From the archives: Saga of Condon’s on the bridge in Mayo's county town

By Tom Gillespie

ONE of the most unusual premises in Castlebar was erected over the town river and created somewhat of a controversy when it was first proposed in 1924.

Condon’s, on lower Bridge Street (pictured), has seen many different occupants since it was opened in 1925.

In December 1924 the planning application for the structure was debated at a meeting of the local Urban District Council, when the town clerk submitted a file in reference to the application. He said he had collected all the information and the matter was ripe for discussion.

Mr. Richard Condon’s original application was: “With your permission, I would proceed to erect a house over the river - parallel to the bridge at Bridge Street.

“I believe that the building of a house such as I suggest would not be objectionable, but add to the appearance of the town and to the finances of the local authority.

“If you will favourably consider my proposition I will submit my plans to your engineer for his approval. I shall always claim first preference if ever such a proposal is put before you.”

The matter was referred to the town surveyor, Mr. Dixon, who reported: “I have examined the place and, of course, it is quite possible from an engineering point of view to throw supports across the river and erect a building over same.

“As regards permission being given to the applicant to carry out this idea - there are pros and cons, and I think a committee of your council should view the position and decide the matter.

“Assuming that floods do not rise above the tops of stone embankments immediately - the water way would not be diminished - but on no account should the supporting end walls encroach beyond the line of banks.

“It is not clear from the drawing what is the intended length and width of the proposed building, and this should be known - also its total height.

“It would be necessary to take down the heavy cut stone parapet wall, recess the footmark 2½ feet, and to make good ends of this demolished parapet wall in a neat and substantial manner.”

The report went on: “The erection of this building would shut out an ugly view up the river - on the other hand, a hostile fleet of boats could not be seen coming towards Castlebar.

“Since the building would be over water there would be no ground rent to pay - unless a water rate were substituted! Of course, one side of the bridge would be laughing at the other, although the down stream view is more attractive that up the river.

“Such things as building across river take place even in larger cities - for instance it was proposed one time to have a National Gallery across the Liffey in Dublin, and I understand when Old London Bridge was burned down it was lined with houses.”

Subsequently Mr. Dixon wrote as follows: “Only sentimental objections can be raised against this proposal, such as the disappearance of a fine cut stone bridge parapet and the like.

“The building owner will have to deal with owners who think they will suffer from light interference. I don’t know if the River Trustees will agree to the construction of a building which has a basement giving only a clear head space of three feet over the high water mark.

“The building will be one storey; 13 feet high over footpath, with a 35 feet frontage and a depth of 51 feet up stream from bridge, plus four feet of an extended footpath width. It is proposed to support the basement floor on three concrete pillars founded on the river bed.”

Mrs. Lavelle, who owned premises adjoining the proposed site, wrote objecting, and requested the council to ascertain if they could grant permission to have the proposed house erected.

The matter was then referred to Mr. A.V.G. Thornton, the council’s solicitor, who wrote as follows: “The council, as such, is not, however, so much concerned in the matter as are the immediate occupiers on either side of the river. It is almost a certainty that questions of support and ancient lights will be involved, and the council should do nothing which might embarrass either the builder or the adjoining occupiers.

“If the supports for the building are to be sunk in the river bed, no doubt adjoining owners will see that there is no invasion upon their rights.

“The council have no right or title to grant permission to anybody to sink supports in the river bed, for the river bed is not the property of the council, and prima facie is the property of the two adjoining owners.

“As public health authority the council, however, would be interested to see that no flooding of the river should arise as a result of the building, and they should also consider whether the river might not be used as a convenient dumping bed for the refuse of any building which might be so conveniently placed to do so.

“I would suggest that the council should refer this matter to the Roads Board of the Local Government Department, and in the meantime Mr. Condon might be notified that the question is one to be settled in the first instance with the adjoining owners.”

The Ministry for Local Government, having been asked for their opinion, wrote: “I am directed by the Minister to state that it is not clear why the permission of the Urban Council is required. If there is any question of the rights or powers of the council their legal advisor should be consulted.”

Councillor Austin Lavelle said, of course, Mrs. Lavelle would strongly object to the proposal.

Chairman: “We decided to give him permission to build, provided the people who own the premises each side of the river do not object.”