This article is from page 3 of the 2008-08-19 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 3 JPG
THE developers and opponents for a planned €10 million explosives plant at Cahercon are to clash at an An Bord Pleanala oral hearing on the contentious scheme.
This follows the appeals board in- forming by letter on parties to the appeal that it has decided to hold the oral hearing and a spokeswoman for the board said yesterday that a date has yet to be decided upon.
Last March, the council granted planning permission to the Whelan Group-owned Shannon Explosives
to construct the the plant at Cahercon pier, Kildysart.
It was the latest twist in the coun- ty’s longest running planning saga that started nine years ago when plans were first lodged.
Along with local group, Cairde Chill an Disirt Teo (CCDT) ap- pealing the decision, the Kildysart Explosives Opposition Group (KE- FOG) and An Taisce have appealed, while the Whelan Group have also appealed against conditions in the planning permission.
In tandem with the appeals board informing parties about the oral
hearing, An Bord Pleanala has asked all parties to comment on a fresh submission by August 26 next by Cairde Chill an Disirt Teo that the board should allow the appeal on a number of grounds.
In a follow-up submission to the board on its initial appeal and related to the Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS), CCDT contend that the EIS is defective in several aspects and in particular doesn’t deal with issues raised by a submission lodged by the Department of the Fisheries.
The appellants point out that the department indicated that the por-
tion of the proposed development is not within the ownership of the ap- plicant and encroaches on the fore- shore and that this encroachment on the foreshore will require a further intertidal zone.
CCDT contend that contrary to what has been stated by Shannon Ex- plosives, the foreshore licence must be obtained before any such works are carried out and in general, the development must comply with de- partmental requirements.
CCDT point out, “It is plain there- fore that the EIS as lodged, which denies that any part of the facility
will be on the foreshore, is clearly incorrect and doesn’t deal with the requirement to raise the level as re- quired.
“The appellants claim on all fore- going grounds, this application must fail and even without the necessity of an oral hearing, the board should al- low the appeals.”
In response, the board has told all the parties that it is of the opinion that it is appropriate in the context of justice to make submissions on CCDT’s new submission.
A decision may be made on the ap- plication this year.