Cllr A: Summary – covering minute.

Dear Angela and Everybody,

I’ve used this format of a covering minute and .pdf copy of the letter for a few reasons:

  • it is neat and I can sign and print the .pdf copy if anybody wants one for legal purposes;
  • anyone seriously interested can check the URLs to confirm that what I have said is true as it contradicts a lot of what the Council have told you over the last five years;
  • stress that the meeting was downgraded from a formal one to obtain evidence that the shed had been approved to a chat about the second phase of the development;
  • stress that the only approved drawing from 1996 shows that the shed is 2.7m lower than built and anyone who tells you otherwise is repeating a fraudulent misrepresentation.

I forwarded the stream below to Melanie because I thought we ought to join forces and complain about Planning Officer Cunningham’s handling of our complaints over the previous four months and though we never got round to doing it, the mighty servers at Microsoft have been looking after the trail for all these years.

The reason that no complaint was raised against him was because UK Docks resumed work on the shelter by fitting a travelling crane after the winter break so I concentrated on getting the work stopped and raised a formal complaint that the shed had not been built to plan and was passed from one body to another till it got to the Local Government Ombudsman.

You can see that a Senior Planning Officer told the Ombudsman that the extra width was not material when in fact it had been material since 2001, which means that it was still material when Mr Cunningham measured it in September 2013, I measured it 2 months later and when a formal complaint was raised about it in January 2014 and was still  when the Ombudsman was told that it was “non-material”.

It appears that Cllr Anglin was party to the extra width being hidden from all except the Council (and I include all the Ward Councillors) and half a dozen of the TGA Committee but the extra height is a different matter. The seeds of the deception were sown when it was said that the built height been approved in 1966 (see item 4 in the list above) at the meeting of 25th November 2013 but it was the Planning Manager who reseeded the fraudulent  misrepresentation after the formal complaint had gone in.

The attached summary is mostly to set thing right as there are rumours going round that I am attempting to ‘change history’ by writing to you. Whoever is spreading these rumours is being a bit like Trump, don’t you think?

Kind regards,
Michael.

2 thoughts on “Cllr A: Summary – covering minute.”

  1. Mick
    I am not sure how I got a copy of your email as I was not in the list of recipients?
    Anyway I would like to thank you for all the work you have put in about this issue.
    There is no other member that could have collected and collated the details as you have done.
    I must confess that I do not understand why some of the basic information (length, heights, drawings) could not be proved without further discussion by taking a number of persons from both sides and carrying out the measurements and checking of drawing numbers.
    Again I would like to offer my thanks, for the great amount of time you spent dealing with this matter.
    Paul Hepburn

    1. Hi Paul,
      I noticed when I complained about the Haigs’ conversion of their two flats into a three story town house that the Council were prepared to delete or not publish plans and drawings on the planning portal so that the complaints procedure was compromised in the favour of the developer. They were also prepared to misinform the Ombudsman so that my complaint came to nothing and that the Ombudsman was complicit in this. The Haigs’ plans were promoted by their neighbour Graham Watson who also converted his house into one with three stories. Both of Haig and he are Freemasons and I fear that the Council and the Local Government Ombudsman has been infected by the ‘vested interest’ bug that surrounds that organisation. They are masters at steering Committees into decisions that profit themselves and I give you the TGA as an example.
      Cheers Mick

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.