If printing, set printer to landscape |
ENFORCEMENT. - EXTERIOR FINISHES (updated
Oct 2006) |
|
When submitting a Planning Application one is required to ..."
show clearly... materials to be used in the external finish of walls and
roofs and their colour. "
(Quote from a Planning Service, undated, explanation leaflet- probably about
2002) |
| |
| Well by March 2006 most of the houses on the first part of this site
(0248) had been completed, with several of them already lived in. Let's
see how the plans submitted by the Developer and accepted by the Planning
Service match up with what has actually been built. |
| Below is a general view taken from the main
Straid Road showing the backs of some of the new buildings |
 |
| Photo below shows detail of some of these dwellings. |
 |
| Photo shows the rears of Sites (from left) 32,
31, 30 and 29 taken from the Straid Road which is one of the tourist
routes to Ballycastle. |
| |
|
| |
The plans submitted show that 31 of these houses including those in the
above photo were to have the following exterior finishes. These plans were
stamped and approved by the Planners.(But words in brackets show what is
actually in place) |
| |
- Render - Roughcast (but actually - Pebble
dash)
- Colour - Pale yellow (but actually -Grey)
- Plinths - Black (but actually -Dark Grey)
- Fascia - Black (but actually -White)
- Rear double windows (but in reality -Many
have been replaced with double patio doors)
- And note the black AND white downpipes - an unusual "feature"
|
| |
|
| |
The Decision Notice (Par.11) issued by the Planning Service states "...the
development shall be carried out in accordance with the stamped approved
drawings". Reason :- To ensure a satisfactory form of development. |
| |
Is this nit picking? . Not really. The questions arise - Why does the
Planning Service require details of external finishes if no-one (Developer,
Builder, or Planning Department) adheres to the approved colour? Is Planning
not concerned with the design and aesthetic look of developments? Note
I am referring to colour here, not texture, which seems to excercise the
Planning Manager in a later reply. |
| |
UPDATE August 2006. In spite of the exterior finishes
being contrary to what has been approved, the Coleraine Planning Sub Division
Enforcement Section states this ..."Does not constitute a
breach" |
| |
UPDATE October 2006. When I queried with the Divisional
Planning Manager that this was not a breach, her reply was as follows... |
"Although the decision notice is
not open to interpretation, the rules of expediency apply, i.e. whether
it would be feasible to insist upon a change of something that is not
exactly permitted; in this instance, the 'roughcast' nature of the
finish is supplied by pebble-dashing, and it is only
the slight change of colour that is the discrepancy; (My
emphasis. Dictionary definition - "Expedient" = Advantageous
rather than right or just). |
|
| << Return to main Eagry home page |
So there is the Planning Services' view of good design. These barrack-like,
dull-grey dwellings are acceptable. And in any case, according to the Divisional
Planning Manager, the difference between grey and pale yellow is only slight.
(Wonder what school of architectural design she went to?) And in any case,
goes the Planning Manager's thinking, even though the decision notice says
they should be painted yellow, because the developer has them grey, we
might as well leave them like that as it would be easier than insisting
the Developer abide by the rules and paint the colour that the Planners
had stamped as agreed. Watch this space I am not going to let this topic
go. Compare these dismal dwellings with the joyous subtle pale colours
of Eagry Park which adjoins this new development. |