Westport pedestrian gate to stay despite heritage concerns

Anton McNulty

An Bord PleanΡla have overturned a decision to refuse retention for a pedestrian gate in Westport for architecture and heritage reasons, after ruling the subject wall was not of historical importance.
Mayo County Council had refused planning permission for the retention of a pedestrian gate from the rear of a house on The Elms estate onto Prospect Avenue in Westport. Prospect Avenue is an Architectural Conservation Area [ACA], forming part of the historical core of the town, and in refusing permission, the Council stated that retention of the gate would have a negative impact on protected structures and adversely affect the architectural conservation area.
The application to retain the gate was lodged by Ann Rocliffe of 8, The Elms, Westport. The planning officials of Mayo County Council stated that the stonewall boundary, which the gate was constructed on, is the original boundary between Prospect Avenue and Bakers’ House. In her appeal, Ms Rocliffe claimed it was built in 1994 along with The Elms estate.
In his report, Mr Colm McLoughlin, inspector with An Bord PleanΡla [ABP] stated that a row of four cottages, facing the stone wall to the rear of The Elms on Prospect Avenue, are protected structures dating from the late 18th century and originally part of the Westport Infantry Barracks.
However, he discovered that Historical Ordnance Survey mapping for the area illustrates that the subject wall along Prospect Avenue was not part of the original Westport Infantry Barracks.
“I am satisfied that there was no functional or historical connection between the protected  structures and the subject stonewall,” he stated.
Mr McLoughlin added: “Consequently, there is no significant impact on the setting or character of the protected structures, the ACA or the historic townscape.
“I recommend that permission should not be refused on this basis of the impact of the proposed development for retention on architectural heritage.”
Obejectors
Among the objectors to the retention of the gate were former Taoiseach John Bruton and his wife Finola, acting as executors of the Will of Mrs Bruton’s mother, Patricia Gill, who was a resident of Prospect Avenue.
They stated that the opening of access onto Prospect Avenue could result in residents of The Elms using the venue to park their cars and leave their bins out for collection. This they stated would ‘reduce the peace and tranquility enjoyed by the residents of Prospect Avenue’.
Mayo County Council also expressed concerns that the gate would change the character of the lane by introducing access from non-residents of the lane onto the lane. They cited the potential for the additional presence of wheelie bins from non Prospect Avenue residents as a potential hazard which will impact on traffic flow along the narrow avenue. They stated that proposed development could set a precedence if permission was granted and impact negatively on the area.
Mr McLoughlin found that he did not believe the gate would ‘reasonably set precedent for similar development’ and ‘would not lead to parking congestion or significant inconvenience for residents’.
He stated that the the installation of a gate, involving limited physical works that are not highly visible, complied with the local development plan and recommended that planning permission should be granted.
The board of ABP agreed with the recommendation and planning permission was granted.