Town Hall Meeting: 25-Nov-13

About six months after the first complaints about the height of the shed went in, we noticed that some of responses were marked [PROTECT], and we mistakenly thought that it was because the information it contained was confidential. I noticed that there was a profusion of them around about the time the Tyne Gateway Assn folded, which I believe was a bit more than coincidental.
I checked the use of them with Customer Advocacy around about the time the rewrite of the second Stage of my complaint by the Head of Development Services as they had started to appear again and discovered that the ‘protect’ was for internal use by the Council Staff and that I could publish them.

It was put into use by Mr Cunningham from the beginning to hide the fact that he was being disingenuous:-
From: Peter.Cunningham@southtyneside.gov.uk
To: Resident of Greens Place
CC: 6 Residents; cllr.john.anglin@southtyneside.gov.uk;
cllr.audrey.mcmillan@southtyneside.gov.uk; cllr.john.wood@southtyneside.gov.uk;
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:00:04 +0100
Subject: RE: Approved
* boat repair shelter at Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields
This email has been classified as: PROTECT
Hello – I stamped these drawings on the day they were handed to me in reception, as I explained these are copies of drawings passed in 1996 by the T&W Development Corporation the only difference is that these drawings do not have the approved stamps on them.
I attach a link to the Council’s website explaining the complaints procedure.
Complaints Procedure
Regards
Principal Planning Officer

 * The drawings did not have approved stamps on because they had not been approved.

Emails post Town Hall Meeting 25th November (explanations in italics)

─────────────────────────────────────────
from: Michael Dawson
to: Principal Planning Officer
date: 26 November 2013 15:29
subject: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
Dear Peter
Please find attached a copy of the picture showing the ferry protruding out of the structure on River Drive, mentioned yesterday at our meeting.
Please send me a copy of the drawing you referred to yesterday.
regards Mick Dawson
Att. 000_0001[1].JPG 658K – photo showing ferry is too long for the shed (renamed Shed21Oct2013.jpg)
─────────────────────────────────────────
From: Principal Planning Officer
To: Michael Dawson
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:18:37 +0000
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Hello Mr Dawson – thanks for the photo – in terms of the drawing that you want copying which one was it ?
Best regards
Principal Planning Officer
South Tyneside Council, Development Management, Planning Group,
Development Services
South Shields Town Hall, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, NE33 2RL
Direct Line: (0191) 4247415
Fax: (0191) 4277171
E-mail: Principal Planning Officer
Website: www.southtyneside.info
Unless otherwise stated, opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are personal, and not those of South Tyneside Council.
─────────────────────────────────────────
From: Michael Dawson
To: Principal Planning Officer
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:31:12 +0000
Hello again – the large one, A2 possibly, that you showed to the representatives from the TGA.
regards Mick Dawson
From: Michael Dawson [mailto:Michael Dawson]
Sent: 27 November 2013 10:52
To: Principal Planning Officer
Subject: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
Sorry Peter, I meant to ask you to send me a copy of the minutes of Monday 25th meeting, could you forward them along with the requested drawing please.
regards Mick Dawson
─────────────────────────────────────────
From: Principal Planning Officer
To: Michael Dawson
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:04:52 +0000
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Hello – I attach a copy of the plan and a copy of the grant of planning permission to which this drawing refers.
I was invited to attend this meeting so I did not take any minutes
Best regards
Peter
ST1AA3V00023_MFD-EZU14078-37788_3933_001.pdfcopy front page of grant 1996
ST1AA3V00023_MFD-EZU14078-37788_3396_001.pdfcopy 8296/1B provided by UK Docks
─────────────────────────────────────────
from: Michael Dawson
to: Cllr John Anglin
date: 28 November 2013 19:01
subject: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
Dear Councillor
Thank you for arranging the meeting of Monday 25th, please could you send a copy of the minutes.
regards
Michael Dawson
─────────────────────────────────────────
From: Cllr John Anglin
To: Michael Dawson
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:37:40
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
Michael
I took no minutes as is customary at these informal meetings.
For your record I am sure all would agree :
1. The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.
2. The Exec representatives accepted that Items 3 and 4 which had not been complied with by the building company previously had now been properly addressed.
3. Concern was expressed that the building as approved would be unfit for purpose ( eg not big enough to take in the Ferryboat ) but this was accompany problem until/ or if, additional construction was made.
4. Concern was expressed as to the fact that there had been rumours that the Company was preparing to apply for further Planning Permission for at least one more building of about the same size. It was agreed that until Planning Permission was requested no other action or re-action could be made by the Council. Indeed, that if a request was made the final decision could end up being made by persons from outside the Borough.
Best Regards
John
─────────────────────────────────────────
From: Michael Dawson Michael Dawson
To: Cllr John Anglin, Principal Planning Officer
cc: TGA Committee
date: 16 December 2013 16:09
subject: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
Cllr John Anglin,
Inappropriate Developments on the Riverside.
Thank you for the summary of the meeting of the 25th Nov. I agree that this is a reasonable record of the meeting. However, the TGA Committee members where made to understand by the current Chairman, Graeme Watson, that this would be a formal meeting ‘standard meeting with structured protocols’. So far details of the meeting have been word of mouth only, as you say no records exist, which makes the dissemination of information to the wider membership difficult.
I would like to comment on your first point about drawings seen and have attached three images to help make this clear. First a sketch of the plans I think we were discussing at the meeting (image on the left) and second, a detail from the drawing, date stamped 5th Sept, provided by Principal Planning Officer. The photo of the structure completed in early September speaks for itself.
I have measured the structure concerned and it is a meter wider than the date stamped plan provided. Therefore the footings placed in 2001 must have been set a meter wider as well. An image was forwarded to Principal Planning Officer showing that the current structure is too short to accommodate the Nexus Ferry; not suitable for purpose?
I maintain that the existing construction has not been built to the plans as circulated by Principal Planning Officer. I am therefore requesting a copy of the plan presented at the November meeting as represented by my sketch. I am concerned that the planning department is about to allow a building that is not being constructed to an approved plan an occurrence of which I have personal experience.
This is an important issue to residents of the Riverside who need to be kept fully informed, particularly as it is understood that Mr Wilson or his representatives are currently in the pre-planning stage with the council regarding further works.
I believe therefore that any future meetings regarding this matter should be formal and recorded.
Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson.
3 attachments —
A2plan.jpg 60K misnamed A1 drawing of slipway cover with vertical columns
detail_app_plan.jpg 51K detail showing sloping sides (renamed in 2019 as Detail_river_end_1B.jpg as the plan had not been approved)
SlipwayCover.jpg 97K photograph of framework, end on (renamed ‘frames’)
─────────────────────────────────────────
From: Principal Planning Officer
To: Michael Dawson
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:47:07 +0000
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Mr Dawson – when did you get access to measure the structure on site ?
Regards
Principal Planning Officer

The width could be easily measured by sighting along the sides of the columns and placing chalk marks on the handily placed railings and simply measuring the distance between them. They turnd out not be so handy as the railings were not square to the line of sight but Pythagoras came to my aid.
─────────────────────────────────────────
from: Michael Dawson
to: Principal Planning Officer
cc: Cllr John Anglin,
TGA Committee
date: 19 December 2013 21:29
subject: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
Dear Peter,
I have sufficient skills in surveying to be able to measure the width of the structure without access to the site and can say with confidence that it is 13.20m wide give or take 0.05m. The towers are vertical and it would seem to me that it is reasonable to assume that the footings, laid in 2001, are the same width. We still need to receive a copy of the date stamped approved drawing from 1996.
regards
Michael Dawson

5 cm was a bit of an exageration as I had not taken account of parallax errors. I was 10cm out which was better than 1% which means pillars were out of alignment by about a millimetre which reflect very well on the quality of the famework and my skills a surveyor.
─────────────────────────────────────────
From: Principal Planning Officer
To: Michael Dawson
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:17:46 +0000
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov [PROTECT*]
Mr Dawson – once again – I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996 plans across to you twice already (attached again for your use) and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant…this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned
Please do not email me again.
Regards
Principal Planning Officer

At this point I decided there were no authorised plans that could support the statement that the structure had been made legally and that a drawing that showed otherwise was not being made available. Added to this the Chair of the TGA who should have been helping in the enquiries was in fact being obstructive.
MD – December 2013
* In May 2014, after establishing the fact in February that the structure had not been built to plan, to find that a Senior Development Manager was repeating that the structure had been built to plans authorised in 1996 has forced me to make public this correspondence with the STC Planning Office.
MD – May 2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.