To Prospective Candidate 27-04-19

Dear David,
I should have copied you in to my email to Cllr Angela Hamilton but here is a bit of background to the size of the offending shed. Melanie Todd wrote:

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 3:25 PM
Subject: Martin Swales, Chief Executive | South Tyneside Council
Here’s the overview and email address for our Chief Executive. I have now been stonewalled by Ian Rutherford, Gordon Atkinson and George Mansbridge, so I’m emailing direct to Mr Swales.

She was wasting her time I believe because Mr Swales does not
answer any correspondence about UK Docks but she left the original
offender off her list, Peter Cunningham, he was the person telling
everybody that the enclosure was approved. To put it bluntly he was lying when he said that and we have it in writing in an email from
Councillor Anglin:

Please see below the reply from Peter (Cunningham).
” Hello – I confirmed at our meeting with Mr Dawson and others on 25th Sept Nov 2013 that I had measured the width and length of the ground floor external footprint and height of the structure and that these dimensions were all in accordance with the attached approved drawing and planning permission.

Councillor Anglin, 19-Dec-13

He changed his story after UK Docks had started on completing the structure, to saying there was not enough difference to enforce removal and that is the story now being broadcast by Angela in her email to a few of us :

Planning: While I understand the concerns you have raised about the buildings deviating from the original plans I cannot see any way to resolve this issue. You have said that the building is slightly wider and higher than the original plans but I have not been able to find out anything about why this happened. As I wasn’t a Councillor at the time I was not involved in any of the discussions so can’t confirm whether this was agreed before or after building works were completed and it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the building and it isn’t financially viable to remove and rebuild it.
Councillor Hamilton, 06-Mar-19, copied to you.

The highlighted comment has been on my mind since I first read it and I have just remembered what it was. Angela missed an opportunity to break the wall of silence about the height when she failed to take the authorised drawing 8296/2 along to UK Docks and confronted them with it.

It is possible that Angela did not realise the significance of the drawing and I have attached it again. It shows that the enclosure is actually built 2.7 meters higher than planned which is what we have been saying since January 2014. It is the only authorised drawing from 1996, with dimensions, held by the Council.

The road end is 15.5m high and UK Docks used and error on an unauthorised drawing (either 8296/1A or 1B) to claim, falsely, that they have built it to the permitted height. Logic tells one that the drawing was not authorised because it contained a very obvious mistake and it was one of these drawings used by Peter Cunningham to claim that the enclosure was approved and the lie about it being approved has been repeated ever since.

Angela and Emma have both wasted an excellent opportunity to set things right.

Cheers
Mick

One thought on “To Prospective Candidate 27-04-19”

  1. I knew from previous experience, 71 Greens Place, the one with the rooftop balcony, that Mike Telford (Snr. Building Control Surveyor tel: 4247435) was happy to turn a blind eye to breaches of planning control. Not the balcony the but the roof terrace and first floor terrace overlooking the neighbours to the rear. Various planning officers covered for Mr Telford’s lack of action over 71.
    It appears that he did not spot that the footings laid in 2001 were not per plan, being nearly a meter wider and 5 and half meters longer and this put the Principal Planning Officer, Mr Cunningham in a bad place when he went to measure the structure in September 2013, bearing in mind that the structure was by then nearly 3 meters taller than planned.
    Mr Cunningham’s solution may have got his Senior Building Control Surveyor of the hook but it meant he had to continue with the lie that the enclosure had been approved.

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.