*Cllr PJ Kelly led the debate at a sitting of Clare County Council.
ASPECTS OF PLANNING legislation are creating a “complete jigsaw” to efforts to try secure permission to build a home, an elected representative has stated.
In a proposal before Clare County Council, Cllr PJ Kelly (FF) asked “in the interest of administrative reasonableness, the beneficiaries of planning benefit in infill sites be confined to local rural persons”.
Director of Economic Development with the Council, Liam Conneally flagged that objective 3.13 of the current County Development Plan facilitates the development of infill sites where they exist such as a gap site for a single house within a substantial and continuously built-up frontage.
He stated, “Under this policy the provisions of CDP 3.11 (local need requirements) do not apply however the dwelling must be for the permanent occupation of the applicant. A similar policy is included in the Draft County Development Plan 2023-2029. The wording of this policy is specific and does not confine the development of infill sites to local rural persons”.
Conneally outlined, “The inclusion of specific policy objectives must be considered as part of that statutory process. I recommend that any amendments to this policy are best dealt with at a strategic planning policy level within the statutory plan making/variation process”.
Speaking at a sitting of the County Council, Cllr Kelly admitted he “failed in vein” to get an amendment included on the County Development Plan for this issue. He said he has yet to find the procedure that exists in Clare applied in other counties. “There is a very important word in this section of the County Development Plan which says we can’t deliberately create an infill site”.
Lissycasey native Kelly added, “It is a complete jigsaw, I have seen sites refused because they might create an infill site. I intend to bring a variation to be like other counties and get rid of something that doesn’t work. It has created a problem where planning permission for rural houses is being refused for a risk they might create an infill site, it has badly backfired”.
Merit is evident in the remarks of Cllr Kelly, Cllr Joe Cooney (FG) believed. He seconded the proposal and asked if it could be implemented despite the County Development Plan are being passed and set to come into effect from April. Cllr Clare Colleran Molloy (FF) added, “I do agree, this is definitely a motion that does focus on people helicoptering in. Local rural person, is that a term no longer applicable in the County Development Plan”.
Discontent with the motion was voiced by Cllr Gerry Flynn (IND). “I have a problem with this,” he admitted. “We are in the business of creating homes for people, these homes are for permanent occupancy. In Shannon, allcomers are welcome and the applies with where I come from in West Clare, I find this a restrictive practice”.
Aspects were misunderstood by the Shannon representative, Cllr Ian Lynch (IND) suggested. “Even a local person if they had two sites are getting one site refused because of an infill, by keeping the policy static it is refusing people. It is about the administration of the wording of it, there’s two arguments to it”.
Points have been “well made” by elected members, Conneally told the meeting. “The rural housing guidelines from the Department would clarify a lot from a national perspective. We haven’t received anything, it would clarify the social and economic need piece, the local rural person would be superseded by the language in the new plan. If we want change from existing scheme, we will have to revisit the County Development Plan, what shape that might take and wording of variation will obviously be guided by the planners,” the Ennistymon native said.
Concluding the debate, Cllr Kelly insisted he didn’t want to see a section of the County Development Plan “being used to prevent ordinary people building houses”. Children of farmers will be denied planning permission under the document which he described as “total discriminatory”.
