Údarás na Gaeltachta appeal €15,000 retention penalty for building built in 1973

Údarás na Gaeltachta have appealed a decision by Mayo County Council to impose a development contribution levy of nearly €15,000 to retain a building in Belmullet which was erected over 50 years ago.

Mayo County Council granted planning permission to Údarás na Gaeltachta in July to retain an existing commercial building located in the Páirc Ghnó on the Ballina Road in Belmullet.

The commercial building which is approximately 373 square metres and up to 4.5 metres in height was constructed in 1973 but located in an area on the site which was different from the location that was shown on the original approved drawings.

Údarás na Gaeltachta recently applied for planning permission to retain the building and while permission was granted on July 17 last, Mayo County Council imposed a development contribution levy of €14,927.20 which included a retention penalty multiplier.

In an appeal to An Coimisiún Pleanála, Údarás na Gaeltachta stated that the retention penalty multiplier should not apply in this case as their application was to regularise the building's current position and not 'an application to authorise unlawful works'.

READ: Department of Education tender for €4m refurbishment of controversial Mayo school building

In the appeal, engineer David Lally on behalf of Údarás na Gaeltachta, stated that the building was granted full planning permission in 1973 but during construction the location was amended. He noted that at the time the revised position was discussed and agreed with the Council during the planning process and the matter was never pursued.

“The as built location has been consistently shown in multiple subsequent approved planning applications for the estate over the past 50 years with no enforcement action taken,” he stated.

Under the Council's Development Contribution Scheme, permissions for retention are charged at twice the rate and 'no waivers or exemptions will apply'. However, Mr Lally argued that the intent of this provision is to address unauthorised development carried out without planning permission or without prior agreement and this is not the case in this situation.

“Applying a retention penalty in this instance is disproportionate because the works were carried out with prior notification and agreement. The building has been accepted in its current location in multiple subsequent permissions without objection.

“The current application does not generate any additional floor area usage or demand beyond what was originally permitted. Therefore, any development contribution if applicable should be based solely on net additional impact which in this case is nil,” he wrote in the appeal.

Mr Lally requested that An Coimisiún Pleanála – which is the new name for An Bord Pleanála – to reclassify the development as an amendment or regularisation rather than a retention and to remove the retention penalty.

The case is expected to be decided by An Coimisiún Pleanála by mid December.