Planning Service permitted #72 (b) to be retained as a store for one of the new builds (c) in an earlier application for a replacement dwelling. 'Store' is now to be replaced by new L-shaped 2-bedroom single storey dwelling right on the bend.
One of the conditions for (a) was that the old dwelling (d) beside the demolished monument/'mound' be, er, demolished prior to (a) being occupied, if I remember correctly.
Retrospective approval granted for House c seems to be quite clear: there is to be no additional dwelling ie no dwelling on the site of #72 (b)
Just how arbitrary is the planning process? The Torr site - outlined PQRS - is apparently owned by a developer. Why has the planning service accepted proposals for individual dwellings when it was fairly clear that this was to be a multi-dwelling site? The plans for (a) and (c) were processed at the same time. Planning application Form P1 is clear:
So where is the appraisal/analysis, concept plan and statement for site PQRS?
Applicant: Alan Fraser
Letter to neighbours
Moyle District Council - Carry On Up Torr
Moyle District Council - Carry On Up Torr 2 - the fate of the 'mound'.
Moyle District Council - Carry On Up Torr 3
Moyle District Council - Carry On Up Torr 4
DOE Minister Attwood and the Carry On Up Torr - updated September 12 and 18
