Category Archives: UK Docks

UKD Sundays

UKDocks – Sunday Working

The Second Condition states: The development to which
this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance
with the approved plans and specifications

The basic reason for the existence of the Website the is because, the development or shed to which that condition applies, is nearly 3m taller than planned and the Council have done nothing but lie or stifle any talk about its height since the first frames were put up in September 2013.

Think of a builder adding an extra floor to a four story block of flats and you will get the picture of the deviation from the approved plan.

UK Docks got away with the breach of the 2nd condition by giving plans, to the planning officer responsible, that falsely supported their claim that they had approval for it but it contained a fundamental error. When this error was pointed out to the Council, the planning officer switched to a plan retrieved from the Council’s archive which bore the same fault
This eventually led South Tyneside Council giving misinformation to
the Local Government Ombudsman by a Senior Planning Officer of South Tyneside Council.

The second condition has been quoted and explained because it
follows that the shed ought not to be used until it is met. There
were numerous complaints while the shed was under construction,
September 2013 to June 2014, about this but they were ignored or
worse. They were contradicted.

The fifth condition states: 5. No works, other than the launching or beaching of vessels, shall take place within the shelter between the hours of 7pm and 7am Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless any written consent of variation is previously given by the Development Corporation as local planning authority.

When the Council received complaints about the breaches of the fifth condition they were dismissed as allegations even when confronted photographic evidence:

Sunday Working – 18 December 2016 at 08:33

In Detail:-
When UK Docks applied to build an enclosure (shed) covering the slipway off River Drive the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (the Authority) laid down 2 conditions in such a manner as to restrict any expansion of the business being carried out at the time of the application (1996).

The fifth condition still applies regardless of whether the shed had been built with, or without permission, and will do so until UK Docks ask for it to reconsidered retrospectively. It so happens that it has been built without planning permission.

In a complaint, solely about the breach of the 2nd condition, the  Ombudsman included a comment about the 5th: #16. The Authority’s view is that condition 5 should not have been imposed because the site already had the benefit of unrestricted working hours. I cannot comment on this. I do not know how the business operated in 1996 and it is too long
ago for the Ombudsman to investigate

She has replaced “The Authority”, i.e. The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation, with a planning officer’s opinion and secondly she has replaced ‘take place within the shelter’ with ‘site’. It looks like plans for enabling UK Docks to use their slipway on Sundays were being prepared by the Council as early as March 2015 when the Ombudsman’s first draft was issued – #16 confirms that she had been given two misrepresentations about the 5th condition by someone in the Council.

The Planning Officer, Gary Simmonette did not register the
that UK Docks were in breach of the 5th condition
on Sunday, 18-Dec-16, and then misinformed Customer Advocacy (CA) about it. He put them in the unworthy position of having to accuse the complainants and I was not the only one, of making allegations.

When confronted with the evidence to show that we were not making
allegations CA chose to ignore it and to hide the fact that planning had not acknowledged that UK Docks were in breach of the fifth condition on 18 December 2016 it was merged with the second.

It was the noise emanating from what was rapidly becoming a shipyard that woke everyone up, or made everyone aware the slipway was being put to use on a Sunday and no-one been given notice. As CA were claiming it was a noise issue, I added a complaint about the noise as well.

On the 7th February Mr Burrell, Technical Officer, Environmental
Health & Resilience closed Noise Nuisence Complaint 272189 so there is no record of the shed being in use on a Sunday.

On the 14th of February it was disclosed by CA that it was not
raised by as a result of the complaint but by another person and not as a result of the noise that alerted us to the use of the shed on Sunday, 18-Dec-16.

Alison who wrote on behalf of CA was obviously not aware of an attempt by the Council to enforce silence on the matter of UK Docks use of the shed on a Sunday. These further restrictions on your contact will come into effect immediately should you continue to email the Council with
historic matters.

Corporate Lead, Mrs Haley Johnson had repeated, 17th January 2017, a threat she had made 6 months earlier and in doing that she also had to conflate the 5th condition with the 2nd.
Together, with Messrs Simmonette and Burrell, she had conspired to deny that UK Docks were using the shed on a Sunday. They were not slipping or launching a vessel.

I had anticipated that something like this would happen as, they
had already misinformed the Local Government Ombudsman about the
height of the shed so I involved a Councillor to act as as witness as early as 9th January.

Councillor Anglin, who was tasked with helping expose an obvious
breach of the fifth condition simply walked away, saying: I obviously cannot be part of any actions whilst claims and allegations are being investigated.

Messrs Simmonette and Burrell denied that that UK Docks were using
their shed on a Sunday. They were being extremely economical with the
truth and it appears that they coerced Ms Hoy and Mrs Johnson to
cover up for their misdemeanours.

The ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’ have certainly been cast aside by the first two officers named but one must ask why were the women were protecting them.

Councillor Anglin had cast the Nolan Principles  aside some years before when he told us that the shed was ‘legal’ in December 2013.

Mick Dawson
4 October 2021



Nicola Robason: “I can confirm that the Council as Local Planning Authority has not received a retrospective planning application from UK Docks. – Excuse for Inaction, 19-Dec-20, in which she says:
The Council has recognised that the development of the shed on the site is unauthorised but concluded some time ago that no enforcement action would be taken as this was not in the public interest.

It was pointed out to the Council in January 2014 that the shed was not only to wide (1m) but too high (3m) but they denied it.  They then accepted that it was too wide a month later but continued to dispute the height for another month. Continue reading Monitoring

STC and the LGO

Originally published 8-Jul-16 this letter has been republished in full for the attention of all because the Council position has not changed since. They maintain that the shed is built to the approved height despite evidence to the contrary; authorised drawing 8296/2.

He did not reply but asked his Corporate Lead to present an alternative view to avoid the questions raised in the penultimate paragraph:- I suggest that you ask your legal department to review the original complaint of the 10th January 2014 and the correspondence following it up to 13th February and ask them to answer the simple question, What is the planned height of the shed? and the for you to answer the fundamental question: “As the applicant has not discharged condition 2 why is there no retrospective planning application?

Neither question was answered. The Corporate Lead replied on his behalf saying: "Dear Mr Dawson -Thank you for your letter to Martin Swales, Chief Executive dated 8 July 2016, requesting matters related to your previous complaint to be raised as a new complaint, I manage the process and staff that support customer complaints and compliments. Your letter has therefore been forwarded to me to consider and respond."
She went on to say that there was no evidence of misinformation having been given to the Ombudsman.

The ‘New’ Complaint:- Continue reading STC and the LGO

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

Job No 274396 (EIR for Screen Prints)


Copied to my mailbox because the Council tend to ignore complaints they do not wish to answer and the original complaint will no longer exist. If they do respond, it will not be to answer the question or help resolve a complaint and experience has shown that the response is at best irrelevant but more likely to be a misrepresentation and a fraudulent one at that. This happens when dealing with corrupt bodies such as South Tyneside Council or the Local Government Ombudsman and it is a wise precaution to make a secure copy of the original complaint. Continue reading Job No 274396 (EIR for Screen Prints)

Dear Monitoring Officer 7-May-2019

The whole point of the original complaint, which I have attached, made when UK Docks restarted work on the enclosure in January 2014, was that they had not applied for retrospective planning permission and as far as I am aware they had not before they applied for permission to extend it, 20-05-2014. You can confirm that this is true.

Angela and therefore Julie have been misinformed by UK Docks and you can confirm that also. To it bluntly, whoever told them that UK Docks had submitted a retrospective application was lying. Continue reading Dear Monitoring Officer 7-May-2019

The Misrepresentation: 13-Jan-20

That UK Docks have permission for their shed.

Event List:

Hi Mick,
I appreciate your arguments, but this far down the line there is
nothing we can do. Angela has talked to several relevant people,
and the point is the council gave retrospective planning. Which
they are allowed to do. We are working with Angela to negate
further issues with the site. It’s all we can do now: limit noise
and any other issues If they occur. Regards Julie
‘Dishonesty at the Town Hall’ is published. A copy sent to Emma’s Office elicited the response “Please note that if you do not provide your full address no further action will be taken on your case.” the first such message for many years.

Continue reading The Misrepresentation: 13-Jan-20

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.