Enforcement Officer Site Report

Department Of Local Government And The Environment ### Report FROM: S Olsen, Planning Enforcement Officer REF: 06/00043/COMP. Pa 01/1953 Hartford Homes Erection of four dwellings part of fields 6629 \& 6039 Cronk Cullyn, Arbory. DATE: March 2006 ### Subject Location of plot 1 in relation to No 22 Cronk Cullyn as represented on approved drawing No 10 A . On the 10th February 2006 I received a voice message from Mrs Teago, who lives at No 22 Cronk Cullyn, concerning the development behind her house. I telephoned her and she was concerned that the rear wall of plot one was in the wrong place. Approved drawings show the rear line of the dwelling on plot 1 projected to strike No 21 on the rear right corner, when in fact the projected line was clearly striking between No 21 and 22. During a site visit I measured the distance from the boundary hedge to the rear of plot 1 foundation trench on the lower corner and it is, as scaled, 16 metres. I also measured the distance from the boundary hedge to the side of No's and these dimensions are 4.600 to the side of No 21 the scaled dimension on the approved drawing, , is 6.800 . The distance to No 22 is 24.200 the scaled dimension is 25.00 . I also measured the distance between No 21 and 22; on the approved drawing it is 2 metres on site it is 3.400 metres. I would appear to me that No 21 has been moved West reducing the distance to the boundary to 4.600 this has in turn created the 3.400 distance between the two properties. No 22 is further West by approximately 800 mm . Note this is in relation to drawing 10 A , nothing else. All this has resulted in the projecting line of the rear of plot 1 striking between the two properties instead of striking the rear of No 21. This discrepancy does not affect the amenities or the outlook of plot 21 or plot 22. Following my survey I spoke to Cornerstone, the architects, and told them I had discovered that the drawing 10 A submitted as part of the application did not accurately represent the locations of plots 21 and 22 in relation to the proposed development. They argued that the drawing was supplied by a previous developer and as far as they were concerned was accurate. Since this discussion, Cornerstone has survey the site and in particular plots . A new drawing has been received 31 B with accompanying letter and shows the location of the plots in relation to plot 1 and in relation to the original submitted and approved drawing 10 A . Letter enclosed with that drawing attached. ## Conclusions: Although drawing number 10 A was approved, it is not an accurate representation of the location of plots in relation to the new development on plot 1: the revised drawing 31 B show where the discrepancies lie. I have been told that a great deal of use was made of drawing 10 A during the Appeal hearing with the Appeal inspector and the planner taking measurement off it. It would appear there are five things to consider: (1) As far as the Department is aware the development on plot 1 is taking place in accordance with the approved drawings. There is therefore no breach of planning control on the new development. (2) There are discrepancies in approved drawing 10 A regarding the representation of the relationship between plot 1 and plots . (3) The discrepancies are not significant enough to affect the outlook or amenities of plots in relation to plot 1. (4) Had drawing 31 B been submitted instead of drawing 10 A it would have been approved. (5) Does the fact the Appeal was partly determined on a drawing that has now been shown to be flawed affect the legality of the decision.