Covering Email to Burying the Truth :
Burying the Truth From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 10/08/2021 (07:48:31 GMT) To: Nicola Robason Cc: Alison Hoy,Paula Abbott, Hayley Johnson, George Mansbridge, John Rumney, email@example.com
Some years ago I came to the conclusion that there was little likelihood of UK Docks getting the longer shed if they had applied for retrospective planning for their taller one at the same time as we started to complain about it so a scheme was hatched where they would build the taller shed, hide the fact that it was nearly 3m too tall and extend it later.
They also had to hide the fact that they had laid the footings for the extra frame in 2001 but things went wrong with this scheme when the approved plans were recovered a few days after construction began and they were told to stop work on it, which they did, as soon as the structure had been made stable.
The second thing that went wrong for them was that they had asked their Agents, Maughan Reynolds Partnership Ltd to produce drawings to meet the 3rd and 4th conditions while omitting to tell them that they were about to breach the second condition a soon as they hoisted the first frame a few weeks later. The Agents had of course referred back to the original drawings approved by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation when the provided plans and drawings for the squarish shed.
There should have been a third thing to go wrong and that was the resurrection of the TGA but that failed because amongst other things, it remained under the control of the Local Masonic Lodge and I say that because there is no way they would let control of it pass to back to a residents group regardless of either of our views on UK Docks shed.
Whatever the views, that and some other external pressure gave the Principal Planning Officer the reason to pass off some unauthorised plans as approved ones to hide the fact that the clad shed would be nearly 3m taller than planned at a meeting arranged by a Councillor to resolve the issue.
He took no minutes of that meeting and that allowed UK Docks restart work on their shed but they resolved things by making (it) a conflict between the Council and the people they are paid to serve rather than take further enforcement action.
The fact remains that the shed is now, not only taller and wider than planned but longer as well and we are told to be quiet about it. I have taken the trouble to explain how instead of admitting that the shed was bigger than planned the Council chose to accuse us of making allegations.
Please see the attached file ‘Burying the Truth’ (S and C Part 9) and we can take it from there.
I make no apology for getting back to you about the Shed.
In my letter to Paula, you can see that various planning officers were using Customer Advocacy to avoid answering any question about the approved height of the shed. It was titled the Second Phase of the Shed’s Development, and posted as Shed and Corruption – Part 8.
A summary of Part 8 is given here to illustrate the share volume of misinformation generated and it began with the response made by Emma Anderson in February 2015:
1. The Planning Manager had misinformed her to hide the fact that the shed was taller than permitted;
2. A Planning Officer hid the fact that the shed was in breach of the second condition so that anyone who followed him was able to support any application to extend it;
3. Proof that the Council were misinforming the Ombudsman to hide malpractice in Building Control and the Planning Office;
4. Denying the truth by shooting the messenger;
5. Hiding the fact that the shed was in use on a Sunday other than launching or slipping a vessel;
6. Complaint to the Chief Executive about the misconduct of his staff that was ignored;
7. Councillor Anglin dodges his responsibilities for the third time;
8. Conflation of complaints by Customer Advocacy;
9. Rigging of list of unanswered emails by Customer Advocacy.
Points 1 and 2 have been simplified. In the original letter to the Monitoring Officer they were: 1. The Planning Manager gave 5 pieces of misinformation, most of which found their way into the Ombudsman’s findings a month later and 2. A Planning Officer hid the fact that the shed was in breach of the second condition so he could support UK Docks application to extend it onto foundations laid in 2001.
There are also some minor corrections to clarify the main argument.
If you were to ask me to single out the best example of corrupt practice I would single out No. 7 because I explained to Cllr Anglin exactly what was happening – but Customer Advocates replied on behalf of Cllr Anglin.
The Principal Planning Officer was informed that the shed was wider than permitted as early as December 2013 but he denied it by saying that that the base and height of the structure are compliant. They may have been compliant with non approved drawings but not with any approved ones and that has remained the case since the first frame was erected in September 2013. Notice the use of [PROTECT], in his denial and that he wished to close the matter.
The Planning Manager was no better than his Principal Planning Officer, when he wrote four 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.
This was simply a lie, it remains so today, and while he conceded that he had lied when he said to me a month later: the current structure is not built to approved plans, he told his manager something different.
His response was that the current structure is not built to approved plans. That was good enough for me but what I had not realised his responses were so packed out with misrepresentations that one had to have a thorough understanding of drawings to be able to challenge him on any of them. This was why I thanked him for his concession on the height when I let him know of our demands after our meeting on March 3rd 2014.
The Head of Development Services, Mr Mansbridge, was presented with the choice of agreeing with the protestors, there was at least one other than I who had reached beyond the first stage, or backing his errant staff and he chose the latter which put the person appointed to respond at Stage 3 in a similarly bad place.