Denial by Planning Manager

The first misrepresentation is the inclusion of 8296/1A in the section on Approved Drawings and the second one is quoting the incorrect dimension (12.5m – it should be 9.8m) on the landward of the cover.
The denial which occurs towards the end of the email is emphasised in italics and a criticism has been added in blue.

From: Gordon Atkinson <Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Sent: 15 January 2014 13:35
To: Mr M Dawson
Subject: RE: Slipway Development – Work Continues [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Dawson
For consistency and in an effort to be comprehensive, I have provided below the details which the Council established in September last year when work on the development re-commenced, with additional response to your further questions.
Development Permitted in 1996
The approved development is ‘erection of shelter to allow boat repairs to be carried out under cover’. Planning permission was granted on 8th July 1996 by the former Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (TWDC), although the date of issue of the decision notice is given as 28th August 1996. There is no explanation as to why over seven weeks passed between the date of the decision and the date the notice was issued.
The permission was subject to the conditions shown on the decision notice. Work commenced to lay foundations and this was inspected by South Tyneside Council’s Building Control service on 26th February 2001. A further inspection on 22nd May 2001 showed that the foundations were fully concreted. They were not laid in accordance with the planning permission – they are a meter wider and 5.5m longer than planned. Again EIR 17772-Summary does not show any measurements of the size of the base being made at that time.
Approved Drawings
The following are details of the relevant drawings in the Council’s possession.
The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A. That shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the landward end. At the riverside end the foundations are shown as 2.656m lower due to the gradient of the slipway. The structure would therefore be that much higher at the riverside end. 8296/1B is the same drawing captioned ‘Foundations Amended. All Frames Identical’ – he does not say that these prints are approved, see below, and he has failed to mention that drawing shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the river end as well.
A second drawing was received by TWDC on 4th June 1996 from the developer’s agent. That is numbered 8296/2. This shows longitudinal and transverse sections through the site to illustrate the relationship between the proposed building and the gradient of the site, the riverside revetment and existing buildings on the site. This drawing is stamped ‘Approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation date 8/7/96 22/8/96’. There is no explanation as to why two dates are shown-the first is the date permission was granted and the second is six days earlier than the date of issue of the decision notice.
A further drawing was received by TWDC on 9th August 1996 from the developer’s agent. That is numbered 8296/4 and shows elevations of the proposed building. There is a note attached to that drawing which says that the design of the main sides has been amended to incorporate windows to break up the bulk. Apart from indicating the appearance of the external cladding and showing windows, this drawing adds little to 8296/1A. This drawing is stamped ‘Approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation date 8/7/96’; that date must refer to the date permission was granted as the drawing itself was not received until some weeks later.
…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.
Conditions on the Planning Permission
With regards to condition 2, this does not require any submission by the developer – it states: “2. The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.”
Drawing no. 8296/14 is a recent drawing submitted to discharge condition 4 and it shows the strip curtain doors fixing details and 8296/14 (../14) includes a drawing of the river gable end:
• that was approved 14th October 2013 – see Decision Notice;
• drawn to a scale of 1:100 giving a height of 15.6m.

In answer to your four final questions:
1 While basic details of the 1996 application can be accessed on the Planning Explorer website (reference ST/0242/96//UD) drawings and other details are available only for much more recent applications.
2 The details of the approved drawings are given above – note that ../1A and ../1B should rightly be excluded.
3 Condition 2 does not require any submission by the developer but is does require him to build to permitted plans
4 In 1996 the Council was not the Planning Authority; that was the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (TWDC). The Council received applications on behalf of TWDC.
I trust that this assists you.
Gordon Atkinson
Planning Manager
South Tyneside Council, Town Hall & Civic Offices,

One thought on “Denial by Planning Manager”

  1. In the observation that the slipway cover was in breach of condition 2, drawing 8296/14, provided by the Agents was used because it was considered more reliable than that of UK Docks:
    • it was approved;
    • it was not ambiguous about the height – the drawing provided by UK Docks implied a roof having the same slope as the slipway but it is flat.

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.