Mayo man denied planning permission to build home beside siblings

A MAYO man who wished to build a house on a site adjacent to his siblings' two homes near Westport was refused planning permission as he could not prove a social link to the area.

Mayo County Council refused planning permission to William Doheny to construct a private dwelling house, domestic garage and farm stables on a site overlooking Clew Bay at Rosbeg, Westport.

The applicant was denied planning permission to build on a site adjacent to his brother and sister's homes because it was deemed he 'does not have a longstanding social link to this scenic coastal area' and granting planning permission would contravene the Rural Housing Objective 4 of the County Development Plan.

Planning permission for three houses on the Rosbeg site was granted in 2011 with the intention that each sibling would have the opportunity to build a home. Since then the applicant's brother and sister have built houses but the third house was never developed due to the fact Mr Doheny was a minor at the time.

Mr Keith O'Connell, Chartered Engineer on behalf of Mr Doheny, who is now 26 years of age, explained in the planning application that it was always his client's intention to apply for planning permission on the site once he had a housing need. He stated his client was born and raised in the family home in Cloonagh, Westport which is approximately 2.7km from the proposed site.

He added that for the past five years his client has lived in his sister's home in the adjacent site in Rosbeg but will have to move back to the family home as his sister has now entered a long-term relationship and is starting a family of her own.

READ: Mayo housing development given full planning permission in less than 100 days despite planner's concerns

“The proposed site represents the only available site for William, and it is located within the same area where he has directly lived for the past number of years with his sister,” Mr O'Connell stated in the application. He added that Mr Doheny's mother will continue to reside at the family home and there is no available land there to build on.

The planning application also stated that Mr Doheny is the legal herd keeper of the family farm which currently consists of miniature goats, alpacas, and other rare breed animals. They are kept at the application site which is zoned as agricultural and the farm stables included in the application is to provide shelter for these animals.

Two previous planning applications lodged in 2024 and 2025 by Mr Doheny to build on the site were refused due to non-compliance with the Rural Housing Objective (RHO) 4. This objective states that housing applications 'within Mayo’s Coastal Areas and Lakeshores and within areas along scenic routes with designated scenic views, will be considered where the applicants can demonstrate a long-standing social link to the area concerned'.

In a submission with the latest application, barrister Michael Furminger argued that it is established in law that the interpretation of a development plan is, 'ultimately, a question of law' and is a legal issue and not a planning issue.

Mr Furminger also concluded that the documentation produced by Mr Doheny to support his application showed 'the only reasonable and lawful interpretation and application of RHO 4 is that its 'long-standing social link' requirement is satisfied by the applicant in this case'.

However, council planners did not agree with Mr Furminger's submission and argued that it is 'the role of the Planning Authority to assess a planning application against the current County Development Plan, local area plans, national policies, and any guidelines issued'.

In refusing the application, planners stated that Mr Donehy has alternative land in a 'less sensitive non-coastal site' at Boheh, Liscarney and 'it is considered that the applicant does not meet the requirements of RHO 4'.

“Based on the family land ownership details submitted, most particularly the location of the applicant’s family home in relation to the site; it is considered that the applicant does not have a longstanding social link to this scenic coastal area and the proposed development would therefore interfere with the character of the landscape which it is necessary to preserve,” the planning report stated.

The planners added that reasons for previous application refusals in 2024 and 2025 remain the same and have not been overcome and recommended a further refusal.