Westport site to remain omitted following Mayo Council chief's warning

The Chief Executive of Mayo County Council informed west Mayo councillors that attempts to rezone land in Westport for development may 'undermine' the variation to the County Development Plan.

The monthly meeting of Mayo County Council heard that there was an 'oversight' in the variation of the County Development Plan last month when land located at the Quay in Westport was not included and remains zoned for agricultural use.

The variation which allowed for more land in Mayo to be zoned for residential development was initiated by councillors at the October meeting of the local authority and is due back before councillors next month for consideration following a public consultation period.

Independent councillor John O'Malley raised the issue up at the start of the November monthly meeting on Monday and sought that an amendment be made to the minutes to include the map of the subject land in the variation.

Cllr O'Malley said the site was serviced and more suitable for development than agricultural use and the developer wants to build five houses on it.

Fine Gael councillor Peter Flynn seconded the amendment saying that the land should have been included in the variation.

“For whatever reason, it didn't go in and what we are trying to avoid here is another delay in the variation and for this map to be included as was originally submitted,” he said.

However, Kevin Kelly, the Chief Executive of Mayo County Council informed the members that he did not think they could undertake that action 'at this point in time in the process' as the variation has been agreed by the councillors.

“I explained in correspondence with the applicant that the decision has been made by the elected members. This is an amendment to the decision the members, maybe want to make now but didn't make at the time, when this was moved for consideration. I believe statutorily that cannot be done now,” he said.

Mr Kelly said there is an opportunity after the public display period to revisit the proposal but stressed it cannot be 'done under the guise of an amendment'.

Cllr Flynn asked for clarification on the subject to ensure no time was lost because the site is primed for development.

“Anyone who has visited the site has been questioning the decision which was definitely an oversight and maybe as councillors we should have been more alert when passing the variation last month. It has come to our attention now that there was an omission and we are asking that it be included now,” he said.

Cllr O'Malley added that it was 'important to remember that those houses would be in great demand' and it would be a shame that they would be delayed because the site was not included in the variation now.

The submission was supported by Louisburgh councillor Chris Maxwell who said that its inclusion should be a 'no brainer' if the developer was prepared to build houses on it.

Ballinrobe-based councillor Damien Ryan questioned what can be done to include the land without delaying the statutory process of the variation.

Mr Kelly said there was only one way to include it and that was through a material change to the variation after the public display period.

“The bottom line is if the members were to include it now, it would legally undermine the entire variation,” he responded.