This is the text of a press release issued by the OPW. It contains a copy of the letter on 6 November (four days before the vote was to be taken) outlining their reasons for supposing that their project at Mullaghmore is not in contravention of the County Development Plan and consenting to a deferral of the decision if necessary.

Cover Letter on behalf of the Dept. of A.,C, and the G.

In order to help ensure continued transparency in relation to the application made to Clare County Council for permission for an Entry Point at Crag Road, Gortlecka to the Burren National Park, Sile deValera, T.D., Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Islands, has published the response made by the OPW, as agents of her Department in the matter, to the planning authority's Notice of Proposed Material Contravention of the County Development Plan of 12 September 1997.

A copy of the Office of Public Works letter dated 6 November 1997 is attached.

ENDS

Clare County Council
Planning Section
New Road Ennis
Co. Clare

Re; Planning Application P96/1330

Re: Proposed Material Contravention of the Development Plan

Dear Sirs,

We refer to your Notice of Proposed Material Contravention of the Development Plan of 12 Sept. 1997. We have considered this and have taken advice in relation to same.

We wish, first of all, to draw your attention to the judgement handed down by the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Costello in February, 1993 in the case of Howard v the Commissioners of Public Works, in relation to this very site and the then proposed development, and wherein he stated that:

"Both the County Manager and the County Engineer and the other officials concerned with the control of development in the county are satisfied that no material contravention of the Plan will take place."

Those comments were made, and his finding given, in the context of a much larger development tan the current Planning Application, and was in the context of the existing Development Plan. While we are aware that the subsequent decision of Roughan and Others v Clare County Council, unreported, High Court, Baron J. (18th December 1996), nothing of the comments of the Judge in that case would appear to support the contention that the current proposal contravenes the Plan. We deal later, in this submission, with the factors which Baron J. suggested ought to be considered in determining whether a proposal does contravene the Plan

The following are some of the grounds which we believe demonstrate that the proposal does not, in fact, contravene the Plan in a material way:

1. The current application is designed and intended to allow greater enjoyment, appreciation and understanding by the public of the immediate surrounding of the entry point. It is therefore in harmony with the policies set out at 2.3.11 of the Plan "Amenity and Environmental Protection - the Burren"

   It is also in harmony with the basic aim of the development strategy as set out at 2.2.1, "the protection and enhancement of the environment" and of the strategy set out at 2.2.2.(e) which "seeks to encourage the exploitation of the Counties resources through the development of facilities and enterprises which will permit the enjoyment of the count's natural amenities and the maximisation of its productive potential", as well as 2.2.2.(d) "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".

2. The proposed entry point structure does not adversely impact on the objective set out at 2.3.9 of the Plan "tourism and Development" which seeks to prohibit development in the vicinity of major tourism resources as it does not detract from the quality or the appreciation of the quality of its surrounding environment by virtue of its location, nature and design. On the contrary, these are all enhanced and protected by the proposed development.

3. The proposal is also in harmony with Strategy 2.3.10 relating to amenity and environmental protection Strategy 2.3.10 relating to amenity and environmental protection which permits development required in the interests of tourism at the locations identified for such development in this Plan provided:

   1. such developments are adequately screened and located in a manner to minimise their visual impact,
   2. Such developments are designed and constructed in a manner which will minimise their visual impact.
   3. Adequate infrastructure services are provided.

   In this particular instance, the proposal being an entry point to the natural landscape is locationally specific and meets the requirement set out at (a) and (b). In relation to (c), no effluent is retained on site, and the road network to serve the proposal is either adequate at present, or capable of being improved on foot of contributions (as previously arranged).

4. The proposal does not interfere with any identified view or prospect of outstanding natural beauty or of special interest referred to in the Plan nor does it interfere with any items of archaeological or historical importance nor is there any conflict by virtue of its location within an area of scientific interest.

5. The proposal represents a facility provided in the vicinity of an area of high amenity to permit the appreciation and enjoyment of this area which is an objective referred to at 2.3.10. The planning authority have a duty to "take such steps as may be necessary" for securing this objective (see Section 22 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) act 1963), and in this instance, we would respectfully suggest that such steps must include granting of permission for an entry point which would enhance the accessibility of the amenity resource while at the same time respecting the environmental context. We believe the modest nature and extent of the entry point of the type proposed achieves the requisite balance between the dual aims of accessibility and the protection of amenity and accordingly the objectives of the Development Plan.

6. In the context of the Report on the Burren by the County Development Team, the proposal is not a designated information centre. There is, therefore, no conflict with the recommendations of that report, which was adopted be the Clare County Council.

7. The proposal is fully in harmony with the policies and objectives of the adopted County Development Plan. Indeed it is difficult to discern any element s of strategy, policy or any specific objective which would be compromised or diluted by any element in the proposal.

Taking into account the factors mentioned in the Roughan decision, namely:

1. the substance of the proposed development;
2. the extent of the change of use;
3. the location of the proposed development;
4. the planning history of the site or area;
5. the objectives of the development plan;

none of the factors in the proposal is such as would materially contravene the Plan.

Having regard to the above matters, and having regard to the history of the site, and the fact that, in relation to a substantially more extensive development for a different use, the view of the County Engineer that the proposal did not represent a material contravention of the same development plan was upheld by the President of the High Court, although he did not even have to consider those specific views. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept that a lesser proposal with substantially reduced impacts on the environment and surrounding area, could be considered to be in contravention of the Plan.

Should the Planning Authority require further time to consider the issues raised in this letter we would be willing to consent to an extension of the time for the determination of the Application.

Yours sincerely

June Thompson

Project Management Division

6 November 1997

Comments to burrenag@iol.ie

Table of Contents