Development Ideas

For a Category Index for comments. – has never  been implemented because the list of Evasions and Denials started to grow like Topsy.

When writing to the Planning Office of South Tyneside Council about questionable decisions I’ve had trouble with their replies. The replies, in no particular order:

  • subjects of any significance are dropped;
  • pertinent questions are ignored and replaced by non-sequiturs;
  • items of misinformation are included;
  • false opinions are given as statement of fact.

This happens throughout the complaints system and is particularly noticeable when dealing with people who should know better.
To bring some sense to all this I have made the list in the order that the items arose following my email to Planning Enquiries about the slipway cover on January 10th 2014. Zero is a special category and categories greater than 4 are not raised in my original complaint nor in my complaint to the LGO.

This list has been copied to The Harbour View from ./ukdocks because with little modification, it could possibly developed as a standard across all the sites: 0=Very Particular, 1-4=Planning, Enforcement, Executive and CEO, greater than 4=Opinions.

FaceBook does this sort of thing very well with their variety of likes 🙂 > 😮 > :sad > 🙁 etc. but this ain’t FB and lickle me does not have the resources that they have, nor the number of users to warrent it. 

 UK Docks Slipway Shed

Reference ID Subject and Examples
0 .1 Denial: it took 5½ months to establish that it was built oversize;
.2 Evasion: questions about height unanswered;
.3 Equivocation: using errors on drawing to make a false case.
.4 Prevarication: Switching dimensions from one end to the other.
1 Use continues: in spite of STC knowing that it has been built without permission.
2 Conditions of permission:
.1 – started within 5 yrs
.2 – must be built to plan
.5 – use of shed on Sundays and BHs must be notified in advance
3 built 1 meter too wide.
4 built 3 meters too high.
.14 – 8296/14 – Indisputable and used by MD;
.1A – 8296/1A – Unauthorised drawing used by planning;
.1B – 8296/1B – Unauthorised drawing used by planning;
.2   – 8296/2 – Authorised and gives 13m and 16m for ends.
  • n
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • Subjects raised after my enquiry/complaint Jan 10th
  • Condition 5
  • 2001 footings set one meter too wide
  • the variation in the angle of the pillars
  • Noise
This was first published in thv./shed/detail

Published in the   Detail   menu the main items of correspondence concerning the authenticity of the plans and related things. Throughout the site but in pages under detail, particularly, there are numbers in square brackets [n] referring to items in the   Posts  .

Pages under Detail:

This table is a guide only and is a bit out of date. MD 14-Dec-2015

Date Menu Item: Document and location.
09.09.13
10.01.14		  Introduction  & Enquiries  Planning enquiry and complaint – 9th and 18th September 2013

  • 1) Approved boat repair shelter at Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields
  • 2) Tyne Slipway & Eng Co Ltd Erection of a Shelter ST/0242 /96//UD

Planning enquiry (complaint 249789) – 10th January 2014

  • 3) Slipway Development – River Drive.
09.09.13
and
ongoing		   Evasion 

  1. First referral (4 days in!). No answer to the direct question of approved height. There is enough on this page without the commentary.
  2. Response to planning enquiry 10th Jan 2014
    13th Jan – Principal Planning Officer
    28th Jan – Planning Manager
  3. By the Head of Development Services
25.11.13
– to –
28.01.2014		   Denials

  1. Meeting between Council and Residents – 25.11.13
  2. Email from Principle Planning Officer – 20.12.13
  3. Response to planning enquiry – 13.01.14
  4. Response to planning enquiry – 28.01.14
15.01.14
to
13.02.14		   Admission 

  1. Provision of Authorised Drawings,
    Size of structure given,
    Admission that the shelter was not built to authorised plans.
  2. Action – Raise Petition and write to Planning Manager,
  3. Admission by Customer Advocacy that it was built without planning permission.
04.04.14 Page 1 Reversion Part I

  1. Reminder the work is continuing on what appears to be an unplanned structure;
  2. Newspaper article about the Shelter;
  3. a letter to correct a piece of ‘misinformation’ in newspaper;
  4. an apology for delay in responding to 248789 by the Planning Manager;
  5. the response to the Petition by the Head of Development Services;
  6. A letter from a Director of UK Docks;
  7. Stage I Escalation.
02.05.14 & 09.05.14

Page 2

 Reversion Part I

  1. a letter to Head of Development Services about the abuse of the Complaints Procedure by the Case Officer and his Manager;
  2. an acknowledgement letter for the above including a change of complaint to 253539 .
  3. a letter sent in attempt to correct a major item of misinformation in the response to the Petition:
02.06.14

Page 2

 Reversion Part II

  1. ‘Stage 2’ letter from GM
  2. Letter to CEO
  3. Letter from Customer Advocacy
13.12.14 -25.04.15 LGO

  1. First Draft
  2. Second Draft
  3. Final Draft
24.11.14   Admission II
Unequivocal admission by Customer Advocacy that the shelter was built without planning Permission.
The shelter should have been mothballed while an investigation was carried out but they said I had to write to the LGO if I was not happy.
Post Views: 868

Planning Issues in South Shields