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.
While the Planning Manage conceded that it was also too high, he did not inform the Enforcement Officer and UK Docks were allowed to fit their overhead crane in the extra 3 meters space and to complete their shed though it was not fit for purpose. Where was the Building Inspector when he was needed!
It would be more accurate for her to have said, no enforcement action was taken as it was not in UK Docks interest.
She goes on to say that:- “This decision and the reasoning behind it was communicated to residents by the Council.” In response to the Petition the Head of Development Services had reverted to the view of his Principal Panning Officer and that was that it had been approved and one only has to look the approved drawing 8296/2 to see that it is not true.
She concludes with: “I understand that all complaints procedures regarding this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.” which overlooks the fact that:
- the council continue to hide the fact that the shed is 3m too tall;
- that South Tyneside Council misled the Ombudsman to cover up the misuse of the complaints procedure.
- that in turn had been used to cover up the lack of Building Control.
A side issue:- I prefer to use the approved drawing made by the Agents in August and approved by the Council in October 2013 because it would have included any approved amendments. No-one to has ever disputed the calculated dimensions of the river end of the enclosure 8296/14 or that it had been approved.
It matters not to which drawing one refers, 8296/2 or ../14 they both indicate that the shed is nearly 3m taller than permitted. Planning Enquiries were informed of this on 10-Jan-14 and did nothing about it, except to remove the complaint from there record.
- Broadcast to one and all, with a brief history and explanation of how UK Docks had got away with a shed that is nearly three meters taller than permitted:-
- /We also knew that the shed had been built nearly 3m taller than permitted before the 5th frame went up but the Council said otherwise and misinformed the Ombudsman about it. The reason for this is now known: firstly to hide misconduct and the second to deflect enquiries and they had been doing that for 5 years./
- This includes attachments:-
—– Forwarded messages
From Nicola Robason Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:56:34
From: Mick Dawson Sent: 05 December 2019 17:32
From: “Customer Advocates” Date: Fri, September 16, 2016 10:42
From: Mick Dawson Sent: 03 September 2016 07:27
The last two are in Q and A pair and remain unresolved and concern the Council’s Corporate Lead.
- My day starts badly with an incomplete message sent by mistake to Nicola:- If you look at the background . . . . and then no more but I am alerted to an arrival of an incoming mail while I am still composing the ‘background’ off-line which I abandon because as you can see in the email that she has repeated that matters have been exhausted.
RE: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck
From: Nicola Robason
Date: 26/02/2020 (09:00:57 GMT)
Dear Mr. Dawson,
I note the emails sent to me and copied to me dated 31 January and 24 February.
I confirm that Mr. Harding has now retired from the Council, which is why his email won’t be active.
My email dated 19 December 2019 set out my position on this matter. It remains the case that all complaints procedures relating to this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.
Head of Corporate & External Affairs and Monitoring Officer
South Tyneside Council.
Nicola still insists that matters have been exhausted and now we are not only looking at the abuse of the complaints system by the Council but the misconduct of the staff of the MP for South Shields’ office. There is no justification for maintaining her position held on 19-Dec-19. None at all.
- It is a hollow threat from Simon Buck as both he and Mr Palmer have shown their actions rather than words that they are determining what their MP sees. I say hollow because it was Mr Palmer introduced the word vexatious in a phone call on 13-Jan-20. In all my correspondence with the Council over the years that was the first time I had heard it. It did however remind me your Corporate Lead but I have checked my correspondence with her and not even she accused me of vexatious attacks. I also think Mr Buck means libellous rather than slanderous attacks.
- The response from Nicola is understandable but from Mr Buck less so but it looks like they are anticipating a complaint to the Ombudsman both are trying the same trick played on me, get their misinformation in first, so I write to both:- Thank you both for your emails this morning before you go any further I suggest you both read what I said to the Monitoring Officer and what lead [up to it]. Note that he, Mr Harding
I believeat that time, never even acknowledged the receipt of it.
I shall be responding to you both in due course and until Mr Palmer removes me from the blacklist that he has created I keep on repeating to all that his actions remind me more of coercive control than anything else.
- I write:- “Dear Nicola, I should have written and thanked you for confirming that UK Docks have never been granted permission for the shed we now see on River Drive. The question remains why did they tell Councillor Hamilton and the MP for South Shields some time in March or April 2019 that they had permission for it” and I invite Nicola to look again at what I had sent her on 05-Dec-15.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Conclusion ~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was probably because UK Docks were asked to produce evidence that their shed had been built to approved plans and they were unable to provide any was the reason why they said that they had been given permission retrospectively for it.
Nobody has provided a more plausible answer and we now know that to have been a lie. The question now becomes why when the Council knew it had not been built to approved plans did they not ask for the shed to be rebuilt to the approved plans.