The Council and the Ombudsman were actually more subtle about the extra width of the shed and it is here that one can detect the almost seamless join between the last stage of the Council’s Complaints Procedure the Ombudsman’s Findings. Please note that the Council’s Stage 3 no longer mentions the height and says: I am satisfied that when George Mansbridge made the decision on behalf of the Council that it was not expedient to take planning enforcement action, he was fully aware of the discrepancies noted in your email with regards to the width of the structure and the variation in pillar angle.
When we get to the Local Government Ombudsman it is becomes clear that any consideration of the pillar angle had disappeared and the extra width ended up as a non-material consideration. I will just simply remind you that it was expedient to take enforcement action because of the existence of drawing 8296/2. It confirms that I, and not Mr Mansbridge, who was telling the truth about the shed.
He still owes the residents an apology for lying to them in his response to their Petition.
I will now deal with your first accusation: • persistent refusal to accept a decision; persistent refusal to accept explanations;
You are asking me to accept the Ombudsman’s Decision when it is full of Council misinformation and misrepresentations when you, or rather your Manager(s) have refused to acknowledge the fact that the shed is 2.7m taller than planned for 7 years.
To counter the duplicity of the Planning Manager, Mr Atkinson, I revealed the truth about the shed when I wrote to Mr Mansbridge on the 4th April 2014: To cap it all there was an article in the local paper on Apr 1st showing most flattering photograph of the offending shed saying that it was only 36ft high. The author of the article may have got away with saying that in September but not now. You should know that it is over 50 ft high and that is what we have been saying for months now. It’s planned height is about 42ft.
To avoid admitting that we (the residents) were correct he did not answer the email but passed it back to his Planning Officers: You have made it clear in your letter of 2nd May that you were not happy that I referred your email of 4th April 2014 on to my Planning Department. I apologise if you feel that was inappropriate, however, this is required under the Council’s complaints procedure and allows for the appropriate escalation of cases to Head of Service level should the operational department not provide a satisfactory response.
As I explained in Shed and Corruption – Part 2, Mr Mansbridge’ Stage 2 response was a complete fabrication written to progress what was said to be our complaint, headlong towards the Ombudsman. The main reason for him overwrite complaint 248789 with 253539 was to cover over the fact that the Planning Manager had conceded that the shed was 2.7m taller than planned – please see first reference at the top of page 2.
Before we look in detail at the Ombudsman’s Findings, 15-Apr-15, please note that in her first draft the height of the shed was not mentioned. Nor does it appear the Council’s last response.
My letter of the 7th July said: On the 5th Sept 2013 work started at UK Docks premises on River Drive to build a slipway shed length 22.3m, width 13.1m and height at end facing River Drive 15.5m. On 27th Sept an application was received in the planning office from the agents for UK Docks, Messrs Maughan, Reynolds Partnership Ltd to meet conditions of a previously granted application ST/0242/96 for a slipway shed length 22.3m, width 12.2m and height at end facing River Drive 12.5m.
Micheal I have experienced a similar issues with council complaint corruption. Then abusing contact restrictions to close down and silence the victim.
Hi Paul, thank you for your support.
Hi Paul,
Don’t worry, she’s what my mother would have called a nasty piece of work and I have marked your emails as spam. I get up to half a dozen a day.
I’d forgotten to include her in the list of Cc’s so I used the opportunity of commenting on Part 8 to pass a copy of it to her.
When she first slagged us off in 2015 she did not copy me or anyone else in and I did not find out about it for six months:
The matters and allegations raised by your constituent are well documented and have been subject to a number of enquiries from Mr Dawson and other local residents over a lengthy period of time.
As I do not want to be accused of hypocrisy, I like to make sure that she is aware my views.
The Council are operating their own Complaints Procedure corruptly. Is aking them why they persist in doing it unreasonable bevaviour?
Defined in Section 7: Complaints Policy 2019v1.5 :
7. Managing unacceptable and/or unreasonable behaviour South Tyneside Council is committed to providing an inclusive and accessible service for all of our customers, but we also need to ensure we provide a safe working environment for our staff.