Bord PleanÃ¡la rejects â‚¬100m development plan
THE MIDWEST economy suffered a setback yesterday with An Bord PleanÃ¡la rejecting a planned â‚¬100 million redevelopment of the Tinerana estate
on the shores of Lough Derg
The plan by Tinerana Ltd to transform the estate into a tourism resort was to generate 400 jobs through the construction and operation phase of the integrated tourism development.
The Limerick-based company purchased the estate on 270 acres of land on the shores of Lough Derg from former Killaloe doctor Paschal Carmody and his wife, Dr Frieda Keane Carmody in a multi-million euro deal in 2006.
In the plan, the company sought planning permission for the
- refurbishment of Tinerana House;
- an 18-hole championship golf course,
- a 32-bed apart-hotel,
- 155 two-bed holiday homes
- and an equestrian centre.
The developers claim that the development would have generated â‚¬30 million per annum for the regional economy and â‚¬8-â‚¬10 million per annum for the local economy.
There were no local objections
to the plan and it was granted planning permission by Clare County Council last October. However, An Taisce appealed
the decision to An Bord PleanÃ¡la with its heritage officer Ian Lumley describing the proposal as an â€œoutmoded, exploitative, construction-based, car-based developmentâ€.
In a rebuttal, the developers accused An Taisce of â€œscaremongeringâ€
in opposing the development. However, An Bord PleanÃ¡la refused planning permission for the proposal after its inspector stated that â€œthe net economic benefit to the county of a grant of permission for such uses on an inappropriate site is negligibleâ€.
The inspector stated that the proposal â€œwould be a large commercial scheme which would provide employment and facilities for tourists.
â€œHowever, there is only a finite market for the visitor accommodation and other hotel uses which make up the bulk of the proposal.
â€œAuthorising such uses on one site would render it less commercially attractive to develop them somewhere else.â€
The board formally refused permission on two grounds
: that the proposal would involve an unacceptably large amount of built development distributed through the landscape, whose scale and character
would not be in keeping with the rural location of the site and that the proposal would pose an unacceptable risk of environmental pollution
, be prejudicial to public health and to the natural heritage
of the area.