Mayo planners accused of using 'flawed assumption' to refuse Westport development

THE decision by Mayo County Council to refuse planning permission to demolish and rebuild a former Westport pub building is based on a 'flawed assumption' and is 'unwarranted'.

Westport-based developer Harold Conway lodged an appeal with An Bord Pleanála against a decision by Mayo County Council to refuse planning permission to demolish the former Nolan's pub on James Street in Westport to develop a new café restaurant.

The former Nolan's pub building is currently derelict and in the planning application, a report on the building's condition stated that there was evidence of 'slight subsidence' to the front of the building and it was recommended that it should be demolished.

READ: Minister Dillon officially opens phase one of Ballinrobe Orbital Urban Greenway

However, Mayo County Council planners stated that notwithstanding the submission of this report, 'given the location of the building within the ACA [Architectural Conservation Area] and it being listed on the NIAH [National Inventory of Architectural Heritage]', the proposed structure should be retained and the application was refused.

In the appeal lodged with An Bord Pleanála, The Planning Partnership, the planning agent on behalf of Mr Conway, stated that the proposed development is entirely appropriate and the refusal reasons are 'disproportionate, unwarranted and inconsistent with other comparable cases'.

The Planning Partnership stated that the local authority have overstated the purpose of ACA and NIAH designations, 'conflating same with protected structure status' and 'ignoring the passage of time, by deferring almost entirely to these designations to justify a decision'.

“Such an approach is inappropriate, and runs counter to the underlying purpose of a hierarchy of heritage designations, and promotes inconsistency and a lack of credibility in the planning process, whilst also having a chilling effect on urban regeneration, a supposed priority of the PA [Planning Authority] (and Government),” the appeal stated.

In the appeal the appealants stated that the condition report submitted in the application 'clarifies that preservation is impossible even in a renovation scenario' and claim that the planning authority 'misinterpret or misrepresent' the policy implications of an ACA designation, 'as in reality the designation does not restrict demolition'.

They added that the rationale leading to the reasons for refusal are 'not reasonable in our opinion or inconsistent' and requested that the Board overturn the decision and grant permission.

“In our opinion, the proposed development is consistent with local and national planning policy and would deliver a welcome enhancement to the area without generating material impacts on the amenity of the area, or town centre, and is otherwise acceptable in terms of normal planning consideration,” the appeal stated.

In outlining reasons for refusing the application, council planners stated that the proposed development would contravene the Westport Local Area Plan which encourages the 'rehabilitation, renovation, climate-proofing and re-use of existing protected structures and vernacular buildings within the plan area, where appropriate, over the demolition of same and new-build on-site'.

They also stated that it will 'affect the character of the historic structure, the setting and the Westport Town Architectural Conservation Area' and the application was recommended for refusal on these grounds.

It is understood that the two-storey terraced building located near the bottom of James Street was originally built in the 1830s and is noted on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage as being of a regional rating with a category of special interest assigned as architectural.

The proposed development also included an area for the preparation of hot and cold food, a food and beverage retail outlet with dine-in and takeaway services on the ground floor and a two-bed apartment on the first floor, as well as a new shopfront.