Partial demolition of Old Garda Barracks refused

Council must find alternative access to leisure centre

By DEIRDRE KELLY

Ireland West Tourism had sought planning permission for partial demolition of the Barracks - a listed building - as part of plans for a £1 million tourist office and heritage centre and to provide access to the new leisure centre at the rear of the location.

As a listed building, demolition of part of the Barracks required the consent of the council by a two thirds majority of the nine members. Three members voted in favour of the application, two against while three abstained. Deputy Michael Ring, declared a professional interest in the application and did not vote or take part in the debate.

Those is favour of granting permission were Mr Declan Dever, Mr John Joe O'Malley and Mr Sean Staunton. Mr Patrick Durcan and the chairman, Mr Dermot Langan, voted against. Ms Margaret Adams, Mr Ollie Gannon and Mr Martin Keane abstained from voting.

Town Manager, Mr Padraig Hughes, told the meeting that a number of other possible access locations had been examined, including Church Lane and St. Mary's Crescent, but were unsuitable. Council officials would be happier if a listed building were not interfered with, but they were satisfied that the site proposed was the best option.

Mr Peter Hynes, Architect, Mayo County Council, said it was proposed to create an opening of 6.5m on to James Street. As a heritage town, Westport's strength was its planned character, which meant that new development could only be carried out on infill sites behind main buildings with access and linkage provided. If access were to be provided to the leisure centre something would have to give.

Mr Patrick Durcan led the debate against the proposal and said it was "scandalous" that the matter had not been formally referred to the Engineering Section of Mayo County Council or An Taisce. Members had not been properly served by officials. He had previously been of the opinion that the council had bought the adjacent Gibbons' house on the street to provide access to the leisure centre. He said there would have to be compromise as the location chosen by the council was unsuitable. It was unfair to imply members had to choose between the demolition of a listed building and the provision of the leisure centre. He claimed that rigid conditions had been imposed on other planning application by council staff who in "one fell swoop" felt able to propose the demolition of a listed building.

The Garda Barracks had been listed by the council in its 1992 development plan and referred to in An Foras Forbaha report in 1978. A 22 ft. arch would not enhance the town and the council could not claim to have the heritage of Westport at heart it if sanctioned the demolition of part of that heritage. The inconsistency of council planners had come as a surprise to many, but not him. Other views and options on the matter on file should be opened to members.

Mr Durcan said if permission was granted he would appeal to An Bord Pleanala. The council's history had proved that its technical advice was not the best.

Mr Sean Staunton said he would be voting in favour though nobody would wish to interfere with a listed building, even though it was derelict and unattractive. The proposal was to demolish the annex of the Barracks. The integrity of the main building would be preserved. Ireland West would have been happy to proceed with the £1 million tourist office and heritage centre without the demolition - but the issue became complicated when the need arose to provide access to the leisure centre. The Urban Council and County Council had been left with just one option. He said the crux was between preserving a listed building - which was derelict and with no public use - and providing a £1 million tourist office and heritage centre and £4 million leisure centre. No one could disagree that the two new facilities were urgently needed to serve the tourism industry, local economy, and to underpin jobs.

Mr Staunton warned that EU funding for both projects could be at risk if the access crux were not resolved as soon as possible. Local people who had committed £750,000 towards the leisure centre were also concerned. He appealed to his council colleagues to vote in favour of granting planning permission. Were the proposed demolition to facilitate a commercial development all members would say no. Council members had fought long and hard for a leisure centre and now had an opportunity to put it in place.

Mr Ollie Gannon said he appreciated the concerns of both sides of the argument and that, if possible, a decision on the issue should be deferred.

Mr Hughes said a decision was required by Tuesday week at the latest.

Mr Gannon said the issue was delicate and it would be helpful if councillors were allowed more time to take on board a greater spectrum of public opinion. The bottom line was the demolition of a listed building against a £4 million leisure centre badly needed in the town. The option of access at St. Mary's Crescent had to be ruled out.

He was all for maintaining the character of the town, but what was at stake had to be considered and Westport would not be turned into a museum. "If this is the only route, and if all other avenues have been explored, then I will seriously consider giving it the go-ahead, but I can't guarantee it," said Mr Gannon.

Ms Margaret Adams said all other avenues of access had not been explored. She had been against a similar access on Bridge Street and what was right for Bridge Street was right for James Street. She queried the Council's plans for Kilroy's garage on the other side of the street, which the authority has recently purchased. If the proposal to demolish part of the Garda Barracks went ahead, it was possible that there would be two breaks on the right hand side of the street scape and another large opening on the left.

She asked how traffic would emerge from the proposed access. One of her major concerns was traffic management on the street. While she was one-hundred per-cent behind the leisure centre, other routes should be explored further and she would have to consider abstaining in the vote.

Mr John Joe O'Malley said it was a sad day when the Council could put a £5 million plan in jeopardy. To go down the road of delay could prove a very serious for both projects. He said anything was better than the current derelict site. Residents and business people in the town had voiced no objections.

Mr Declan Dever said he had also opposed the Bridge Street opening, but having listened to Mr. Hynes and looking at other options, he agreed that Church Lane was unsuitable. St. Mary's Crescent was totally out so he agreed that the Manager's suggestion was best.

He said that ninety-five per-cent of people he had spoken to wanted access to the centre. A 22 ft. wide arch would be a safe access and he would be voting yes.

Mr Martin Keane said a lot of representations had been made to him on the issue. He supported anything that would benefit youth, and it should be remembered that £750,000 had been raised by the local community for a facility for which there was a great need. He would not like to see anything hold up its development.

However, other options of access could be considered, such as Gibbons' house and the Royal Hotel. The Council had spent a lot of money on acquiring Kilroy's garage for a car park which could be used as coach park for the facility. The resident's of St. Mary's Crescent had suffered enough, but the people of James Street had not been consulted. Council

Chairman, Mr Dermot Langan, said he feared gridlock on James Street if the development of Kilroy's Garage as a car park and the old Garda Barracks access went ahead. The Gibbons' property could be used only as a slipway.

He said traffic exiting the leisure centre should be encouraged away from James Street and the Church Lane option should be explored further - it was certainly a better option than St. Mary's Crescent. However, he felt another option was access at the back of the McBride Home which would not disturb the fabric of St. Mary's Crescent.

In response to Mr Durcan, Mr Padraig Hughes said that at no time had council officials set out to mislead members. Mr Durcan said he was suggesting nothing more than foolishness and innocence on the part of officials.

Mr Hughes said plans for the development had been drawn up in the correct fashion, otherwise grant assistance would not have been approved. It was not possible for the council to acquire the Royal Hotel by agreement. Kilroy's Garage had been purchased just before Christmas and plans for its development were at an early stage.

Mr. Hughes also stated that the proposed development was examined by the traffic engineering section and they were happy with the proposal. The county engineer's imprimatur was on the drawings submitted with the planning permission and he was also happy with the proposal.

A proposal to defer a vote on the issue - proposed by Ms Adams and Mr Gannon - was defeated. Ms Adams said she wanted to see evidence of council negotiations with Lord Altamont, owner of Westport House Country Estate.

Mr Hughes said he had no more additional information to offer members, but confirmed that An Taisce indicated that they were likely to appeal a decision in favour of planning permission.

The proposal to grant planning permission was proposed by Mr Staunton and seconded by Mr Dever. Following a 3-2 vote in favour, Mr Hughes said he was compelled to refuse the application.

It was agreed that the council would meet in private to consider alternative options.