8296/14

The gable end is drawn to scale of 1:100:  the 16m x 12.5m on the drawing held by the Council should be taken as a good guide to the planned height, i.e. 12.7m at the landward end.

Detail notes on the drawing ” strips to draw back to each side to allow access for boats” show that it is the river end rather than the road end and the boats arrive on the slipway from the river.
The added figures 15.6 and 12.2 were measured from an A4 file displayed on a screen and are suitably good enough to show  it has a planned height of 15.5m.
This is confirmation that the architect or ‘engineer’ was using the approved drawings from 1996 which show a landward end of 12.7m giving a river end of 15.5m

Customer Advocacy said in a Stage 3 response, said;
it is clear that drawing 8296/14 could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development”
and I agree with that. They also said;
Mr Mansbridge stated in his Stage 2 response that the engineer chose to include a gable elevation of the structure on the same drawing but told you this was not drawn to scale. You have disputed this. I have not considered this point further because it is clear that drawing 8296/14 was submitted in 2013 for a wholly different purpose (i.e. for the purposes of discharging a planning condition) and as such, could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development.
Note that the author of the  Stage 3 is careful not to say that the drawing is not to scale but attributes the falsehood about the scale to the author of the Stage 2 response. She says she has not considered the scale but she has not disputed the point.

The original complaint very specifically mentioned the height but in spite of the author being told at least twice about its variation from plan she does not consider the  height at all in this final stage before it goes to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman also fails to mention the height at all in her first draft and this is a strong  indicator that she and a Senior Planner from the Council were colluding over this matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.