| 06/09/13 |
Mr Cunningham refers Local Resident to the Complaints Procedure when asked about the height to quote “Has the revised height of 15.5metres been approved or is it in breach of the 1996 Planning approval? |
| 09/09/13 |
Mr Cunningham refers Local Resident to the Complaints Procedure when asked about the height to quote “Has the revised height of 15.5metres been approved or is it in breach of the 1996 Planning approval? |
| 09/09/13 |
Shields Gazette reports that the shed is 36ft (11m) high. |
| 10/09/13 |
Shields Gazette repeats that the shed is 36ft (11m) high and work started in 2001; |
| 25/11/13 |
Local Residents are told that the structure is ‘legal’ at a meeting with the Principal Planning Manager; |
| 20/12/13 |
Mr Cunningham says base and height of the structure are compliant; |
| 13/01/14 |
Mr Cunningham repeats Council message of 25th Nov 2013, the shed is legal when we know it is a meter wider than planned; |
| 15/01/14 |
Mr Atkinson says dimensions are compliant when they are not; |
| 28/01/14 |
Mr Atkinson make an erroneous statement about which end of the shed is 15m high and refers me to the corporate complaints procedure if I’m not happy; |
| 01/04/14 |
Shields Gazette repeats misinformation of 9th and 10th Sept; |
| 04/04/14 |
Mr Mansbridge acknowledges receipt but does not answer or deny comments about the misinformation being fed to the local press; |
| 02/05/14 |
Email to Mr Mansbridge about abuse of complaints system ignored. |
| 02/05/14 |
Mr Mansbridge in response to Petition uses unsound drawing to contradict admission of the Planning Manager on 13th Feb; |
| 09/05/14 |
Mr Mansbridge ignores complaint that staff are not responding to questions about the height of the shed; |
| 02/06/14 |
Letter to Residents – Mr Mansbridge uses unsound drawing to claim there are no material differences apart from the width, contradicting admission of the Planning Manager on 13th Feb; |
| 02/06/14 |
Stage 2 complaint – Mr Mansbridge jumps to stage 2, misrepresents drawing, change of complaint reference and avoids answering emails 4-Apr, 2-May & 9th May; |
| 08/07/14 |
Mr Mansbridge did not bring drawing 8296/14 to meeting arranged to discuss it; |
| 08/07/14 |
Customer Advocacy use unsound LGO decision to silence debate on the height question; |
| 24/09/14 |
Stage 3 complaint – Customer Advocates repeat Stage 2 misinterpretation of drawing; |
| 30/09/15 |
Mr Simmonette did not respond to a query about the planned height of the existing shed [laid off to Customer Advocates]; |
| 04/12/15 |
Mr Simmonette did not respond to a query about the planned height of the existing shed [laid off to Customer Advocates]; |
| 07/12/15 |
Mr Simmonette did not respond to a query about the planned height of the existing shed [ laid off to Customer Advocates] |
| 09/12/15 |
Customer Advocacy use unsound LGO decision to silence debate on the height question; |
| 08/07/16 |
CEO Delegates on question of Height and condition 2 |
| 01/08/16 |
Corporate Lead Strategy and Performance ignores question of Height and condition 2 |
