THE DEVELOPMENT OFF EAGRY now known as EAGRY GARDENS
DECISIONS
In November 2003, the Planning Authority recommended, and Moyle District Council agreed, to the two Developments behind Eagry Park, Bushmills, Co. Antrim, to go ahead. (E/2001/0247/F and E/2001/0248/F). On the 29th June 2004 the Decision Notices were finally issued and we objectors received notification. That's over seven months after approval was given. These Decision Notices were issued and signed by the Divisional Planning Manager one day before he retired.
The Case Officer told us on 27/5/04 that the Divisional Planning Manager took personal control of these Planning Applications earlier this year. Asked if this was unusual, he replied, "It happens with contentious applications"
There are anomalies aplenty in these Decision Notices but the biggest concern is the missing Wildlife Corridor asked for by Environmental and Heritage Service (Natural Heritage) to run beside the stream which bounds one side of the site. Letters from that Agency to the Planners include phrases such as :-
  • Ground here is increasingly wet and development would remove wet grass habitat, useful for river overflow and as a refuge for wildlife." (19 Feb 2002)
  • As evidence of badger tracks was found, a wildlife corridor must be provided through the site. The 10m strip of trees along the stream can accommodate this" (28 Oct 2002)
  • We are concerned that the drawings indicate proposed infill within the 10m corridor and that fencing is proposed along the river edge. (1 April 2004)
  • We have serious concerns with this amended proposal. (1 April 2004)
  • We request amendments to the proposals to ensure that no infill, development, fencing, ground disturbance or re-seeding takes place within the 10m zone." (1 April 2004)
  • "...no construction machinery and no workers should be entering the stream area."
    and "....Planners should put these conditions on this development and enforce it.". (Statement made by a NH rep during a phone call to us on 26/9/02)
Yet it would appear all the above has been ignored. (Well actually they have agreed to drop the idea of a fence). So there will be infilling over that wet grass habitat; and encroaching into that requested 10m corridor; there will be ground disturbance and construction work making an embankment; a road will be built to intrude several metres into that zone, and re-seeding and flattening a section will take place as part of a park; Click here to read more .
DECISION NOTICE STATEMENT
For E/2001/0247/F
(That's the upper field.)
OBSERVATION
Items in "Conditions" include the following :-  
11. ....the development shall be carried out in accordance with the stamped approved Drawing No.01 which was received on 03 July 2003. There is no such drawing. Having trawled through the Application Open File I cannot find drawing 01 received 03 July 2003. I can, however, find Drawing 01 received three years earlier on 03 July 2001.
11. ... the development shall be carried out in accordance with the stamped approved Drawing No. 02

A note attached to this drawing states that "...each dwelling shall be provided with ....a 150 dia. storm pipeline to the public sewer."

However other drawings show this not be the case . It will not be connected to the Public Sewer but will go via a "Storm Sewer Outfall to be provided by DRD Water Service" which is near the spillway overflow of the Rill.

Items under "Informatives" include :-  

15. Rivers Agency advises Planning Service against permitting development in floodplains or the in-filling of floodplains to facilitate development. Consequently development of this site should be restricted to that part of the site, which lies above the 100-year flood level. This is estimated to be 22.67m OD at the downstream end of the site, 23.87m OD at the spillway and 23.90m OD at the upstream end of the site. A suitable freeboard is normally added to this level for design purposes. The site layout plan (Drg. No. 02/55:02) submitted to Planning Service on 28 May 2003 would therefore be acceptable.

(The same "Informative" also appears in the Decision Notice for site 0248 although strangely the 0248 notice omits the sentence about "A suitable freeboard is normally added...") I wonder why? Not that it matters as the Rivers Agency says go ahead and develop this area in any case.

Here we go again. Written out in full is this directive which says there shall be no infilling in the proscribed area. And development should be only allowed outside this zone. Yet in the same paragraph the Rivers Agency are accepting a plan which shows infilling, a road and some building work all well within that defined 100 year flood level. It will be very interesting to see what the Enforcement Officer makes of this paragraph! Pity the poor builder too; what recommendation is he supposed to adhere to?


To read our in-depth correspondence with the RA into this foolish state of affairs click here for the flooding pages and letters.
DECISION NOTICE STATEMENT
For E/2001/0248/F
(That's the lower field beside Straid Rd)
OBSERVATION
Items in "Conditions" include the following :-  
7. Refers to ....... management of the Landscape Plan (Drawing no 16) received on 13th November 2003 There is no such drawing. Having trawled through the Open Application File I can only find a Drg. 16 Landscape Plan received on 13 February 2003
8. "All planting incorporated in the stamped approved landscape plan (Drawing 16) which was received on 13th November 2003 shall be carried out in full in the first available planting season...."

Once again this appears to be a nonexistent drawing. However assuming they mean the Landscape Plan Drg 16 received 13 Feb 2003 then this plan shows a row of trees to be planted directly above a new underground sewer pipe. Totally ignoring the 6m wide nominated wayleave.

Mowed grass is also shown to come within two metres of the stream thus totally negating the request by the Natural Heritage Agency for a 10m wide wildlife corridor.

10. "The proposed 1.5m high fence as indicated in drawing No 14 dated 13 February 2003 shall be omitted.
Reason; In the interests of visual amenity."

(This omitting the fence also appears in Decision Notices for site 0247)

There is no such drawing. Drawing number 14 is dated as having been received 5 Nov 2003 and is the plans for House type J. And there is no fence mentioned.

However I am guessing that the Planners might mean the Landscape drawing no. 16 received on 13 Feb. 2003. (Should one have to guess what the Planners mean?) The omitting of this fence was requested by DOE (Natural Heritage) to enable the 10m wide wildlife corridor and nothing to do with visual amenity.

11. "The development shall be carried out in accordance with the stamped approved Drawing No. 02 .... and 08...."

(The same applies to Decision Notice for site 0247)

Drawing 08 shows plans and elevations of house type MD96 as having three bedrooms.
Drawing 02 shows the site layout giving house types and the number of bedrooms. It shows type MD96 to have four bedrooms. They can't both be right.

So how will/can the builder carry out this Decision Notice directive? And why didn't the planners query this or do they not look at submitted plans?
11. "The development shall be carried out in accordance with the stamped approved Drawing No. 02 .... A note on Drawing 02 states “Each dwelling shall be provided with a… 150mm dia. storm pipeline to the public sewer” Yet the actual drawing shows a completely separate storm pipeline running throughout the development and not connected to the public sewer.
Is it nitpicking to quibble over a few wrong dates? Not at all. These, presumably, are legal documents yet in places are referring to drawings which don't exist.
<< Return to front page of this Eagry web site