Burren Action Group Comments on the Clare County Council Plan to Materially Contravene the County Devlopment Plan

On 11 July 1997 Clare County Council decided that the OPW plans for Mullaghmore are in breach of the County Development Plan. In order for planning permission to be granted a material contravention motion must be approved by three quarters of the County Councillors. This vote is to take place on November 10. The public had three weeks in which to comment on the proposals. Jack O'Sullivan of Environmental Services Ltd. sent the following comments to Clare County Council on behalf of the Burren Action Group.

Environmental Management Services

22 July 1997

The County Secretary,
Clare County Council,
New Road,
Ennis,
Co. Clare.

Dear Sir,

Proposed Material Contravention of the Development Plan for the County of Clare: Objection on Behalf of The Burren Action Group

In response to your notice dated 11 July 1997, The Burren Action Group wishes to submit the following comments on the proposal by the County Council to make a material contravention to the County Development Plan in order to facilitate granting Planning Permission to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for a "Visitor Entry Point Shelter" near Mullaghmore in the townlands of Gortlecka and Knockaunroe.

In our view, the proposed development would conflict with a number of substantial policy objectives of the Development Plan, and we would like to draw the Council's attention to the following objectives which we believe to be particularly relevant:

  1. Section 2.2.2 (d) on page 14 emphasises that one of the principal aims of the development strategy of the County Council will be "to protect and preserve those areas of the County which because of their natural beauty or other qualities form one of the County's most important amenity and economic resources". We cannot see how the proposed "Visitor Entry Point Shelter" will help to accomplish this objective; instead, by attracting excessive numbers of people to the area it is likely to make the aims of protection and preservation more difficult.

  2. The second paragraph in Section 2.3.2 (Sanitary Services) on pages 18 and 19 in part 2 of the Plan states that it is the County Council's objective to concentrate infrastructural investment and improvement in those serviced areas where the provision of services will benefit new housing or industry "and serve tourism". This is a commendable objective with which the proposed "Visitor Entry Point Shelter" is not compatible.

  3. Section 2.3.2 of the Plan also includes among its objectives the requirement "to take account of the fissured limestone with minimum overburden which exists in many parts of the County when considering applications for planning permission in those areas ...." (page 20). While this objective may have been framed with a view to preventing or curtailing further housing development in such areas, its application is all the more necessary in the case of a larger development with public toilet facilities such as the proposed "Visitor Entry Point Shelter". Even though it is the intention of the OPW to remove by road tanker the treated sewage effluent from the proposed development, nevertheless, the vulnerability of the site, the presence of fissured limestone with minimum overburden, and the lack of an adequate depth of suitable material to attenuate any spillages or leakages of sewage, should be taken into account and the precautionary principle observed.

  4. In Section 2.3.3. on Pollution Control (page 21), the Development Plan states that the County Council will "take special precautions in the case of aquifers located in areas of fractured bedrock with limited overburden in order to protect the underground water resources in these areas". Similar reasons against locating the proposed development in the chosen location apply in relation to this objective. While it may be argued that the County Council has taken "special precautions" in that no sewage (treated or untreated) will be discharged directly to the aquifer, we believe that the proposed development will increase the risk of endangering the quality of water in the immediate locality. Again, the precautionary principle should be applied, and permission for the development should be refused.

  5. We share the concern of Clare County Council about the risk of groundwater and surface water contamination, and in particular about the absence of specific measures for disposal of the effluent from the proposed facility. The Council has already indicated clearly to the OPW that it "would not be willing to permit the effluent to be disposed of in any of the treatment plants under its control" (letter from Clare County Council to the OPW dated 20 February 1997).

  6. Section 2.3.8 (Commercial Developments), on page 29 of the Plan states that it is the Council's objective to "generally require commercial development to be located in the commercial centres of the County's settlements". The proposed "Visitor Entry Point" may not be a fully commercial undertaking, yet it will attract a considerable amount of commercial (mainly bus) traffic and, as visitor numbers increase, there is likely to emerge strong pressure from commercial interests to allow some trading on or near the site. There is also a high risk that the location of the proposed "Visitor Entry Point" will attract unauthorised trading activities on the public roads leading to the Entry Point, similar to that which occurred at the Cliffs of Moher. As the County Council will know from its experience in other locations in County Clare, this type of commercial activity can be very difficult to control as the proposed entry point is remote from any suitable settlement. Furthermore, the development of such visitor facilities in the core area of a National Park is contrary to the best practice of conservation and park management authorities world-wide -- such facilities should be located on the periphery of ecologically sensitive landscapes, thus preserving the core area free from tourism-related developments. In our view, such a facility as is proposed should be located in one of the existing settlements on the perimeter of the Burren, e.g., Corofin, in order to maximise the socio-economic benefits to the inhabitants of the Burren area.

  7. Section 2.3.9 of the Plan, which deals with tourist development, includes the objective of prohibiting "development in the vicinity of major tourism resources where such development would detract from the quality or the appreciation of the quality of such resources" (page 31). The Burren, and particularly the Mullaghmore area, must be considered as a major tourism resource of the County; and even though it may be argued that the proposed "Visitor Entry Point Shelter" will assist in the appreciation of the resource, in our view it would detract significantly from its quality of remoteness and relative freedom from any kind of obvious and contemporary human impact.

  8. Section 2.3.10 of the Plan, which deals with amenity and environmental protection generally, includes as a development objective the prohibition of "development in those areas specified as being of outstanding amenity value and indicated on Map 3 of this Plan (page 32). The proposed development is clearly within an area of outstanding amenity value and, since it does not fall within any of the exceptions mentioned in this section (dwellings required by sons or daughters of farmers working on the land, or developments required for forestry, agriculture or fishing), it should be prohibited.

  9. Section 2.3.11 of the Plan, which deals with amenity and environmental protection specifically within the Burren, states that the County Council "recognises the unique nature of the Burren area and its importance as an area of geological, botanical and archaeological riches" (page 35). The Plan states that "the Council has adopted a report on the Burren prepared by the County Development Team" -- it is our understanding that this report did not envisage any significant facilities in the undeveloped areas of the Burren and therefore the proposed development would be in conflict with this policy document which has been incorporated into the County Development Plan.

  10. Section 2.3.11 of the Plan also contains the important development objectives of prohibiting development "in the undeveloped areas of the Burren, where such development would be obtrusive in the landscape and would detract from the area's remote quality" and of prohibiting "developments which would damage or be likely to give rise to the damage of colonies of important flora or of important ecological communities" (page 36). One of the most attractive and unique features of the Mullaghmore area is its quality of remoteness and lack of development, and the area also contains important floral and ecological communities. Clearly, the proposed development would endanger and or damage these significant environmental features, and would therefore be in direct conflict with these two significant policy objectives of the Development Plan.

  11. The proposed "Visitor Entry Point Shelter" is not compatible with the maintenance of the "area's remote quality" since it envisages catering for an estimated 35,000 visitors annually (Gortlecka Environmental Background Document, No. 1; RPS Cairns, October 1996, Section 9.2.2, page 27), or over 1,000 people per day at peak periods when operational, and would require further widening the narrow road network in order to facilitate vehicular access. Even in "other areas of the Burren", development is prohibited by a specific provision in Section 2.3.11 (page 36) unless such developments are required by working farmers for agricultural or residential purposes for themselves or their children.

  12. A third specific provision in Section 2.3.11 (page 36) aims "to prohibit development which would damage or be likely to give rise to the damage of colonies of important flora, or of important ecological communities". Available evidence clearly indicates the ecological value, not only of the site itself, but of the adjacent area within and around it. This adjacent area was proposed by the OPW as a strict nature reserve in the 1980s, and more recently by the then Minister of State for the OPW, Noel Dempsey, T.D., in 1993.

  13. The preparation and implementation of a Management Plan for the Burren Area is listed as a specific objective (section 3.6, page 50), as is also "the consideration of the preparation and making of a Special Amenity Area Order for the Burren area" (section 3.6, pages 50-51). We submit that it would be premature to materially contravene the Development Plan unless the County Council has first prepared, adopted and implemented a Management Plan and a Special Amenity Area Order as required by these objectives.

  14. Section 3.8 of the County Development Plan recognises a number of areas of scientific interest including that at Mullaghmore. The proposal by the County Council to materially contravene the Development Plan in order to facilitate the proposed development of a "Visitor Entry Point Shelter" would undermine specific objective number 2 in section 3.8 (page 56).

We believe that the need to make a material contravention of the County Development Plan in order to facilitate planning permission for the proposed development further emphasises the intrinsic unsuitability of this development proposal in an undeveloped and vulnerable area. We therefore urge the Council not to set an undesirable precedent by materially contravening the Development Plan, nor to grant planning permission to the Commissioners of Public Works.

In support of the above arguments against the making of a Material Contravention of the Development Plan by the elected members, we attach a copy of our initial submission (dated 6 December 1996) commenting on this planning application.

Yours sincerely,

Jack O'Sullivan
Environmental Management Services

on behalf of the Burren Action Group

Comments to burrenag@iol.ie

Table of Contents