Category Archives: Planning

Some Truth about the Shed

23-Jan-20

Dear Mr Palmer,

You seem to have done some homework before our phone call on Tuesday 14th but if you had paid attention to the facts rather than opinions based on fraudulent misrepresentations you would have come to the conclusion that UK Dock’s shed is 3 meters taller than planned. This can be confirmed by examination of the authorised drawing 8296/2.

Many of the protesters including me had suspected it was wider as well as taller than planned before the meeting held at the Town Hall in November 2013. I confirmed for myself that it was nearly a meter wider than planned when I measured it  shortly after the meeting. Continue reading Some Truth about the Shed

Corporate Lead and Members of Parliament.

The other residents may have made allegations but if they have been complaining about the noise and change of use of the enclosure, it is unlikely. Other than to have born witness to noise issues, I had only complained that the shed is over size, and the Council had done nothing about that since they were told it was over size in late 2013.
That was until December 18th 2016 when I raised a complaint about them using the shed on a Sunday without notice. It was actually the noise that alerted us all to it use. I initially thought is was from the Fish Quay opposite until I remembered that the Fish Quay did not operate on a Sunday out of consideration of their neighbours and that includes ‘us’ over the water.

Continue reading Corporate Lead and Members of Parliament.

No Answers at All

In the Planning Manager’s response to my proposition that UK Docks had built their shed on River Drive some 3m tall and a meter wider than planned he replied that it was not. He cited an error on and unauthorised plan regarding the height and told a lie about the width:

The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings. The variation in the angle of the pillars is not considered to be material.

The drawings show the width as 12.2m but the shed is 13.1m wide. In fact the approved drawing shows that the shed is 2.7m higher than permitted. The drawing he quotes is not approved because of errors on it.
The proposition also raised four questions and the dialogue is shown below and I have added a commentary which shows he has evaded them all:

Continue reading No Answers at All

Misconduct of Councillor Anglin (email introduction)

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:40:40 -0000
Subject: Cllr A: Slipway Development – River Drive
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
To: “Angela Hamilton”
Cc: “Andrew Tilbury”
“Emma Lewell-Buck MP”
“Stephen Hepburn MP”
“Anne-marie Trevelyan MP”
“Cllr Anglin”
“Cllr McMillan”
“Gill Hayton (Solicitor)”
“Customer Advocates”
“Fiona Stanton”
“Graeme Watson”, Chair of TGA
Copy of main letter attachment.

Dear Angela

I have retrieved my original complaint from the ‘bin’ this morning. The mighty servers at Microsoft have been looking after it for me for all these years. I would resubmit it but would only get a response similar to the one from Gill Hayton, 12-Dec-18 or one like Emma relayed, 6-Sep-17, when had I pointed out another one of Cllrs Anglin’s transgressions: Continue reading Misconduct of Councillor Anglin (email introduction)

Misconduct of Councillor Anglin

The email (6 pages long) which can be downloaded using the button at the foot of the article, was made in response to an email from Councillor to residents about her visit with the MP to UK Docks on March 1st 2019. I only deal with the point about planning though it appears that UK Docks have spun her a yarn on nearly everything else, noise and leaving floodlights on overnight included. The relevant paragraph is:-

Continue reading Misconduct of Councillor Anglin

Missing Heights from UK Docks Drawing

The first detail is from a copy of a drawing 8296/2 retrieved from South Tyneside Archive in September 2013. It has been authorised by the T&WDC and although not particularly legible the height of the enclosure (cover) is shown as 118.8m. The 95.5m is a survey point some meters down from the road end survey height of 96.1m. The arithmetic gives a road end height of 12.7m

The second detail is from drawing supplied to the Council by UK Docks on September 6th 2013. It does not include the details shown above. They have been removed and the 500 had to remain a mystery for five months. It is the base height (95.500m) of the transverse section of the enclosure taken about 5m down the slipway from the landward end.

When the Council finally produced the copy of 8296/2 which was not cropped, it only went to confirm the height from the drawing produced by the agents – Maughan Reynolds Partnership Ltd – 8296/14. This gave a height of about 12.7m at the road end.

River End Detail of 8296/1B added in 2019:-

Missing height (12.5m) to hip of mansard from earlier drawing 8296/1A giving total height of 15.5m.

From Cllr Hamilton 6-Mar-19

Hello All

As you are aware myself and Emma Lewell-Buck MP met with UK Docks on Friday last week when I raised a number of concerns on behalf of residents.  I apologise for the slight delay in responding but I needed to clarify a couple of points with officers first to make sure I answered as many of your concerns as possible.

Background

UK Docks are the owners of a boat yard on River Drive which is the companies Headquarters.  The main services provided from the River Drive location include repairs for boats and small ships, a marine supply store, workshop facilities and base for staff who repair and maintain ships in various locations around the world.  There are no repairs to large ships or shipbuilding on the site as the dock is not large enough for this.  The business provides jobs in the local area and offers traineeships and apprenticeships.

Issues raised

Since UK Docks opened the site on River Drive a number of concerns have been raised by residents about the operation of the premises.  My response to each of these issues are below:

Containers: As I believe you are already aware the containers have now been moved.  Some of the containers will be removed from the site while others have been moved to another location on the site which does not overlook any houses.  There was a delay in these being moved due to delays in building works being completed (see below) but hopefully this issue is now resolved.

Jetties: Although there were proposals for jetties included in the plans there has never been any confirmation of if and when these would be built.  At the moment there are no plans to build the jetties.  I have asked UK Docks to let me know if this position changes.

Lighting: UK Docks confirmed that there were some problems with lighting when the office building first opened.  This was due to a fault with the automatic lights which were not turning off when the building was empty.  As I am sure you can imagine this was a concern for the company as well as local residents.  The fault has been fixed and I have been reassured that the only lights that are on overnight are security lights that are required on sites such as this.  Given that there is street lighting in the areas these lights are unlikely to have any adverse impact on the area.

Building works: The work to build the office building was delayed as the builders contracted to do this went out of business meaning UK Docks had to complete the work themselves using local contractors.  The main building work is now complete so hopefully there will be no further issues relating to this.

Car park:  UK Docks have told me that they will be carrying out the works on the car park over the next few weeks.  While this may mean there will be some increase in noise for a short period of time I have been assured that this will not be carried out early in the morning, late in the evening or on Sundays.  There may be a need to carry out some work on Saturday mornings but this will be kept to a minimum.  Once the car park has been completed this will create a gap between houses and the area where work is carried out which should assist in reducing noise levels.

Noise reduction: The noise reduction boards that are currently in place are not MDF but a heavy duty material used in the marine industry and are seen as the most effective in reducing noise.  UK Docks are not opposed to planting trees along the border and will consider this but there are a number of issues that need to be considered before this is agreed including:  type of trees; impact of planting trees on surround properties as it is important that anything planted does not cause problems for the foundations; and whether planting trees would help reduce noise levels.  This is something we can discuss with UK Docks once the car park is finished.

Privacy: Having visited the site and attended a meeting in the office building I don’t believe there are any issues.  There is one window that faces the rear of the houses on Harbour View but it is virtually impossible to see into either the houses or the gardens from this window due to the angle of the building and the window.  If you are still concerned please let me know and I will contact UK Docks to see if there is anything that can be done to provide you with additional reassurance.

Planning: While I understand the concerns you have raised about the buildings deviating from the original plans I cannot see any way to resolve this issue.  You have said that the building is slightly wider and higher than the original plans but I have not been able to find out anything about why this happened.  As I wasn’t a Councillor at the time I was not involved in any of the discussions so can’t confirm whether this was agreed before or after building works were completed and it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the building and it isn’t financially viable to remove and rebuild it. 

I believe that many of the issues may have been caused by a lack of communication between UK Docks, the Council and residents which is something I hope will not be an issue going forward.  UK Docks are happy to talk about any concerns going forward and, if you would like me to, I can facilitate discussions as and when required.  I realise this may not be resolve all of your past concerns but hopefully it will allow us to build a relationship to prevent similar problems arising in the future.

If you have any questions or need any more information please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Regards

Councillor Angela Hamilton

Beacon and Bents Ward


ST/1146/13

Details Page for Planning Application – ST/1146/13/COND

Site Address Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co Ltd And Harry Wilson Associates River Drive South Shields NE33 1LH

Application Progress Summary

  • Application Registered 08-10-2013
  • Comments Until 07-10-2013
  • Date of Committee
  • Decision Approve Details of Condition 14-10-2013
  • Appeal Lodged
  • Appeal Decision

Application Details

  • Application Number ST/1146/13/COND
  • Site Address Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co Ltd And Harry Wilson Associates River Drive South Shields NE33 1LH
  • Application Type Discharge of Conditions
  • Development Type Unknown
  • Proposal Discharge of Condition 3 – External Cladding, and Condition 4 – Fixing details of the mono-flex end panels – relating to previously approved Planning Application ST/0242/96UD
  • Current Status FINAL DECISION
  • Applicant Tyne Slipway & Engineering Ltd
  • Agent Maughan, Reynolds Partnership ltd
  • Wards Rekendyke
  • Location Co ordinates Easting 1 Northing1
  • Case Officer / Tel Peter Cunningham 0191 4247415

View of shed end – September 2013

Frames 3 meters taller and 1 meter wider than permitted.

One can work out that the shed is taller than planned because the drawings provided by the Council show both ends of the shed to be the same and the uphill one is wrong. The gradient is nearly 3 meters.

What UK Docks and the Principal Planning Officer did not realise was that when the pillars were made vertical they pointed directly to the footings and the width of the framework could be quite accurately measured from Green’s Place.

The width was found by sighting along the pillars and placing chalk marks on the railings and measuring the distance between them. Initially the downstream pillars showed up as more than an inch (30mm) wider than their partners because the railings were set at different angles to the shed.

I returned with a plumb line and a roofers square and eventually got round to producing a consistent result; the pillars were 700mm and the total width was 13.2m. The drawing states that the pillars and cross beam are a specified standard of 685 x 254mm and that was good enough for me, especially as the error overall, was less 1%.

The reason why my measurements were slightly more than the planning officer’s was what I call parallax error i.e. quite a small error in misalignment of the actual pillars would be magnified tenfold. The distance between pillars being 5.5m and the distance to Green’s Place being 50+m.
MD 4-Mar-19