Cll A: Figure 1

Note that the overall width of the plan is 12,200 or 12.2m.

Elevation: the centre of the dimension is about where the 1 of the 12500 is, and the 3000 finishes about half way to that or a quarter and 3 is a quarter of twelve, not fifteen. The 3m should therefore be included in the 12.5m and not added to it . The road elevation is about 12.5m or more correctly 12.8m (15.5m less the gradient of 2.7m) and will be to the end of time, regardless of what South Tyneside Council tell the Ombudsman. Note that this drawing is an amendment to 1A made in Feb 1997. It is the drawing that was presented to the Ombudsman by the Council. I presented 8296/14 which includes a scale drawing (1:100) of the river gable end which is 16m tall.

8296/1B was paired with a copy of 8296/2 with the dimensions on its landward end removed but one could still calculate that they whould have given a height of 12.8m from the gradient between the top and bottom of its ends on the slipway.

This entry was posted in LGO, Misinformation/Misrepresentation. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Cll A: Figure 1

  1. Pingback: Critique of Legal Monitoring Officer – 2017 | Harbour View

  2. Pingback: Misconduct of Cllr A: 27-Mar-19 | STC and the LGO

  3. Mick Dawson says:

    Drawings 1A – April 1996 shows both ends as 15.5m and on a gradient of 2.7m would mean that the roof should slope down towards the river (1B, February 1997, did not always give the full height).
    It does not, so one of the dimensions must be wrong. It is the road end and this can be checked by looking at the authorised drawing 8296/2 or the drawing 8296/14 approved by the Council in October 2013 (1A/B are not approved ).
    These were not made available to anyone complaining about the shed till after the fateful meeting at the Town Hall on 25-Nov-13.

  4. Mick Dawson says:

    I originally used an ordinary ruler and slide rule to calculate this when I wrote to the Planning Manager: “As I pointed out to you at the meeting held on 8th July the drawing shows a height of 15.5m at both ends. If you look again at the drawing you will see that the 12.5m height to the hip at the River Drive end is given incorrectly. It should by scaling be 9.75m giving a height of 12.75m and not as Mr Mansbridge says (15.5m).”
    When the Senior Planning Officer reported this to the Ombudsman he neglected to inform her of the first part of the statement
    30. Mr Dawson says the shed is also 3 metres higher than shown in the 1996 plans. He says a scale measurement from the plans shows a total height of 12.75 metres at one end of the shed.

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.