Monthly Archives: March 2014

Uncategorised

Further to Ongoing Issues

Leave a comment
Dear Council Representative.
I’m afraid I do not regard the response below as being adequate.The ‘report’ that the structure has not been built in accordance with permissions seems to have come as a surprise to you but as you know local residents have been pointing this out for several months. Your department attempted to claim for some time that this was not the case and only persistence from local residents seems to have finally forced your department to admit that there are ‘difficulties’ with the structure.
As you know we believe the structure to be significantly wider and taller than permitted.
Why has your department not imposed an immediate cessation of work in terms of construction of the structure pending your ‘investigation’?
I can report that construction was still being carried out on 31 March despite frequent requests for intervention by your department.

The situation has recently been further compounded by the commencement of work on a boat within the confines of the shed contrary to the conditions of the 1996 planning permission which expressly forbids work to commence without the conditions being fully met.
My view is that your department is guilty of series of serious errors (which could amount to gross incompetence).
The impression is that every attempt has been made to allow the structure to continue to be developed (despite your knowledge that planning conditions have not been met) and that your department has made insufficient effort to carry out your statutory duties in relation to the conditions contained in the aforesaid planning permission. These conditions were clearly designed to protect local residents and as I understand it were included after consultation with your colleagues in environmental protection. The implications of the conditions are clear. No work that is a nuisance to local residents should be being carried out outside the shed which should be a contained structure (in order to minimise impact).
Why did your department not impose an immediate cessation of work on the boat that until recently has been housed in the shed in terms of failure to meet the conditions of the 1996 planning permission pending your ‘investigation’?
I understand that you have a mandatory duty to intervene please explain why this was not been exercised.
 
As regards to your definition of the site as ‘general industrial’ please provide details of the statute from which you have sourced your quote and confirm that there are no definitions for planning purposes which allow some commercial activity but not full industrial use.
I note that you say that the matter is complex and time is needed to consider the matter. I would suggest that the issues above are not complex although I understand that the errors that have been made by your department may be embarrassing. I also think that you have had more than sufficient time to respond. As previously stated, I believe that you were under an obligation to suspend work until matters were resolved.I note that further work is being carried out on the shed today (31 March). Given the circumstances and our request that the building be altered to conform with the planning permission your continuing failure to intervene seems to be adding to the potential costs that the developer will incur in order to comply.
The only conclusion that we can draw is that you have no intention of enforcing the conditions imposed by the planning permission and that the developer has been given tacit approval to carry on and told that a retrospective application will be viewed favourably.Please can you provide copies of any relevant correspondence you have had with the owners or developers.
In the meantime I ask you to:
  • ·         Set out the nature of the complexities as you see them.
  • ·         Indicate precisely what you are doing to address these.
  • ·         Set out a clear timetable for resolution.
 
Your previous delaying tactics are not acceptable.
We understand that you have an obligation to keep us fully informed and that this would be something the Planning Ombudsman would also consider if reference to them is required.
It gives me no pleasure to have to write in such terms.
Indeed I was diagnosed in December of last year with cancer and am undergoing treatment (which has included a major operation at the end of February 2014). The stress that these issues are causing is adding to an already stressful situation and is compromising my ability to recover. For example the noise and other environmental impacts such as dust (of undetermined content and which is not being contained in the shed) over the last couple of weeks has meant that I have been unable to utilise my garden as I would like for recuperation purposes.
Whilst I regard these matters as private I feel forced to place them on record should we need to raise the stakes further in the absence of a satisfactory resolution. My privacy and ability to have quite enjoyment of my property have been compromised by your departments failure to adequately control this development or deal with legitimate queries.
You will note that I have copied this to John Anglin and John Wood and I’m aware that other residents are asking similar questions.
Please consider these issues immediately and supply a response to all of the points raised by return.
Yours in frustration,
David Routledge
Uncategorised

Ongoing Issues – reply from Council

Dear Mr and Mrs Routledge
I’m sorry that I’ve not had a chance to reply to your email of Tuesday before now.
You ask ‘who has designated this site as ‘industrial’’:
Use of the site of the slipway itself and the land between it and River Drive dates at least from a planning permission granted in 1976 for ‘new slipway for maintenance/repair of fishing vessels’ (I say ‘at least’ because general industrial use of the site may date from before this).  The use of the strip of land (roughly 40m wide) between the houses and the slipway dates from a 1987 permission for ‘erection of boat repair shed for repair and maintenance of boats’ (although the shed itself was never built).   This was an area that was formerly part of the Velva Liquids site, which was on the site of what is now the Harbour View properties.
In legal terms, this means that the lawful use of the site for planning purposes is general industrial-which is defined as use for carrying on an industrial process.
 “industrial process” means a process for or incidental to any of the following purposes:—
(a) the making of any article or part of any article (including a ship or vessel, or a film, video or sound recording);
(b) the altering, repairing, maintaining, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, washing, packing, canning, adapting for sale, breaking up or demolition of any article;or
(c) the getting, dressing or treatment of minerals;
in the course of any trade or business other than agriculture, and other than a use carried out in or adjacent to a mine or quarry;
What we have is a report that the new structure is not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and that conditions of the 1996 permission have not been complied with.  It will take time to fully investigate and analyse the situation and then make a decision in the light of all the facts.  We must take time to ensure we get it right, for all concerned.  At this stage I am not able to say when this process will be completed.  I can assure you that we do take the matter seriously, but we must take the time to do this properly.
With regards to your message below, Planning and Environmental Health are liaising on this case, but I’m sure you will appreciate that they are two separate statutory codes.  As regards any future development proposals, the company will need to bring those forwards in the usual way, and if a planning application is made it will be subject to local publicity.
Regards
Uncategorised

Ongoing Issues

With regard to ongoing issues with industrial site River Drive, adjacent to Harbour View: FAO: Senior Planning Officers
The Environmental dept advises they have no say over issues regarding the consistent breach in the 1996 planning permission.
Our concerns continue with our complaints not being adequately dealt with.
It appears the planning dept have little interest in applying their mandatory obligations to enforce compliance by the owners of the boat yard on River Drive, with the planning permissions given in 1996.
We would ask that council representatives desist from constantly pointing out that we reside adjacent to an industrial site. If this is dealt within a fair and reasonable way, then equally you should be acknowledging that they operate adjacent to a residential estate.  You constantly argue that they are an established industrial site. However, at the time of the original planning requests and permissions WE were an established residential estate, construction having commenced in 1991.
Unfortunately there is no magic industrial/residential wall separating us: it would be handy to have something to shut of the noise and general products of yard activity. Equally the yard operatives probably feel the same way.  However, there is no magic wall between us, and we find ourselves buttressed up together. So we are left to find something that will hopefully:
– stop any proposed expansion to the work in the yard (are you beginning to realise what the impact will be, based on the current experiences?!);
– step up to the footplate and do the right thing: act on your mandatory obligation to actually deal with our issues, rather than simply repeating ‘industrial site, industrial site’ like a hideous mantra;
– recognise that there is no magic wall between us, and that you now are responsible ( not those who originally approved the planning permission) in doing something positive about our concerns;
– and we want you to:
a) not agree to further planning expansion in the yard;
b) enforce the original planning permission agreements: shed height and size; limits on work – times, noise etc;
c) acknowledge that not only are they an industrial site but that we are a residential site, as of 1991, and therefore WERE established before the boatyard permissions;
d) recognise that if our complaints are not dealt with, we will escalate our issues to the Ombudsman, as per the complaint processes
We await your details as to how you intend to deal with our complaints.
Regards
Julie and David Routledge
Uncategorised

No Timetable of Resolution

1 Comment

Dear Council Representative

Thank you for the prompt response.
As it was the only one I have received can I assume there has at least been some discussions with the other Councillors and officers to whom I directed my original questions?
I would be interested to hear responses from the other members of the Planning Committee and  Council Officers.
Whilst I acknowledge receipt of what appears to be a standard response to any enquiries regarding the aforesaid development I must point out that my questions related mainly to its current use.
With the greatest of respect council officers have had over 6 months to understand the history of this site and analyse all the facts.
You personally felt confident enough on 14th October 2013 to approve discharge of clause 3 (external cladding) and clause 4 (fixing details of end panels).
Why then are you not acting as swiftly on behalf of local residents?
Can you explain why legitimate concerns and questions by a number of residents are deflected by what appear to be standard responses whilst in the back ground you appear to be approving applications for amendments from the developer?
The current development has increased significantly in size without consultation nor amended permissions – again I suspect that any domestic development would have been stopped well before now.
To allay possible allegations of favouritism in the future I would therefore have hoped for a bit more than what appears to be a “stock” answer and which could be interpreted as a delaying tactic – all of which which works to the advantage of the developer.
In the meantime we are living with the consequences of these actions (or inaction).
I therefore request that you perform your statutory mandatory obligation to enforce planning conditions and identify a timetable for resolution rather than continue to issue open ended meaningless statements which inspire little confidence that anything will actually be done.
Yours Faithfully
Michelle Martin Robinson
Uncategorised

To Council Officers and Planning Commitee

1 Comment

From: Michelle Martin-Robinson
Sent: 24 March 2014 10:40
To: Planning, Building Control and Environment
Cc: Cllr John Wood; Cllr Peter Boyack; Cllr Bill Brady; Cllr Fay Cunningham; Cllr Ian Harkus; Cllr Gladys Hobson; Cllr Alan Kerr; Cllr Tom Pigott; Cllr Lynne Proudlock; Cllr Sylvia Spraggon; Cllr Ken Stephenson; Cllr Mark Walsh; Cllr Anne Walsh; Cllr Allan West
Subject: UK Docks Development on River Drive

Dear Sirs

Please allow me to introduce myself.

I am a relatively new resident of Greens Place and one of a growing number of people in the area asking questions about the illegal construction and use of a development at the Tyne Slipway site.

As you may, or may not, be aware construction above ground commenced back in September 2013 utilising a 1996 approval by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation.

Despite frequent and numerous contacts to both Planning and Environmental Health (and the supposed involvement of the council legal team) no enforcement appears to have occurred.

Even with the admission that the structure is larger than originally approved no enforcement appears to have occurred – why not?

What we currently witness is a glorified oversized car port (open at both ends) and which, as of last Monday (17th March), appears to have been put to work.

If this were a domestic property a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion would be required before the property could be legally used.  

Has this been issued? If not, then how can you permit the shed to be in use?

A barge/boat from Port of Tyne arrived last Monday afternoon (17th March), since when the neighbourhood has echoed to the sound of generators, compressors and “chipping” as said vessel has been prepared for repainting.

Due to the open nature of the shed, and its position, the noise seems to “bounce” around the surrounding buildings especially as noisy equipment has been sited outside of the shed.

I assume the workers also have concerns about some particulates escaping the confines of the shed as a makeshift tarpaulin has been erected but, as you will see in the attached picture, it is wholly inadequate for that task.

My final point refers back to the original 1996 TWDC approval which prohibited work after 7pm Monday to Saturday and entirely on Sundays.

The structure has been permanently lit from dusk until dawn this past week in addition to several occasions during construction – is this allowable?

There were workers on site before 8am yesterday (Sunday 23rd March) and whilst there were comings and goings throughout the day until approximately 4pm one worker remained on site until at least 5.30am this morning.

As you can see in the attached picture (taken at the time) the shed is fully lit and his vehicle is parked next to the shed suggesting work is taking place outside of permitted hours.

  • The illegal nature of the actual structure has been established and documented by council officers (but it took 4 months).
  • Health and Safety violations were identified and documented during its construction by the HSE.
  • UK Docks appear to have been allowed to ignore or pay “lip service” to any local government intervention.

How can this be allowed to continue?

South Tyneside Council and it’s officers are supposed be to the guardians of our town for all of its residents but have so far seemed reluctant to enforce anything in this case.

If this were a private individual I suspect the full weight of planning law would be brought to bear, so again why not in this case?

I await your responses, and as this is matter of some urgency, well within the 20 working days as identified within the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations.

 Yours faithfully

Michelle Martin Robinson

Uncategorised

UK Docks Development on River Drive

From: Michelle Martin-Robinson
To STMBC :  Planning; Environmental Health
Cc: John Wood (Chairman of Planning Committee); Members of Planning Committee

Dear Sirs
Please allow me to introduce myself.
I am a relatively new resident of Greens Place and one of a growing number of people in the area asking questions about the illegal construction and use of a development at the Tyne Slipway site.
As you may, or may not, be aware construction above ground commenced back in September 2013 utilising a 1996 approval by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation.
Despite frequent and numerous contacts to both Planning and Environmental Health (and the supposed involvement of the council legal team) no enforcement appears to have occurred.Even with the admission that the structure is larger than originally approved no enforcement appears to have occurred – why not?
What we currently witness is a glorified oversized car port (open at both ends) and which, as of last Monday (17th March), appears to have been put to work.If this were a domestic property a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion would be required before the property could be legally used.  Has this been issued?
If not, then how can you permit the shed to be in use?
A barge/boat from Port of Tyne arrived last Monday afternoon (17th March), since when the neighbourhood has echoed to the sound of generators, compressors and “chipping” as said vessel has been prepared for repainting.Due to the open nature of the shed, and its position, the noise seems to “bounce” around the surrounding buildings especially as noisy equipment has been sited outside of the shed.I assume the workers also have concerns about some particulates escaping the confines of the shed as a makeshift tarpaulin has been erected but, as you will see in the attached picture, it is wholly inadequate for that task.
My final point refers back to the original 1996 TWDC approval which prohibited work after 7pm Monday to Saturday and entirely on Sundays.The structure has been permanently lit from dusk until dawn this past week in addition to several occasions during construction – is this allowable?
There were workers on site before 8am yesterday (Sunday 23rd March) and whilst there were comings and goings throughout the day until approximately 4pm one worker remained on site until at least 5.30am this morning.As you can see in the attached picture (taken at the time) the shed is fully lit and his vehicle is parked next to the shed suggesting work is taking place outside of permitted hours.

  • The illegal nature of the actual structure has been established and documented by council officers (but it took 4 months).
  • Health and Safety violations were identified and documented during its construction by the HSE.
  • UK Docks appear to have been allowed to ignore or pay “lip service” to any local government intervention.
How can this be allowed to continue?

South Tyneside Council and it’s officers are supposed be to the guardians of our town for all of its residents but have so far seemed reluctant to enforce anything in this case.
If this were a private individual I suspect the full weight of planning law would be brought to bear, so again why not in this case?I await your responses, and as this is matter of some urgency, well within the 20 working days as identified within the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations.

Yours faithfully
Michelle Martin Robinson

Uncategorized

Tyne Slipway Hoist

2 Comments

I live in Harbour View , Littlehaven, South Shields.
For the past year or so I have put up with the ear bashing noise of workman with their wagons, cranes , welding gear, metal saws ,muck and thick black dust on my washing , I can not hang any out now;  It also invades inside my home.
Now, apart from the dirt and noise pollution , I have had workmen being hoisted about twenty feet past my window while I was getting my granddaughter ready for nursery , this feels to me a total invasion of my privacy. I strongly object to this being allowed next to a residential area.
My only conclusion that this has been allowed is someone having an invested interest .
Please pass this on to head of planning at south tyneside  town hall
Mrs Marilyn Chapman

Uncategorized

Email to Planning – 20 Mar 2014 (reminder)

1 Comment

Dear . . . . . . . .(Council representative)

It is now over six months since the framework for the shed was erected, three months since the noise began and over two weeks since you said that the council would be able to provide a response to our request that work on or in the shed be stopped until the planning issues have been legally resolved.

I note that there has been a rising number of complaints about noise from the site to both  Planning and Environmental Services and this is becoming a major concern to the residents affected.

Why has the council not used its powers of enforcement to stop the work?, you have admitted that the shed is not built to plan. If any resident had built a construction that breached their planning approval, they would surely have been asked to remedy it or at least to submit a retrospective planning application.

Why has the council not used their power of enforcement to control the continual noise issuing from this site? If this was an individual he or she would have, months ago, been served an ASBO.

It is becoming very evident from communication with other residents that the continued development and disturbance caused by the work on this site is threatening their health and wellbeing (ie stress, noise and particulate emission). Ironically the March 14 issue of the South Tyneside news magazine is full of advice about how to ‘look after your health and wellbeing’?
I would also like to bring Councils attention to the front page statement ‘A new view at Littlehaven’, should it not also read ‘a  complete loss of Visual Amenity for for Harbour View and Greens Place residents’!

I will repeat the communities request that the work is stopped immediately and appropriate consultation is put in place. What is the holdup?

your sincerely

Michael Dawson

Uncategorised

With regard to ongoing issues with industrial site River Drive, adjacent to Harbour View

1 Comment
FAO:  The Planning Office
The Environmental dept advises they have no say over issues regarding the consistent breach in the 1996 planning permission.
Our concerns continue with our complaints not being adequately dealt with.
It appears the planning dept have little interest in applying their mandatory obligations to enforce compliance by the owners of the boat yard on River Drive, with the planning permissions given in 1996.
We would ask that council representatives desist from constantly pointing out that we reside adjacent to an industrial site. If this is dealt within a fair and reasonable way, then equally you should be acknowledging that they operate adjacent to a residential estate.  You constantly argue that they are an established industrial site. However, at the time of the original planning requests and permissions WE were an established residential estate, construction having commenced in 1991.
Unfortunately there is no magic industrial/residential wall separating us: it would be handy to have something to shut of the noise and general products of yard activity. Equally the yard operatives probably feel the same way.  However, there is no magic wall between us, and we find ourselves buttressed up together. So we are left to find something that will hopefully:
– stop any proposed expansion to the work in the yard (are you beginning to realise what the impact will be, based on the current experiences?!);
– step up to the footplate and do the right thing: act on your mandatory obligation to actually deal with our issues, rather than simply repeating ‘industrial site, industrial site’ like a hideous mantra;
– recognise that there is no magic wall between us, and that you now are responsible ( not those who originally approved the planning permission) in doing something positive about our concerns;
– and we want you to:
a) not agree to further planning expansion in the yard;
b) enforce the original planning permission agreements: shed height and size; limits on work – times, noise etc;
c) acknowledge that not only are they an industrial site but that we are a residential site, as of 1991, and therefore WERE established before the boatyard permissions;
d) recognise that if our complaints are not dealt with, we will escalate our issues to the Ombudsman, as per the complaint processes
We await your details as to how you intend to deal with our complaints.
Regards
Julie and David Routledge