Loading document...
The site represents the footprint of an approved extension to the hotel at the Mount Murray Hotel and Country Club. Permission was granted under PA 92/1351 for this extension and this approval was extended until 20th April, 2004 just before which work commenced and permission was granted under the Building Regulations for this extension.
Permission was granted under 03/07239 and yellow cards were returned for the commencement of works and covering of excavation for a foundation on 16th April, 2004 handed on site to Sia Rowaichi and there are foundation inspection records on the file together with photographs thereof.
Sia advises me:
"The latest is an application that was made for an extension to the hotel (Structural aspects of the extension only) and work was started as soon as approval was granted. All relevant Building Regulations fees has been paid and therefore no time limit as when they could finish the job.
On commencement they excavated around 20 meters of trench which I inspected and took photographs of. The trench was subsequently concreted and then covered with top soil until they are ready to restart. All this was done to keep the Planning Permission live.
The application approved is only for foundation and ground floor concrete, a separate application is needed to start work on superstructure, and to date we have not received any application or notice of recommencement of works on site." e-mail received on 4th January, 2005.
Legal advice has been sought and received in respect of the legitimacy of any works commencing on this project given that the approval which required the completion of the works, expired on 20th April, 2004 and no further extensions were permitted. Fiona Mullen wrote to the AG's chambers on 2nd June, 2004 and the advice received recommends that the conditions themselves requiring that the works are completed may not be valid and in any case the works have commenced. Michelle Norman, the author of the letter, concludes that she suspects that the approval cannot be considered to be time limited and "accordingly, if works recommence on the construction of the approved extension no enforcement action will be possible..."
I would conclude from this that we are in no position to withhold no further permissions for reasonable development of this building solely on the basis of the invalidity of the original approval as it applies to this building. I understand that this advice was communicated to the PC in August 2004 and they wrote back to the applicant advising them that a new planning application should be submitted with respect to the proposed alteration to the windows. I also understand that the PC may not have been totally satisfied with the advice from the AG's chambers although it seems clear to me.
Now proposed are alterations to some of the windows in the extension, making them wider. This does not have any adverse impact and there are no objections to it. The existing and proposed elevations as shown are not quite the same although the differences relate to the existing part of the hotel to which there are no alterations proposed in this application nor is it within the defined site so approval could not be granted to any alterations thereof. However I suspect that the existing drawings relate to the original scheme (it is referred to as "under construction") and the "proposed" elevation is as built. I recommend approval to this application.
Recommended Decision : Permitted
Date of Recommendation : 04.01.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1.
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2.
This approval relates to the alterations to the windows as shown in drawings W2082-01 (west and south elevations), W2082-03 (north and east elevations) and - 03 all received on 21st October, 2004.
Decision Made: Approved Committee Meeting Date: 14.1.05
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown