The residents were fairly certain that UK Docks had built their shed wider and higher than permitted but Council just kept repeating that it was approved. The Tyne Gateway Association (TGA) was resurrected as a means to break out of this deadlock but it failed and this can be attributed to Cllr Anglin.
In simple terms he had promised the TGA that he would find out if the shed had been built with planning permission. Some of us did not trust him because he had been invited to an EGM (falsely presented as an AGM) by the Vice Chairman and thought we should be in attendance when he met with the Council.
This led to a meeting at the Town Hall in November 2013. Our lack of trust was justified as we were again told that the shed was compliant. Subsequent investigation backed our view that a) it was not built according to approved plans and b) the Council must have been aware of that when they suspended work before 23rd September 2014.
The EIR also shows that there was no inspection of yard for five months – until 4th of March 2014 in fact.
By January it was obvious with the arrival of the two large cranes that the enforcement notice had been discarded and the original complaint of January 10th 2014 discarded as well, presumably because it clearly showed the shed was nearly 3m taller than planned.
It was after the planning Manager had conceded that the shed was too tall a public meeting was held in the Littlehaven Sailing Club, 3rd March, and we determined that the shed be removed or they consult with us.
They did neither and they responded to our Petition with the fraudulent misrepresentation tha the shed had been built to the approved height.
More telling than the misinformation given to the Local Government Ombudsman about the height was the rewriting of events.
#21. The Council considered if the building accorded with the approved plans. The planning officer originally assigned the case considered the developers were building the boat shed to the measurements in the 1996 plans. Mr X says he told residents this at a public meeting. The Council accepts these measurements were wrong:
The measurements in Mr Cunningham’s 1996 plans said 15.5m at the uphill end but Mr X’s 1996 plans showed less than 13m as did the plans produced in August 2013 which Mr X showed the Ombudsman. Both the latter’s were approved but Mr Cunningham’s were not, they did not bear the authorisation stamp and the Council did not accept the measurements were wrong.