A SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS
Not in any particular order but numbered for ease of identification.
All links will open in a separate window which will need closing

Do feel free to read all of the following, but because there are so many paragraphs I have also made this list with links, for you to cherry pick what takes your fancy:

2. BUILDING ON FLOODPLAIN. 18 th November 2003, Rivers Agency advised Planning Service "against permitting development in floodplains or the in-filling of floodplains to facilitate development". (They even included a large scale map defining the area) Yet that same department, in the same letter, in the same paragraph, accepted infilling encroaching, in places by more than 75%, into the very 100 year flood area which they defined. (See Flooding Pages)

And way back in August 2001, referring to the original plan, Rivers Agency wrote to the Planners
"Rivers Agency is opposed to any infilling for development purposes, in areas of flood pondage, as the resultant displacement of flood water can cause problems elsewhere within the catchment."

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking' ....Why was the nonsensical paragraph from Rivers Agency included in the Decision Notices Informatives and not queried with them and resolved before getting to this stage? And what advice will you be giving to the Enforcement Officer once construction work starts within the above ‘no-build’ zone? ‘Ignore the Decision Notice’? In which case why have a Decision Notice?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

"You did not answer the question “Why did you not query…..?” Well at least I queried this contradictory Rivers Agency statement. Which is more than Planners apparently did. A/. Writing (21-5-02) about an earlier version of this plan, a member of the Rivers Agency, said “Rivers Agency has made the Planning Authority aware that flooding can occur adjacent to the Distillery Burn… It is a matter for the Planning Authority to approve any development at this location”. Now here you [Divisional Planning Manager] are, saying it is up to the Solicitor and prospective purchaser to satisfy themselves the prescribed levels have been adhered to. Is no-one willing to accept responsibility anymore? B/. Twice I wrote to the Rivers Agency - 16 Feb 2004 to the Chief Executive and again 22 March 2004 to the Director of Operations. I wrote to the Dir of Ops. as I was not satisfied with the Chief Exec.'s earlier answer - the answer that you quoted as sent to me on 9th March 04 and which you say “addressed “ the issue. ‘Addressed’ but certainly not answered to my satisfaction. If Planners meekly accept such ambiguity I will not. By insisting on clarification from the Rivers Agency, the planners could have averted the disappointment when prospective purchasers of four of these dwellings discover their new homes are partly in a known floodplain. " (NEW - See photo album of flooding which occured on 12 March 2006. Opens in separate window)

"It hasn’t gone away you know. Above photo taken 8th Jan 05. Site 0247 in foreground. I note Angela Smith (Minister for the Environment) is asking for comment on the “Consultation Draft PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk”. I will, of course, be sending her all the relevant correspondence associated with this particular flood plain fiasco. ["Enforcement action cannot be taken on informatives"] At least this absolves enforcement officers when the road/dwellings are flooded or subsidence takes place and the inevitable enquiry ensues."

3. NON-ADVERTISED PLAN ACCEPTED. Several agencies referred to the drawing dated 28th May 2003 (Drg 02/55:22) as the "final layout". We were confused as this was not the last plan advertised in the local Press which was the July 2002 version. So we queried this (18th March 2004) with the Divisional Planning Manager asking what Layout Plan/Drawing number was finally approved by Planning Service and taken to Moyle Council in November 2003? . We have subsequently received a reply (7/4/04) stating the approved plan was drawing no. 02/55:02 (30th May 2003). But this layout has never appeared in the local press Planning Applications.
Compared to the previous plan, - of the 26 dwellings which directly abut onto the established Eagry dwellings, 21 of them have been changed (Four moved further away and 17 moved nearer- up to one third nearer in some cases) There are many other changes too, so see Differ page to compare the differences.

We sent a comprehensive list of these differences, together with a drawing showing the two plans superimposed, to the Divisional Planning Manager on 18th April 2004. But after a month had passed without even an acknowledgement we sent another copy of the same documents to the Manager again, on 18th May 2004 (only this time to be “signed for on delivery”). We then had a speedy reply apologising for not acknowledging our first letter. And noting that the points raised “will be fully considered before any decision is issued on these applications” That’s an ambiguous statement and does not necessarily mean they are even considering our request for the plan to be advertised.

On 29th June 2004 the "Decision Notices" were issued giving the go-ahead to this unpublished plan. What's the word used to describe an event when two parties proceed with a plan without telling the third party who is also involved? - Duplicity? Collusion?

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking ..... 'why the Amended Plan (Drawing No. 02 received 30/5/03) was not advertised in the local press?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

4. NON ADVERTISED PUBLIC ENQUIRY. A Public Enquiry was held to discuss proposed new housing developments in the Bushmills area. Although deeply affected by one such proposal, Eagry residents were not informed of this event, even though objectors to another development were sent individual invitations. Although billed as a "public" enquiry we are unaware of any advertising in the local press. (See Public Enquiry page)

5. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. Residents are concerned that the heavy construction traffic will use the narrow, steep Eagry Park road to get to the new site. Road's Service answer to their worries was summed up in one sentence..." common sense would tell one that if a housing development is to be extended there will be construction traffic using the existing road“ (See Site Traffic page) The developers have now been given approval for a temporary site entrance directly off the Straid Road. But this is only for two years so the top site traffic (0247) might still use Eagry.

6. OVERDEVELOPMENT. The first amended plan was refused as it was "...contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 : Quality Residential Environments' - Overdevelopment". Yet that plan did not even show the house types. (See Visual Impact page) They could have been one-bedroomed huts or six storeys high flats for all the Planners knew.

7.HOUSE MIX. The original, refused, proposal showed a mixture of two storey houses and bungalows on the skyline at different angles to each other and painted white. But the approved plan shows a 'wall' consisting of a straight row of terraces and two-storey houses, one of the terraces having dark grey exterior walls. Is that visually more attractive? (See Visual Impact page)

8. STANDARD HOUSES. In a note which accompanied the original plan, a member of the Planning Development team wrote ..."There is a continued use of standard house-types, which have featured widely in other locations".
There were twenty six of house type MD41 in the original proposed plan.
Planning Service has now approved the latest layout, which includes twenty four type MD41. Just two less. And I have not even included the mid-terraced houses which have several more of these MD41 types lumped together. (See Visual Impact page) And the developer has even attempted to add another set of MD41's But building of this pair has appears to have ceased after Enforcement issued a warning letter. CLICK to see this wrong building

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking ' ...... Why were these plans accepted which show a continued use of existing house types?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

9. TWO AND HALF HOUR TRAFFIC SURVEY. The first amended plan was turned down because, amongst other reasons, there was "unsatisfactory access" . However as a result of a one day traffic survey spread over two and a half hours this was changed to being "acceptable". Surely such a paltry survey is not worth the paper it's written on? The survey took place during commuting hours yet much of the present Eagry traffic, and no-doubt the extra new development traffic as well, will consist of holiday makers who are not commuting. (See Residential Traffic page)

10. WHAT'S TO BE BUILT? The plan was approved last November 2003. Construction work started on the site on 16th Jan 2004. The Decision Notices were issued on 29th June 2003 yet the approved plan was never published, so all we can do is look out of our back windows and watch the construction work progress and wonder what is to be built behind us? (See Work Started page)

11. DEVELOPING ON WETLAND. Part of the land scheduled for this development is wetland. "One of the few wetland areas in North Antrim". In 1971, Governments around the world signed up to to preserve wetlands. Yet here is development and in-filling on our very own rare wetland being allowed by Coleraine Planning to take place. We say - "lip service", that's all these conventions are when flouted in this manner. (See Trees and plants section).

"Economic difficulties of the Province have meant that there has tended to be a bias in favour of the landowner and developer, sometimes at the expense of the environment" Parliamentary Environment Committee report (Rossi) 1990 (Not much change there in 15 years!)

12. COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE How do the Moyle Councillors view a new estate of 66 houses? - What is their most important criteria when accepting a new development? -----

12a. The look of the estate in this Area of Natural Beauty?
12b. As affordable housing for young members of the Bushmills community? New terraced houses built by the same developer are on sale in Bushmills for £110,000 and, according to their adverts, would be "....Ideal holiday or investment homes"
12c. As more second homes?
12d. As more dwellings (no matter what standard and no matter for whom they are aimed) which mean more rates to be paid by the new owners? (See Council page)

13. GLOBAL WARMING. In spite of all the talk of global warming, flooding etc, here, in the year 2005, is a development still being allowed to go-ahead and build on a flood plain (See Flooding page)

14.COUNCIL AGENDA. On 24th November 2003, Moyle Council debated (well actually there was no debate) and approved this planning application. We (the objectors) were not told this item was on the agenda so did not attend to hear our Councillors represent us. Surely this meeting and what was to be discussed should have been advertised? We say methods (not just the internet) need to be put in place to enable people to know what is coming up at the next Moyle Council meeting.(See Council page).

The Planning Service now posts a list of Planning Applications coming up before Councils. CLICK HERE to see it

15. CONSPICUOUS DWELLINGS. In the original proposal there were 2 x detached two-storey houses and 3 x bungalows on the highest part of the site. Now the latest -and accepted- plan shows those dwellings replaced by a two-storey terrace of four dwellings and 2 x two-storey semi-detached houses. (The bungalows have gone). Are we to presume that Planners are happier to accept a two storey terrace instead of bungalows at the highest and visually most noticeable part of the development? (See Visual Impact page)

16. NECESSARY.Is this Development necessary? Who wants sixty six new dwellings of this size and price in Bushmills? Please reply to the contact given below. According to one objector, at one time it is believed there was "over 1,200 dwellings (apartments etc) which cannot find owners in the North East" (See Needed page)

17. NOTIFICATION It is NOT a statuary requirement of Planners to issue Neighbour Notifications. We say this should be made law (See Work Started page)

18. START WORK It is not illegal for a developer to go on site and start work before Planning Permission is granted. We say starting work on a site before obtaining written permission should be made against the law.(See Work Started page)

19.ENFORCEMENT We understand there are 22 enforcement officers for the whole of Northern Ireland. We say these need to be augmented. (See Enforcement page)

20. BUILD ON FLOODPLAIN. Builders can go ahead and build on a flood plain and there is no way or law to stop them. Agencies can only advise and recommend they do not build. We say the law needs to be changed. (See Flooding page)

21. PUBLIC ALERTS EHS. Six months after a plan is approved, one agency expresses serious concerns about it!
On 6 November 2002 the Environment & Heritage Service, (Natural Heritage) agency accepted the proposed development. And it would appear, on the basis of their acceptance (and the other agencies as well), the plan was approved by the Planners in November 2003. But the plan EHS was accepting had been superseded. We think they were unaware of this new version, so wrote to the Divisional Planning Officer asking that EHS Natural Heritage be given sight of the new (approved) plan. He replied .... "In view of your queries, we will clarify any outstanding issues with EHS." This EHS Agency has now replied, thanking planning for the new documents, and saying they have "serious concerns with this amended proposal" and requesting several amendments. ( See Trees page) It would appear it took our enquiry to kick start the Planning Department to alert EHS to this amended plan. Draw your own conclusions re the efficiency of the system.

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking why ... 'it took ourselves, who are members of the public, to alert yourselves and EHS to this important discrepancy?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

22 COUNTLESS GUIDELINES IGNORED. Over the years the Planning Department has published many guidelines and policy recommendations. However the Coleraine Planning Department (and the developers) would appear to have deliberately ignored many of these guidelines in this proposed development. See Guidelines to read several pages of ignored recommendations. Here's just one :- Several Planning Guideline documents say that "Applicants will be required, as a minimum, (to) provide a short written statement setting out the design principles". However, no written statement was ever supplied nor, more interestingly, ever asked for, by the Planners.

And here's another:- "Developers will need to demonstrate that their proposals will avoid significant ... overlooking and loss of privacy. CLICK TO SEE PHOTO OF THE VERY FIRST BUILDING CONSTRUCTED!

We asked the Divisional Planning Manager   Who decides which guidelines are to be adhered to and which ones to ignore? 

26.EHS 'SERIOUS CONCERNS' CONSIDERED "UNREASONABLE" In a letter (1st April 2004) to the Planning Service, EHS Natural Heritage had .."serious concerns with this amended proposal Here is an extract from that letter:

Apart from omitting the fence, these requests have been totally ignored and the planners have allowed infilling, development, ground disturbance and reseeding, all to take place within the 10m zone. There's a 80m (262 feet ) long road embankment to be built which will run lengthwise within this zone. But this was meant to be a tree belt and wildlife corridor.

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking' ....why these concerns by EHS Natural Heritage were not addressed?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

"You refer to EHS accepting an amended plan in July 2002. I agree, they did, but that is the whole point of my complaint. The plan (Drg. 04) to which they agreed was superseded in many respects after that, and in the final accepted plan an embankment is to be built through, along and within that zone. Yet you still held their year-out-of-date acceptance as valid. Your reply to me says a copy of EHS July 2002 letter is enclosed. But it was not. I suspect because it contains the embarrassing (to you) sentence…”The planting belt should be a minimum width of 10m of locally native specimens of Alder and Willow" To sum up; On 19th February 2002, a year before the final amended plan was accepted, EHS wrote the following to your department “…no development should take place within 10m of the river and the site layout should be redesigned accordingly.” On 8th July 2002 EHS wrote, …”The planting belt should be a minimum width of 10m of locally native specimens of Alder and Willow” On 28th October 2002 EHS wrote, “ …A wildlife corridor must be provided through the site. The 10m strip of trees along the stream can accommodate this,” On 1st April 2004 EHS wrote …”We request amendments to the proposals to ensure that no infill, development, fencing, ground disturbance or re-seeding takes place within the 10m zone." Yet after all the above pleadings over the years, that request is deemed by the then Divisional Planning Manager as “unreasonable”. On 6th April 2004 his handwritten note reads as follows …. I have reprinted it here because, even allowing for the degredation by the web reproduction process, it is very hard to decipher. Which is a pity, considering what an important statement this is. I have put a question mark against words I am uncertain about. "I am satisfied that following the lengthy negotiations and agreements with the agents it would be unreasonable to seek further amendments(?) to the scheme which is in all other respects, entirely(?) satisfactory. However a condition omitting the fence should be attached to the approval". (A Planning Officer confirmed the signature to be that of the then Divisional Planning Manager)"

26a. A LAW TO FORCE A REPLY? At the time of writing this paragraph (30/10/04), a public consultation paper (Click for pdf copy) has been published in which people are being asked to comment on “Proposals to Amend Primary Planning Legislation in Northern Ireland”.
One of the questions posed is: - “Do you consider that … there are any benefits in a legislative requirement for consultees to respond to consultation requests within a specified timescale?”
What a reflection on the Civil Servants who run the various agencies - Water; Rivers; Environmental Heritage etc. that Government is even considering a law to force them to reply to Planners’ queries in a “specified time”?
Imagine if this happened in the private sector, say British Airways, and it took a law to force one department to reply in a specified time to a request from another?

Not that it matters, because when an agency does reply the Planners ignore them (See Par 26 above)

26b. NO ACTION ON DECISION NOTICE ERRORS. The final Decision Notices have several anomalies. Paragraph 10 for instance refers to the Landscape Plan drawing No 14 dated 13 February 2003. Whereas in actual fact this particular drawing is of a house type and nothing to do with a landscape plan. CLICK for more mistakes in the Decision Notices

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking '... 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?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

28. MISSING BEDROOM. Drawing 08 received 5th November 2003 has been stamped “Approved”. It is a plan and elevations of house type MD96 which, according to the main layout drawing 02, is a four bedroomed detached dwelling. But there are only three bedrooms drawn. - Bedrooms 2,3 and 4. - Curiously no bedroom number one appears. In fact there does not seem to be space to build a bedroom number one. It can’t be that the developer is planning to offer the lounge as an alternative bedroom because all the other house types with four bedrooms all have lounges as well (Types MD86A and MD86 for instance).

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking '.....Does your department study plans and elevations of house types submitted to them? Presumably so, otherwise they would not require them to be sent in. And if they do, and find an irregularity, ie Type MD96, should they not query it with the developer and ask for new plans to be submitted?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

29. STORM PIPELINE. 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. This contradiction was not "picked up" by the Planners and the drawing has subsequently been stamped "approved"

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking ' .... how has your Department interpreted these apparently opposite confusing instructions?'
When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

31. MOVED WITHOUT NOTICE. The Developer changed his last published plan and submitted an amended version which included moving a proposed new two-storey semi-detached dwelling some 4.5m (almost 15 feet) nearer to the boundary of an existing bungalow directly abutting the site. This existing bungalow never appeared on any plan. The Coleraine Planning Service approved this plan. The new building will now be one third nearer. Yet neither the Developer nor the Planners informed the bungalow owner of this change and the very existence of this new layout was never publicly advertised in the local Press.

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking if '....the above scenario is normal and acceptable practice by the Planning Department?' When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

UPDATED 20TH NOV 2005
32. TREES ON WAYLEAVE. The Decision Notice for 0248 states "All planting incorporated in the stamped approved landscape plan shall be carried out in full in the first available planting season...."
But this landscape plan shows a row of trees to be planted over sewer pipes. These can be found in the North East corner of Site 0248, near the Straid Road. The trees are to be Alnus Glutinosa, (Common Alder) which according to my Tree books can grow up to 70 feet tall.!

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager asking '...... why have you included in the Decision Notice .... a condition that advocates planting a row of trees directly above a sewer line and well within the 6m wayleave?' When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

35 PROCRASTINATION. It took seven months from the time the Planning Authority recommended, and Moyle Council agreed, for this development to go ahead, before the Decision Notices were issued. Why the delay? According to the list of various agencies, all were in agreement with it proceeding. (Although see the confusion re EHS elsewhere on this site). Incidentally the decision notices were finally signed and issued by the Divisional Planning Manager the day before he retired.

On 11th September 2004 we wrote to the Divisional Planning Manager, pointing out that as far as we could see in the files they had received only two letters during those seven months and asking why the delay before issuing the decision notices? When she did not answer we wrote to the Chief Executive asking the same question. Three months after the initial query we received the following reply which was endorsed by the Planning Secretariat. This is a paraphrase of the lady's reply. The full correspondence can be seen in the Public Application Files at the Coleraine Planning Sub-Division

NEW
36. REAR ELEVATIONS FACE TOURISTS. Writing about the original plan in August 2001 a Senior Professional and Technical Officer (SPTO), who was a member of the Development Plan Team reported to the Case Officer ..."I would not consider the present proposal appropriate - view right across the rear gardens from the Straid Road" There were 12 rear gardens facing the Straid Rd on that original plan.
Three amendments later and the "approved" plan now has 16 rear gardens- i.e. even more!- facing the Straid Rd.

With construction underway, here's a photo taken from the Straid Rd on 19th Nov 05 showing 14 of those rear gardens. NB The Straid Rd is the main tourist inland country route between Bushmills and Ballycastle. This has been described in a letter to us (13-12-04) from the Divisional Planning Manager as a "Quality residential development"

If you can shed light on, or add to, any of the above points, then please write or contact us at 32 Eagry Park, or by phone, or by email on : - brian@eagry.com

Thanks