard to the extent of residential zoned land in the town relative to projected demand, there will be an over-supply of houses restricted to permanent occupancy Visteon
“If it is case that the condition 1s to be applied in an ad-hoc manner to fu- ture development, such that adequate provision is made to meet projected demand as detailed in the plan, then the proposed development has been unfairly restricted to accommodate 55 per cent of the overall demand.
The developers argued that it would be unreasonable to hold them respon- sible for the future actions of poten- tial house purchasers.
A decision is due on the appeal later this year.