Planning granted for ‘boutique’ Mayo hostel despite publican’s objections

AN Coimisiún Pleanála have ruled that a dispute between a developer and west Mayo publicans over the legal right to a laneway is of a ‘civil nature’ and as a result granted planning permission for a new eight bedroom ‘boutique hostel’.

Sligo-based developer Brendan Power was granted planning permission by An Coimisiún Pleanála to develop and renovate the derelict old Cap Factory Building in the centre of Westport into a hostel.

In giving planning permission for the development, An Coimisiun Pleanála chose not to follow the recommendations of its senior planning inspector to refuse planning permission due to a legal dispute over a laneway located between The Porter House and Matt Molloy’s pubs on Bridge Street.

Joe O’Malley, proprietor of The Porter House and Matt Molloy both objected to claims by Mr Power to the right of way of a laneway between the two pubs which he proposed to use as access to the development.

In his report to An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ian Campbell, Senior Planning Inspector stated that the applicant failed to provide ‘evidence of consent, or demonstrated sufficient legal interest for the inclusion of the lands forming part of the proposed development, which are integral to enable the development to be implemented’.

“It would therefore be inappropriate for the Commission to consider a grant of permission for the proposed development in such circumstances,” he concluded.

However, the Commission noted that Mayo County Council were satisfied to grant planning despite similar concerns raised by the two publicans. They decided that disputed matters related to the access and use of the laneway and yard for the purposes of the proposed development are of a civil nature and ‘was not grounds for refusal in itself’.

Vacant building

The vacant building which dates back to the 1830s has been derelict since it closed in the 1980s and is within the Architectural Conservation Area of Westport.

Mr Power has been seeking to develop the building for the last number of years without success. An application in 2021 to develop apartments and a work unit in the old Cap Factory were turned down by both Mayo County Council and An Bord Pleanála, which was the old name for An Coimisiún Pleanála.

READ: Mayo windfarm project wins ESB renewable energy award

In early 2024, he submitted a fresh planning application to convert the building into a 13 bedroom hostel. However, following opposition he revised his plans and reduced the number of proposed bedrooms from 13 to eight.

As a result of the redesign of the building, Mayo County Council granted planning permission for the proposed development subject to eight conditions.

Appeals

Both Mr O’Malley and Mr Molloy along with Clare-based pharmacist Aidan Murphy lodged appeals against the council’s decision with An Coimisiún Pleanala.

Mr Molloy claimed ownership of the laneway and in his appeal stated he has not consented to its inclusion as part of the planning application and therefore claimed the application is invalid. He also stated that the right-of-way which previously existed over the laneway has been ‘extinguished/abandoned’ and the right-of-way existed in respect of access only, and did not provide for the carrying out of works, use, or utilities or services.

In his appeal to An Bord Pleanala, Mr O’Malley outlined six grounds of appeal in relation to the proposed development which included insufficient legal interest, poor quality tourism accommodation and concern over potential future change of use.

Aidan Murphy of Ennistymon, Co Clare who stated he is the owner of an adjoining premises and the ground floor which is ‘supporting part of the two upper floors’ of the proposed development.

Mr Murphy claimed that the proposed development will impact land he owns and will ‘leave me vulnerable to the possibility of damage to my premises’.

Westport-based councillor Peter Flynn also made observations where he claimed the proposed development would create substandard tourist accommodation.

In response to the objections, the applicant stated that it is not a requirement to either own the property or have permission from the owner in order to lodge a planning application. Mr Power stated that the legal requirement is to have a sufficient legal interest and as owner of the building he has an entitlement to use the yard and the laneway access to the yard.

Mr Power also outlined that the proposal is not intended to provide emergency accommodation and the redesign has addressed previous concerns.

Mr Campbell stated that the crux of the appeals is that the existence of a right-of-way is not sufficient to facilitate the proposed development. He claimed consent from the landowners to carry out works would be required, and the applicant had not provided evidence of this.

“I consider that the proposed development should be refused as the applicant has failed to provide evidence of consent, or demonstrated sufficient legal interest for the inclusion of the lands forming part of the proposed development,” he stated in his report.

However, the Commission did not accept Mr Campbell’s recommendation to refuse permission and granted permission subject to eight planning conditions.