STC/LGO

One only need to check the facts to find what lies at the corrupt heart at the centre of our  complaint about UK Docks’ Shed.

Taken from Part 14

On April 15th 2015 the Local Government Ombudsman said in her summary:-

Summary: This complaint is not upheld. In 2013 a developer resumed building a boat shed for which he had planning permission and had started building in 2001.1Local residents complained but the Council found the developer could still build the shed.2 However,the developer built it almost a metre wider than he should have done.3 There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action.4 It kept residents informed throughout the process.5 The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be.6 The Council says it is not.7 There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.8

  • 1. any structure built on the footings laid in 2001 would have been a meter wider than planned according to all the plans seen since September 2013. See plan 8296/1B, 6-Sep-13.
  • 2. the local residents raised their concerns that the shed was taller than planned in September 2013 and the Council must have agreed with them because by 23rd September 2013 UK Docks were forced to stop work on the shed.
  • 3. True, the Council found the shed to be 13.1m wide all the plans said it should be 12.2m (foot of plan).
  • 4. There were numerous lies made by Planners and Senior Management to hide the fact that the UK Docks had built their shed nearly 3m taller and a meter wider than permitted and the evidence of fault is given on Page 4 of S and C – Part 14.
  • 5. It kept the residents misinformed as soon as we queried its height. It was why we revived the TGA.
  • 6. True, a drawing did show the shed was 15.5m at the landward end but the approved plan said it should be 12.7m, a difference of 2.8m.
  • 7. The Council says it is not.
  • 8. There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.

See 6: logic dictates that 7 and 8 are both lies.

Planning Issues in South Shields