Westport developer fails in his appeal to grant planning to demolish west Mayo pub

Planning permission has been refused to convert a former Westport pub into a new cafe restaurant after An Coimisiún Pleanála ruled its demolition would erode the historic character of the west Mayo town.

Westport-based developer Harold Conway failed in his appeal 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.

The proposed development 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.

In refusing planning permission to demolish the building, An Coimisiún Pleanála rejected the recommendations of its own inspector who felt the proposed development would be acceptable and would not seriously injure the residential or visual amenities of the area.

READ: Mayo islands have the potential to rival the Blaskets claims council official

An Coimisiún Pleanála stated that the demolition of the entire structure would adversely impact on the historic integrity of the streetscape thereby diminishing the historic fabric of the building.

The two-storey terraced building located near the bottom of James Street was originally built in the 1830s and is within the ACA [Architectural Conservation Area] and listed on the NIAH [National Inventory of Architectural Heritage]. As a result, Mayo County Council proposed the structure should be retained and the application was refused.

Mr Conway appealed the refusal to An Coimisiún Pleanála and it was argued that the proposed development is entirely appropriate and the refusal reasons are 'disproportionate, unwarranted and inconsistent with other comparable cases'.

The Planning Partnership, the planning agent on behalf of Mr Conway, 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'.

In his report to An Coimisiún Pleanála, the planning inspector Ciarán Daly stated that after visiting the site he did not consider the 'historic fabric to be salvageable or restorable to a material or meaningful degree'.

“I have reviewed the Conservation Officer’s report in coming to this view and I do not consider that the report presents a strong case for renovation over demolition given the poor condition of the building.

“I consider that, on balance, the approach of the applicant in seeking demolition and new build is justified ” he stated in the report.

In relation to the proposed new design, Mr Daly said he did not consider that the new front façade and roof would be out of character with the street or the architectural qualities of the ACA.

“I consider it preferable that the site and building be regenerated with the active street level restaurant use proposed and that this would be a reasonable noting the significant difficulty if not impossibility with some elements of retaining and renovating the existing structure with a significant elements likely to be lost as part of any attempted renovation,” he added in the report.

Mr Daly recommended that permission be granted for the development subject to conditions stating he believed the proposed development would be acceptable.

However, in deciding not to accept the recommendation of the inspector, the Commission considered that 'the removal of historic buildings, particularly the elements fronting onto public streetscapes, erodes the individual historic elements that collectively contribute to the special character of Architectural Conservation Areas’.

“The Commission was not satisfied, based on the information submitted in the Condition Report, that the front portion of the building, which constitutes that portion of the structure that contributes most to the character of the ACA, cannot be salvaged and incorporated into any future redevelopment of the site,” the Commission stated.