Widow who is a native of Achill refused planning to build retirement home on family land
Planning permission has been refused for a widow hoping to return to her native Dooagh and build a small retirement home on family land, after Mayo County Council ruled the application contravened key rural housing policies in the county development plan.
An application submitted by Marian Doherty sought permission to build a single-storey, two-bedroom home, of approximately 75.50 square metres in size, with provision for two car parking spaces.
The site Ms Doherty hoped to build on is owned by her brother, John Gielty, who confirmed his consent for the development in a letter submitted with the application.
As part the planning application, Ms Doherty submitted a detailed cover letter outlining her connection to the area.
She wrote that she was born in Dooagh in 1959 and lived there until 1974, when her family emigrated to Scotland for her father’s work.
Ms Doherty later returned to Achill in 1993 for four years before moving away again due to her husband’s employment.
She explained that her husband died nearly eight years ago in a boating tragedy alongside her nephew, and said her “life hit a standstill”.
With her family now grown, she said she wished to return to Dooagh, where her siblings still live, adding that this had always been her intention.
“I hold so many happy memories of growing up and living in Dooagh, and I ask for planning to be considered so that I can return and live out my days there,” her letter read.
Ms Doherty said the chosen site sits beside two existing dwellings, which she argued would “lessen the visual impact of the proposed house”, describing it as “modest in scale and height” and “consistent with both adjoining houses”, and added that the site has direct access to necessary public services.
She acknowledged that her family owns other land but said those areas are inaccessible and would “require the construction of a new bridge” over the adjoining river, leaving her with “no other suitable site” within the overall holding.
In its report, planners at Mayo County Council said Ms Doherty “has not demonstrated a clear need to locate to the area”.
“The applicant states that she grew up in Achill during the late 1950’s/60s and now wishes to return to the area. It is stated in the letter that there are other family lands, but all are considered landlocked. No land registry folio has been received,” the planner's report noted.
In the planning submission McGinty Planning and Development Consultants, acting for Ms Doherty, said she wished to build a “small retirement cottage on family lands”.
Consultant, Gary McGinty, said the chosen plot was the “only viable development site available within the overall landholding”.
He said much of the family-owned land has restricted access, and that developing it would require building a new bridge over a river that is registered as commonage.
The proposed site is beside two existing homes, one of which Mr McGinty noted was formerly a council house.
The applications requested ‘sympathetic consideration’ regarding the site being located approximately 200m north of the development limit of Dooagh Village.
While planners raised no objection to the design of the bungalow, they did note that the site lies outside the ‘Tier Four Rural Settlement Consolidation Zone’.
The site is located in Keel West, Dooagh, along the narrow Dooagh Loop, also known as ‘bog road’, with the Owenavally River running alongside it.
The land is within ‘Policy Area One’ of the Mayo County Development Plan’s Landscape Appraisal and is classed as a ‘Montaine Coastal Zone’, an area described as visually distinct due to its steep shoreline and rising mountains.
Planner said these elements make the area a “desirable setting for visitors and also particularly sensitive to inappropriate development”.
Planners ultimately refused the application on two grounds. They found that granting permission would conflict with Rural Housing Objective Three of the county development plan and would “constitute haphazard development in a rural area and would militate against the preservation of the rural environment”.
They also concluded that the proposal failed to meet the minimum site size requirements set out in the plan. In their report, planners said the development would “interfere with the character of the rural landscape which it is necessary to protect, and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”.
This article has been funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.