Monday, 3 October 2011

Carry On Up Torr 3

Carry On Up Torr 3
Carry On Up Torr

Carry On Up Torr 2

Serious questions have to be asked of the Planning Service and of the NIEA's Ancient Monuments branch in their handling of the problems associated with this development. Why were single applications accepted for a multiple development? Why was a rendered finished accepted for one of the new builds when the Planning Service specified a natural stone finish? The developer transformed old buildings across the road into Bluestone Cottage. Why didn't Planning Service insist on a similar style and scale for the replacement dwellings opposite? 

Mound marker stone

Ancient Monuments branch was informed about the initial destruction of what has been claimed to be an ancient monument at the end of July but failed to direct the developer to desist from the further destruction. The detailed report by Daniel McGill, with supporting photographs, was submitted to AM via an email attachment on July 31. An AM senior inspector stated on August 3 that we lost the majority of our archaeologists a few months ago, due to cuts, leaving only a few of us to try and hold the fort, and this is inevitably leading to delays but later on in August when further destruction took place it would appear that  a senior inspector went to the wrong location because said inspector apparently hadn't looked at the McGill report in the AM files but may have looked at the incorrect August 10 up-date of AM records [pdf file] . And then there's this: I'll attempt to identify the site owner and inform  them about the mound. If you happen to know the owner's details this would be very helpful. It was part of an email sent on August 26. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has gone!