Boat shed development at River Drive, South Shields

Do we have a legal case?  Key facts/questions:-

  • Original planning permission 1996

  • Foundations begun before 5 year statutory period elapsed but not signed off until after the 5 year period had elapsed. (Is the planning permission still valid?)

  • There is doubt as to what has been approved as the plans provided in support are incomplete, contradictory and not appropriately stamped (by law what must the planning dept.be able to produce in support of planning approval?)

  • Development started in Sept 2013. The dept. initially claimed that the development was built to plan but after the shed was completed (and after intensive lobbying) they have admitted that it has not been built to plan being 0.9m wider than what is purported to be approved. They are saying that recent changes to national guidance gives them discretion in deciding whether to enforce planning permission and they have chosen not to do so. (Does this new guidance apply in retrospect?) Given that they made an error whilst measuring the structure at the start of construction and would therefore (presumably) be liable for the cost of removing the shed (should they choose to enforce the breach of planning permission) there appears to be a conflict of interest. (Has the planning dept. been negligent? How can we challenge their decision? Can we require an independent review? How do we challenge using the ‘public confidence in the process’ argument?)

  • There have been further breeches in relation to the pre commencement conditions attached to the planning permission, as outlined in letter dated 4 April. In that letter the planning dept. indicate that they do not consider that late compliance is an issue although they agree to attempt to enforce the condition about not allowing boat repair within the shed unless the ends are ‘fully enclosed’. The owners had previously ignored this and had commenced repair work without meeting this condition. In a subsequent letter (2nd May) to all local residents the planning dept. appear to retract this and take the stance that because the development has not been built to plan the conditions are not enforceable. However, as stated above, the dept. also indicated that they are not going to challenge the fact that the development has not been built to plan. This is counter-intuitive and illogical. (Can the planning dept. legally argue that the developers, who have not built to plan are, as a result, not subject to the conditions?) The planning dept. have said “The difficulty (we) have is that the established use of the slipway is for general industrial purposes and in effect they can quite lawfully undertake works to repair boats on the slipway and across the entire site.” This seems to say that the condition was never enforceable. (Are conditions attached to planning permissions intended to override any general principles relating to the use of land?)

  • The planning dept. have categorised the site as having general industrial status. (Does this industrial status have a legal definition and if so how does land acquire such a status?) The planning dept. seem to suggest that the granting of historic planning permissions (whether or not they were subsequently acted upon) are sufficient and there seems to be no discrimination between small scale boat repair and large scale intrusive industrial activity. (What rights do local residents have to challenge definitions, changes of use or scale of activity?)

Attachments: Letter 04 Apr 2014 and 02 May 2014

Talks about 8296/14

From: George Mansbridge
Sent: 30 June 2014 08:19
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Cc: Leanne Bootes
Subject: RE: Inappropriate Development on River Drive. GM/LB 253539 or 248789 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Hello Michael

I will ask Leanne to make the arrangements for us to meet up and we can cover all the various issues.  If it helps I can have the relevant planning and environmental health case officers sit in.

This, of course, won’t prejudice your right to go to Stage 3.

George
George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
South Tyneside Council

Request Talk on 8296/14

From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk [mailto:mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk]
Sent: 28 June 2014 07:56
To: George Mansbridge
Subject: Inappropriate Development on River Drive. GM/LB 253539 or 248789

Dear Mr Mansbridge.

Thank you for your letter about the development at UK Docks. I apologise for not responding promptly. I was not sure whether to reply as a Stage 3 complaint or first to try and explain to you that you have been badly advised by the planning office about Drawing 8296/14 before proceeding.

With the work at the site resuming, the noise is apparently unbearable, I have decided on the latter course but before I can progress any further I will take you up on your offer to meet with me and show me the relevant plans. I can make any afternoon in the near future apart from Jul 9th and 18th.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson

A Complaint to Environmental Health

From: Marilyn Chapman
> Subject: Re: Official Notice re UK Docks Planning Application
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:48:52 +0100
> To: Mick Dawson and Others

Hi everyone , just to let you know I Again, logged a complaint to environmental health about constant noise and not being able to sit out on my balcony, or indeed open windows at the back of my property. The girl Lindsay I spoke to could hear the racket through the phone and I was in my apartment at the time of the call. Shortly after Ian Rutherford rang me and the usual mutters of he understands and yes it must be disruptive especially as we have not had a lot of activity from the site in the past. I asked him to come and view the scene and noise from my balcony , he said one of his team had been to a neighbour of mine this week so he knew what I was talking about.
> I tried to explain that I feel a prisoner in my own house and how would he like it if this was plonked on his doorstep ? He replied he has had neighbours building an extension and you have to just to be a bit patient . I was getting extremely frustrated and angry and responded that this monstrosity is a lot different to conservatory. He just kept saying the Wilson’s own the land and they had planning permission.
Felt it was a total waste of time!!!!
Regards Marilyn Chapman

Application for Second Shed: ST/0461/14/FUL

Closing date for representations was on July 25th

The proposal :-
Demolition of the existing single storey office block and workshop/winch house with additional office and storage accommodation on its roof. The existing buildings will be
replaced with a new 2 storey office block, workshop with winch house and mezzanine floor to provide a staff canteen, managers office, kitchen and sanitary facilities, an extension to the existing boat shed, an additional boat shed (to match existing) and a new jetty. The existing vehicular access is to be relocated.

The proposal: PDF copy of letter.
For more detail: Application Number is ST/0461/14/FUL

To make a comment on this application it’s probably best to email STC as the planning explorer has a limit of 2000 characters. Please include the planning application reference number and your postal address if using email (or post*) . They cannot consider comments that are anonymous or do not include your address.
Email: planningapplications@southtyneside.gov.uk
Post:  Planning Group, Town Hall and Civic Offices, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, NE33 2RL.

* for those living near the Town Hall remember: you can always deliver your mail by hand.

Warning Notice – 30 Jan

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:07:54 +0000
Subject: Re: FW: Slipway Development – Work Continues
From: davidroutledge@btinternet.com
To: daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk

I’d be very careful about being locked into the complaints route which has been my concern all along. The council are fudging the correct direction we can take which is about law.  Complaints are about procedures not legalities. We should be making a stance on the  adherence to the legally agreed plans. My worry throughout has been focusing too much on the complaint process, and not that the business owners are at fault, breaching the plans.

Julie Routledge

——– Original message ——–
From Michael Dawson
Date: 29/01/2014 13:53 (GMT+00:00)
To Melanie Todd
David and Julie,Michelle Martin,
Subject FW: Slipway Development – Work Continues

Hi Melanie,

Here are some details of Gordon Atkinson’s reply. He has admitted that the structure is a meter wider than any plans allow.

It looks like Tyne and Wear DC did approve a structure 15.5m high at the south end, see ST1AA3V000… but I’m not so sure, I’ll do some more digging and let you know. He has however glossed over my observations on the drawing ST114613CO… that the south end should only be 12.5m high.

Two main things to say.1) Is it wrong to assume that  the drawing of the doors  will be based on an authorised plan? 2) there are three pointers to the door being at the north end (making the elevation 15.5m high).  Look at the drawing on the portal as it is clearer than my annotated one. ST114613COND Details 300913.pdf

i) note on drawing “Strips to draw back to each side to allow access for boats …”.
ii) section at door jamb which shows the cladding on the downward ie north side.
iii) the apparent use of third angle projection would imply that the door is at the north end.

The last paragraph of his reply is steering me into the complaints procedure by implying that this is a complaint.  I still, however, have had no real answer to the issue which I raised at the beginning.

” I notice that work on this site has recommenced in the last day or so and I am surprised as  there is still an outstanding issue which I think has not been addressed. The issue relates to the second condition of planning permission granted under ST/0242/96/UD which has not been met. This condition states:- ‘The
development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.’ “.

I might try one more time because I know from bitter experience that once one gets into the various stages of complaint, the responses are designed to obfuscate the issue even more so that by the time it gets to the ombudsman he or she is not able to make a fair judgement on the issue you are really complaining about.

I’ve copied this to Julie and David so that they know I’m keeping up the fight and I’d like you please to forward it to anyone in Harbour View that has raised the issue that the slipway has not been built to authorised plans i.e. it is 3m too high.

I’m printing a copy of these mails and will deliver it to Michelle if her email is still troublesome. I know she will be interested. She was the first so say the structure was too wide and it was this that prompted me to estimate the width to be 13+m.

where’s the cranes – is it too windy?
cheers Mick

Slipway – Note from 7th Nov 2013

Melanie
Today I spent over two hours checking out the disks at the Town Hall.
There are many folders that contain many files.  It is difficult to pick out what is relevant to our complaint.  The first hour or so was spent in the company of a planning dept member looking at a CD that contained many letters mostly dated 1996.  As the disc contained very few drawings the planning member went off and found another disc that did have drawing files on along with many more files involving copies of letters or emails.  The drawing folder/files were not clearly listed so it was a matter of trying various ones to discover them.
The gist of what I read (in my opinion) seemed to suggest that Mr Wilson (Slipways) in his 1996 proposals would like a no restrictions regime and the planning permission appeared to allow this.  However The Council Environmental Service objected to the Slipways doing shot blasting after a strong complaint from the boatyard next to the Slipway.  Mr Wilson seemed to suggest that stopping shot blasting was one of the main jobs that he carried out and that if this was stopped the whole expansion of the Slipway would be pointless.
Also in 1996 The Tyne and Wear Development wrote to Harry Wilson indicating they would not support further expansion so close to a domestic estate.
Another thing I saw was an application (Dated Aug 2013 I think) for construction of a further slipway and office block that would be close to the boundary fence of the   domestic property,  When enquiring if this could be viewed the planning office member stated that it was a pre-application that was private and not for viewing.
Regards
Paul Hepburn

In the beginning: The First Shed

Now I’ve left Greens Place for Amble, yes my house in Green’s Place is for sale, I have time to sit back and reappraise the Slipway Shed Situation. This was from the day the bright new steelwork arrived at H Wilson’s slipway on River Drive.

Subject: Tyne Gateway
From: Melanie
Date: Thu, 5 Sept 2013 22:55:06
To: Mick Dawson

Hi Mick,
Your rantings always welcome.
You are correct in your observations, I spoke at length with the Head Planning Officer this afternoon who kindly emailed the original planning permission from 1996. He gave me the background etc on what is happening, and what they intend to put plans in for next.
As Matthew put it…’They demolished Historic Shipyards to build new houses and now they are building Shipyards in front of Historic houses!
A close eye needs to be kept on how this develops and who takes responsibility.
Melanie

On 5 September 2013, at 22:37, Mick Dawson wrote:

Hi Melanie.
It looks to me to be steelwork to make a cover over the existing slipway. However this may be far from the facts as this council are notorious for doing things through the back door.
A good example of this the public landings which you know quite a bit about:- The one at the Alum went a few years ago by an elegant sleight of hand and now the one at Redheads is about to go. It doesn’t make much sense to me as this town exists because of the river and why are they,the council, now turning their back on it. Water fountains beside the Customs House just do not count.
One needs little creeks and backwaters for people to grow up, develop and feel part of a place and also people like me in my old age to sit by and ponder about life’s changes. I could go on a lot more but your Councillor will say “get to the point” and I will have to shut up.
enough of my ramblings,
cheers Mick
PS. it is a shame to have to say this but you are probably wasting your time, “pissing against the wind ” in common sailors parlance, trying to involve Graeme.

From: Melanie
To: Graeme Watson
Cc: Some residents in Greens Place
Sent:Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:56 PM
Subject:Tyne Gateway

To the Chair of Tyne Gateway
Dear Graeme,
Please convene an emergency general meeting of all members and or prospective members of the Tyne Gateway Association to discuss the development on River Drive of the new shipyard which commenced without notice either from the companies and construction firm involved or from the Local Authority.
Regards,
Melanie Todd, Member of Tyne Gateway Association.

FAO – South Tyneside Council Planning Department

From: Melanie Todd
Sent: 24 June 2014 15:10
To: Planning applications
Subject:ST/0461/14/FUL

Dear Mr Simmonette,

With reference to the letter we have received this morning by post giving notice of the application from UK Docks planning proposal dated 20 June 2014. This was not posted (as per the envelope date stamp until 23 June), and not received by our household, 84,Greens Place, until Tuesday 24 June 2014. Therefore technically I do not believe you can enforce that we only have 21 days from the date on the letter to make representations. I await your advise on a new deadline in line with the receipt of the information.
Furthermore I would like you to advise on why this application will go straight to the Planning Committee, as outlined in your correspondence. And what consultations and appropriate impact surveys will be carried out regarding this planned development ahead of the Planning Committee? Will there be site visits and consultations with local residents by the Committee members and reviews of STMBC Local Strategic Plan with regard to the proposed development of this area?
With STMBC knowing the issues regarding the development of this site in close proximity to established residential housing, our own house has been here since 1843 and most likely built on the site of earlier dwellings, have any other more appropriate sites for this development been investigated ahead of this planning application by either the Owners of UK Docks or STMBC? I understand that Port of Tyne offered UK Docks a more appropriate site for their work immediately to the east of McNulty’s yard.
In your letter under the heading MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS  you state “Matters relating to rights to light, property values, or private covenants cannot be considered as a material planning consideration in the assessment of any planning application.” Please supply by return any documents or references to current legislation upon which STMBC has based this statement.
The existing shed still under construction at River Drive is not built to plan and should be removed. All the conditions attached to the 1996 planning permission have been breached and should be enforced. It is absurd for STMBC to argue that none of these conditions will be enforced because the developers have not built to plan. These kinds of arguments emanating from STMBC planning are clearly not even-handed between the interests of the developers and those of local residents who are left with little faith in the planning process, and which bring into disrepute the Planning Authority. A petition signed by over 200 people objecting to the development under construction at this site has been addressed and delivered to the Chief Executive of STMBC and re-directed by Democratic Services to George Mansbridge. Know that I object to theses un-democratic actions, and to the further development of the site as outlined in the planning application to which your letter refers. I have looked online and notice that the plans to which your letter refers are not to be found on the planning portal – in the same way that the plans for the shed under construction were also not publicised on the planning portal or indeed in any other way before construction began in September 2013. Taken together with the existing construction, these new plans represent a concerted effort to re-site heavy industrial works within a residential area, in very close proximity to residential and retirement housing. The work planned by the developer to be undertaken on this site is quite unacceptable for reasons of nuisance, noise, pollution, and a severely adverse affect upon the visual amenity of the area for residents and visitors.
Yours sincerely,
Melanie Todd, resident

UK Docks River Drive – Noise

An Email to the Council, MP and others with reference to :-

http://www.noisenet.org/Noise_Enviro_stat1.htm

Please be aware: continuing and exacerbated issues with the noise emanating from Mr Wilson’s UK Docks. It is a nuisance and unacceptable in an area surrounded by residential properties. Please see attached link with regard to noise pollution.
Residential rights state we do not have to endure the levels of noise we are experiencing.
We have rights equal to the owner of the business site. Therefore you must treat the residents of Greens Place, Harbour View, and others affected with the same level of law. Until the owner is able to provide accoustic sound- proofing, you should apply the laws which stop the work until adequate action is taken to reduce the noise.
I am unable to open windows and doors at the back of my house for ventilation due to the extreme levels of noise coming from the yard. This is an environmental and health issue that needs immediately addressing.
Council and representatives: I would appreciate if you could also answer why Mr Wilson’s yard and business seems to have precedence over residents rights, and the fact that this estate was built and owned in 1991 with the ensuing residential rights, above a business that has remained relatively dormant until 2013, and was only owned by the Wilson’s since 1994?

Council: Can you explain the anomaly of this situation please? I would hate to think that Mr Wilson has the priority due to other reasons we don’t fully have the knowledge of? Including verbal or documentary agreements we have not been made aware of.

Thank you
Julie Routledge