Shed and Corruption – Part 15

Date: 09/05/22, 09:16:44 BST
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
To: Jonathan Tew
Cc: Nicola Robason, Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, Alison Hoy, Hayley Johnson, John Rumney
Attachment: Detail-SandC-15.pdf (64 KB)

Dear Mr Tew,

Please accept my apologies for not including you in the circulation of my the email/letter of the 29th April to your Monitoring Officer about the height of UK Docks’ shed on their slipway off River Drive. I was about to correct it when I received a response from Alison Hoy, your Information and Feedback Officer, within 15 minutes of sending shed and Corruption – Part 14.

Ms Hoy’s response appears to answer the question posed at the end of the email and it seems to be the officer in charge of Customer Advocacy if it is not herself:-

Mr Swales had retired by the time of Paula’s false accusations so who asked them to be made. I believe and sincerely hope it was not you.

To save me sending S and C – Part 14 again, your Monitoring Officer, Ms Hoy or Mrs Johnson should be able to pass you a copy.

I had hoped to be giving details of the exchange of correspondence I had with the MP’s Office Staff in Part 15 but the ill considered interruption meant I had to reinforce many of the points raised in the previous episodes or parts.

It looks to me that a decision was made to hide the fact that the shed was nearly 3m taller than planned so that UK Docks could get their longer shed by avoiding  having to make a planning application retrospectively.

It meant that someone had to give misinformation to the Ombudsman and because they were caught doing so, a scheme was hatched by your predecessor to first malign the good citizens of South Shields and then to misuse a section of your staff code that deals with unacceptable behaviour: e.g. aggressive, abusive or offensive language or behaviours to discredit me. *

I had hoped that some reforms might be taking place, particularly when when I had a response from Leah on behalf of Ms Robason on 24th December 2020:

Thank you for your email regarding complaints you have raised with the Council. I am writing to acknowledge receipt and confirm that this matter will be looked into and you will receive a response week commencing 4th January.

I heard nothing until Paula Abbot’s email of the 29th April 2021 prompted, I believe by my review of the timeline that I had shared with Customer Advocacy since the Summer of 2014, Shed and Corruption – Parts 1 and 2. Sadly Ms Hoy’s extension of misuse of Section 7 allows your staff to say whatever they like about UK Dock’s shed and myself for another year. Please see Shed and Corruption – Part 15 (Detail) which I have attached.

I hope you have enough control to put a stop to the corruption and I wish you luck.

Kind regards
Michael Dawson

* to discredit me –  was missing from the original email.

The original post, Shed and Corruption – Part 15 can be downloaded but for those who just wish to know the current state of affairs, please scroll down.

Dear Mr Tew,
Shed and Corruption – Part 15 (detail)
Please accept my apologies for not including you in the circulation of my the email/letter of the 29th April to your Monitoring Officer about the height of UK Docks’ shed on their slipway off River Drive. I was about to correct it when I received a response from Alison Hoy, your Information and Feedback Officer, within 15 minutes of sending shed and Corruption – Part 14.
Ms Hoy’s response appears to answer the question posed at the end of the email and it seems to be is the officer in charge of Customer Advocacy if it is not herself:-

Mr Swales had retired by the time of Paula’s false accusations so who asked them to be made. I believe and sincerely hope it was not you.

To save me sending S and C- Part 14 again, Ms Hoy or Mrs Johnson should be able to pass you a copy.
Her response refers to two complaints, one about the ‘Ponderosa’ on Greens Place and the other about UK Docks’ shed. The first, about 71 Greens Place, was laid off to the Ombudsman to cover for the fact that the planning officer responsible had not followed the SDP9 guidelines while the Council maintained that she had followed them.
The issue was complicated by the fact that the overbuild was not reported by the building inspector so the Senior Enforcement Officer was able to ignore it.
The second complaint was about UK Dock’s shed which was 3m taller than planned but it had been reported in September 2013 that a spokesman for them said:- “All I can say is that we have been through all the controls with the planners, and the work meets all the necessary legal requirements. All we are doing is going ahead with the previous planning permission.”
The work may have met legal requirements but it clearly was not going ahead with any planning permission as many soon discovered, indeed the Principal Planning Officer was asked about it within 4 days of the erection of first frames:- Has the revised height of 15.5 metres been approved or is it in breach of the 1996 Planning approval?
Instead of answering the question Mr Cunningham attached a link to the Council’s website explaining the complaints procedure and he made matters worse for himself two and a half months later, when he passed misrepresentative drawings to the Tyne Gateway Assn in December 2013 following a meeting of them with the Council. I grew particularly concerned during the meeting as I had gone to get confirmation that UK Docks had approval for the structure on their slipway and we were not given any.
The agent’s drawing for the modifications to the shed was approved in October 2013, though it did not appear in the public domain until mid December, proved doubt that it was a fraudulent misrepresentation to claim that UK Docks had approval for their shed.
I used that drawing to bring to the attention of Planning Enquiries to the shed and the fact that it was not only taller than planned but wider as well and the rest is history. Mr Cunningham was waiting for the complaint to arrive and the first thing he did was to refer me back to the meeting where we were the told that the shed was legal. He and the Planning Manager not only removed the complaint of the 10th of January 2014 from the public records they seeded much of the misinformation that was to appear in the Ombudsman’s findings over two years later.

1

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.