Enforcement - Fence beside Rill Page two

THE DEVELOPMENT OFF EAGRY

If printing, set printer to landscape

ENFORCEMENT
THE POST AND WIRE FENCE (page two) (updated October 2006)

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

Exterior finishes

Fence beside Rill

Detached house style

Allowed to build on flood plain

Incorrect ground levels

One arch not two

Trees on the wayleave

Wrong semi built

Back Fences

Temp site entrance

One house -many faults

Points to ponder

So despite the Environment and Health Service, The Developer's agent, The Divisional Planning Manager and the Decision Notice all agreeing there should not be a fence built along the Rill (to allow for a 10m wild life corridor) the Developer went ahead and erected a fence!!

Now, in order to explain the duplicity and double talk of the Planning Service we have to go back a couple of years to September 2004 when the Decision notice was issued by Planning. I discovered there were several errors in this Notice and wrote to Divisional Planning Manager about these. One error referred to the Landscape drawing and I wrote...

Question 10 and 10A. - Are Decision Notices legal documents? And if so and errors are discovered, does the notice have to be withdrawn and a new one drawn up and issued? Condition 10 (of the decision notice for 0248) refers to a fence on landscape drawing 14. There is no fence on drawing 14, Drawing 14 is a plan and elevation of house type J

In a follow up question (number 12) I also asked about trees proposed on a wayleave on the same wrongly numbered drawing. The Divisional Planning Manger replied as follows...

I would accept that there has been a number of typographical errors on the decision notices. While this is unfortunate I am satisfied that the various conditions can still be enforced. (my emphasis)

She then went on to write in reply to my other question ...

As accepted ... typographical errors have been made. However, the stamped approved drawing is clearly identified as "Landscape Plan" irrespective of the drawing reference attached. ....the Department is satisfied that when read as a whole, the decision notice as stamped and approved drawings could not be misinterpreted . (My emphasis and note no mention by the Planning Manager of issuing a new decision notice to account for their mistakes. )

So thats alright then. The badgers and hedgehogs can rest safely in their beds knowing that no fence will be built and they can have full run of a 10 m. zone beside the stream.

But do they know about Developers and the Coleraine Planning Department?

So when the fence was built I was appalled and asked the Enforcement section of Coleraine Planning to investigate. Their reply was as follows.

Following an investigation I can confirm that the above (erection of a high post and wire fence beside St Columb's Rill) does not constitute a breach of planning control and accordingly the Planning Service does not intend to take any further action.

"Does not breach planning control" What! after all the parties had agreed that a fence should NOT be built? I wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager querying this decision. I did not get an answer from her department, instead I got a reply from a Principal Planning Officer. Astonishingly this is what he wrote...

Condition number 10 ... refers to drawing number 14. Unfortunately due to an an administrative error this is the wrong drawing number and therefore this condition is not enforceable and cannot be pursued.

Well did you spot that sleight of hand? Just in case you have missed it.... A planner makes a mistake with a drawing number. The Department head goes on record as saying this mistake doesn't matter because everyone knows it's a landscape drawing no matter what number it has so the conditions can still be enforced. But then when it comes to actually enforcing that decision it's decided it was the wrong drawing number and they can't enforce the decision! How devious can you get? I will not let this topic go and will be referring it to higher up the line. Watch this space.

<< Return to first page of Eagry