Údaras na Gaeltachta win appeal to amend €15,000 retention penalty for Belmullet building

A levy of nearly €15,000 imposed on Údaras na Gaeltachta by Mayo County Council to retain a building in Belmullet which was erected over 50 years ago has been halved following an appeal.

An Coimisiún Pleanála found that a contribution levy of €14,927.20 imposed by Mayo County Council for the retention of a building in Belmullet was not warranted and reduced it to €7,463.60.

Last July, Mayo County Council granted planning permission to Údarás na Gaeltachta 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 applied for planning permission to retain the building and while permission was granted, 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: Mayo developer proposes €8.5m regeneration of landmark Castlebar centre site

In the appeal, engineer David Lally on behalf of Údarás na Gaeltachta, requested An Coimisiún Pleanála to reclassify the development as an amendment or regularisation rather than a retention and to remove the retention penalty.

In response, Mayo County Council stated that retention permissions shall be charged at double the applicable rate and no exemptions or waivers are applicable.

In his report to An Coimisiún Pleanala, the inspector Conor McGrath said that consideration of the Commission is restricted to whether the terms of the scheme have been properly applied and there is no discretion to the Commission to selectively apply those terms.

Mr McGrath stated that the planning authority have applied a strict interpretation of the scheme to the subject development as described in the application

“In my view the planning authority were not incorrect in the identification and calculation of the applicable rate of contributions payable based on the permission sought.

“On the basis of the minor nature of the changes to the permitted development, the absence of any increased floor area or demand on services, I consider that this development is a relevant case for a case-by-case assessment,” he stated.

As a result, Mr McGrath stated that he does not consider that the application of development contribution at double the applicable rate is appropriate or required in this instance.

He recommended to the Commission that the planning condition should be amended and Údaras na Gaeltachta shall pay a financial contribution of €7,463.60 and have six months to pay.

The Commission followed the recommendations of Mr McGrath and found that the application of double the applicable rate of contribution was ‘not warranted in this instance and should therefore be omitted’.