The Planning Case Officer confirmed on 27th May 2004 that HE HAD STILL NOT VISITED THE SITE. Although he had driven past! I wonder if either of the other two involved with this decision have also never visited the site in question?

The Case Officer also told us during that May 27th meeting, that the Divisional Planning Manager took over personal control of these Planning Applications earlier this year. Asked if this was unusual, he replied, "It happens with contentious applications"

The Divisional Planning Manager retired (30 June 2004), one day after he signed the Decision Notices. He has been replaced by a woman.

I was interested to read in the minutes of Moyle Council meeting (22/4/04), when referring to a particular planning application, (Not this one) the Planning representative at the meeting said he was "unfamiliar with this application (Not this one) and could therefore not comment on these points". At which point a Councillor complained that it was "grossly unfair to applicants that the representative from the planning service was unfamiliar with the sites and their history."
To which the Planning representative said "Case Officers go to site visits." I wonder which planet he is living on?

But I do have some sympathy with the dilemmas facing Planners. Take this one small example : -

The bank of St Columb's Rill

• Natural Heritage recommend :- "A planting belt should be a minimum width of 10m, of locally native specimens of Alder and Willow, as these trees are suitable for wet ground and wildlife" and there should be no fence (See Trees page).
• Rivers Agency recommend : - "It is considered essential that a working strip of minimum width 5m is left along the bank in order to facilitate future maintenance of the watercourse by the Rivers Agency" (See Flooding page).
• The Landscape Design shows grass in one place which comes to within 5 metres of the stream edge. And ask for a fence to run the full length of the Rill for safety purposes. (See Wildlife page) and Landscape
• Rivers Agency recommend no in-filling or building in an area which stretches in places some 27 metres from the stream edge, but to be honest they did change their mind in the same paragraph. .(See Flooding page)
• The Developers show on their 30th May 2003 contour maps they are to build an embankment which comes, in places, to within 4 metres of the stream edge. (See Flooding page)

So if you were a Planner, which one would you choose? The Natural Heritage people; River's Agency; Landscape Design ... or the Developer?.

On 29th June 2004 the "Decision Notices" were issued and signed by the Divisional Planning Manager, who retired the next day, and you may be "surprised" to discover the Planners chose to ignore those various agencies recommendations and instead approve the Developer's proposals (i.e. to go ahead with laying a road and allow some building to take place on this strip beside the Rill)