Footpath off Long Row, South Shields

The right of way was established shortly after the completion of the call centre in 2007, formally known as Garlands. It gave a beautiful prospect of the Tyne after the graving docks had been demolished and became quite well used over a period of years.

While I often used it to go to town, I very rarely used it to get home mainly because of the long stairs to get back up to Greens Place. Therefore I will base my view starting at the ancient landing (Comical Corner Steps), point B on the protestors plan and ending at point A (2.3 meter gate without permission). The gate appeared after I left South Shields in September 2017, to go and live in Amble.*

Plan taken from the Facebook Group: Re-Open public access to the River Tyne @ Market Dock South Shields

The first piece of evidence is in the picture of the overspill car-park, taken I guess, while it was still being used and from near to point B.

Notice the paved footpath and railings, both a feature which continued round to point A in or about 2007. It appears to have been adopted by the Council when the Call Centre was completed.

On August 11th 2017, George Mansbridge, Head of Development Services, granted the agents for Keywest Three Ltd , Mario Minchella, permission to build their flats in accordance with the approved plans.  The planning officer was Gary Simmonette.

“Bin stores and 1.8 metre high railings and sliding gates to enclose the site” (Grant ST/042917FUL) does not exactly cover the fence we see today nor the removal of the foot path. This alone suggests a certain amount of collusion between the planning office and planning control (building inspection and enforcement).

As one can see, the foot path and railings continue to hug the high water line round the partially filled dock and continued past Nos 21 to 14, Long Row until we get we get to point A with the 2.3m gate without permission.

The filled dock was landscaped and some pleasant seating provided by the Council and notice some some lighting had also been provided by them as well. This is clearly shown by the view taken from Google Street Scene in 2015.

Not only does “Bin stores and 1.8 metre high railings and sliding gates to enclose the site” (Grant ST/042917FUL) fail to cover the fence blocking off the north end of the old Garlands Centre it fails to cover the fence blocking the way from the South via Long Row.

It appears that the planners have taken the right of way and the gardens laid out by the Council more than 10 years before the plans for the boat lift were made, away from the public and given to the owner of 30 Long Row or South Quays, Mr Mark Turnbull.

The application for these were submitted in March 2018 by the agent Mario Minchella and approval for them was granted by the Head of Development Services in April 2018. It does not appear to have gone before any Committee and it was put there as a result of the grant,
ST/0201/18/FUL – see especially points 8 and 9.

The detail taken from the site plan for it suggest that the gate was placed in front of No. 14 long row at the same time to stop people getting access to the gardens given to owner of Apartment 30, i.e. by walking round in front row of houses facing the big dock where the gate appeared in 2018 or 2019.

It appeared to be in place by the time the planning application, see existing security fence with gate – and right, for the pontoon was made in June 2020.

None of this is shown on on the site plan for ST/042917FUL which is given below, rotated, to match the plan of the English Coastal Path shown in the top, and there is definitely no record of any retrospective planning consent for the removal of the right of way, and retracing our steps, none for the gate, the southern fence and removal of the railings round the dock and none for the northern fence and the removal of the flags that paved the footpath.
Nor any for the removal of the paving of the overspill car park!

MickDawson, 30-Aug-21

Double Standards

Double Standards
Removing the Requirement for Enforcement

The owner of 71 Greens Place had replaced a fence with a wall for 4-5m and not only that, there was some question about its height. A complaint was entered while the wall was being built but it was ignored.

Eventually, a retrospective planning request ST/0749/13/FUL was recieved in July 2013 but by August the fact that it was retrospective had been removed:
Consent sought for the construction of a wall to the west side boundary of the patio above the ground floor extension as a substitution of the approved fence under application reference ST/0966/12/FUL.

By December 5th, “ground floor extension” was subtly repaced : Retrospective application of parapet walls around the first floor patio above the ground floor rear extension and etc.
What should have been a retrospective application for the substitution of the approved fence by a wall had disappeared and the fact that it was retrospective had reappeared and ST/0749/13/FUL had gone and was replaced with . . /HFUL.

The Senior Enforcement Officer should get a mention becauseof his double standards. Compare the action,  just outlined, with the enforcement notice handed to the owner of No 70.

Listed buildings 68-70, Greens Place. The thing to notice is that the listing just concerns the view from the street and it seems that the conditions 3 and 4 were applied in error when the planner specified the Listed Building Condition to a first floor addition to a extension to the rear or the house.

In February 2013 the Council was advised (HL on 4247408)  that condition that should not have been applied in the first place but anyway they issued an enforcement notice anyway. This occurred about the same time the same building inspector had turned his blind eye to the fact that the owner of 71 Greens Place had reverted to his original wish and built the wall.

The grant allows a fence 71GP,  October 2012 and the the building inspector made himself unavailable while a wall was being built!

The Planning Officer who originally specified the metal rainwater goods on the rear of the building was same who helped the Planning Manager rig the outcome of ST0749/13/FUL by ensuring it was replaced by one that omitted all mention of the fence/wall issue thus ensuring she escaped censure as well as the building inspector and the enforcement officer.

By the 5-Dec-13, ST0749/13/FUL had been completely overwritten by ST0749/13/HFUL and permission was granted. A second notice of the grant was sent the same day but with drawings 000, 00, 17, 12 removed, presumably by request of the owner of 71 of Greens place to avoid the cost of removing the wall and replacing it with a fence.

It also saved the Council having to reprimand the Planning Officer, the Planning Manager, the Building Inspector and possibly the Senior Enforcement Officer for their dereliction of duty and they knew they were safe because they would always say the complaint had been exhausted.

Shed and Corruption 9A: Burying the Truth

Covering Email to Burying the Truth :

Burying the Truth
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 10/08/2021 (07:48:31 GMT)
To: Nicola Robason
Cc: Alison Hoy,Paula Abbott, Hayley Johnson, George Mansbridge, John Rumney, jonathan.tew@southtyneside.gov.uk

Dear Nicola,
Some years ago I came to the conclusion that there was little likelihood of UK Docks getting the longer shed if they had applied for retrospective planning for their taller one at the same time as we started to complain about it so a scheme was hatched where they would build the taller shed, hide the fact that it was nearly 3m too tall and extend it later.
They also had to hide the fact that they had laid the footings for the extra frame in 2001 but things went wrong with this scheme when the approved plans were recovered a few days after construction began and they were told to stop work on it, which they did, as soon as the structure had been made stable.
The second thing that went wrong for them was that they had asked their Agents, Maughan Reynolds Partnership Ltd to produce drawings to meet the 3rd and 4th conditions while omitting to tell them that they were about to breach the second condition a soon as they hoisted the first frame a few weeks later. The Agents had of course referred back to the original drawings approved by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation when the provided plans and drawings for the squarish shed.
There should have been a third thing to go wrong and that was the resurrection of the TGA but that failed because amongst other things, it remained under the control of the Local Masonic Lodge and I say that because there is no way they would let control of it pass to back to a residents group regardless of either of our views on UK Docks shed.
Whatever the views, that and some other external pressure gave the Principal Planning Officer the reason to pass off some unauthorised plans as approved ones to hide the fact that the clad shed would be nearly 3m taller than planned at a meeting arranged by a Councillor to resolve the issue.
He took no minutes of that meeting and that allowed UK Docks restart work on their shed but they resolved things by making (it) a conflict between the Council and the people they are paid to serve rather than take further enforcement action.
The fact remains that the shed is now, not only taller and wider than planned but longer as well and we are told to be quiet about it. I have taken the trouble to explain how instead of admitting that the shed was bigger than planned the Council chose to accuse us of making allegations.
Please see the attached file ‘Burying the Truth’ (S and C Part 9) and we can take it from there.
Kind regards
Michael Dawson

Dear Nicola,

Burying the Truth – Shed and Corruption – Part 9.

I make no apology for getting back to you about the Shed.
In my letter to Paula, you can see that various planning officers were using Customer Advocacy to avoid answering any question about the approved height of the shed. It was titled the Second Phase of the Shed’s Development, and posted as Shed and Corruption – Part 8.

A summary of Part 8 is given here to illustrate the share volume of misinformation generated and it began with the response made by Emma Anderson in February 2015:

1. The Planning Manager had misinformed her to hide the fact that the shed was taller than permitted;
2. A Planning Officer hid the fact that the shed was in breach of the second condition so that anyone who followed him was able to support any application to extend it;
3. Proof that the Council were misinforming the Ombudsman to hide malpractice in Building Control and the Planning Office;
4. Denying the truth by shooting the messenger;
5. Hiding the fact that the shed was in use on a Sunday other than launching or slipping a vessel;
6. Complaint to the Chief Executive about the misconduct of his staff that was ignored;
7. Councillor Anglin dodges his responsibilities for the third time;
8. Conflation of complaints by Customer Advocacy;
9. Rigging of list of unanswered emails by Customer Advocacy.

Points 1 and 2 have been simplified. In the original letter to the Monitoring Officer they were: 1. The Planning Manager gave 5 pieces of misinformation, most of which found their way into the Ombudsman’s findings a month later and 2.  A Planning Officer hid the fact that the shed was in breach of the second condition so he could support UK Docks application to extend it onto foundations laid in 2001.
There are also some minor corrections to clarify the main argument.

If you were to ask me to single out the best example of corrupt practice I would single out No. 7 because I explained to Cllr Anglin exactly what was happening –  but Customer Advocates replied on behalf of Cllr Anglin. Continue reading Shed and Corruption 9A: Burying the Truth