There has been an email from Paul saying that he assumed the section drawing of the frames is road end. It looks like a lot of people make that mistake and I’ve always made the assumption that people knew that it was the river end, it is becoming clear to me now that the may be staff in the Council who think it refers to road end. It is not surprising that people have ignored my early explanation of why the shed has been built 3m higher than planned. Take a look right half of 8296/1A again.
Continue reading Shed Section. 8296/1A or 1B
Monthly Archives: December 2015
Comprehensive Protest
Sent: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:10
Subject: Fwd: Planning application UK Docks – ST/0461/14/FUL
Dear Garry Simmonette,
Planning Application UK Docs Your reference: ST/0461/14/FUL
We were informed by Gordon Atkinson (see email attached) that you are dealing with this matter. Continue reading Comprehensive Protest
To Planning Enquiries
I received a copy of the complaint sent in to Panning Enquires from a couple who live in Greens Place and have used it as I cannot remember now if I have actually put a complaint in since the amendment went in, the agent had not specified the height of the second shed in the first submission. The planning department had been challenged about accepting plans to build another shed 3m too high. It appears that people who protested when these plans were first submitted will be ignored and only the objections of those who complained against the renewed application would be considered. This ruling appears to be in use again by the Planning Office in the application to demolish the Beacon Public House.
Continue reading To Planning Enquiries
Caution from Customer Advocates
UK Docks Tyne Slipway ST/0461/14/FUL [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
From: “Customer Advocates” <Customer.Advocates@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, December 9, 2015 2:13 pm
To: “mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk” <mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Dear Mr Dawson
I have been forwarded your emails to the Planning Team dated 4th and 7th December 2015, in order to clarify the Council’s position regarding your comments on issues relating to the existing boat repair shed at UK Docks Tyne Slipway and your earlier complaint to the Council regarding this matter.
Your email of 4th December refers to not being satisfied with the responses to the second part of your earlier contact to the team on 30 September. This was regarding the planning enforcement aspect of the existing boat repair shed. This matter has been investigated fully by the Council through its corporate complaints procedure. The complaint was not upheld and was also considered and decided by the Local Government Ombudsman who found no fault with the Council’s decision.
The Local Government Ombudsman’s final decision dated 15 April 2015 was that:
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. Local residents complained but the Council found the developer could still build the shed. However, the developer built it almost a metre wider than he should have done. 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. It kept residents informed throughout the process. The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be. The Council says it is not. There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.
We have also responded to a further enquiry made to the Council via your then local MP Anne-Marie Trevelyan, dated 1 June 2015, which claimed you had not been able to locate any details from the Council on why the shed had been approved despite the breach in planning conditions, even though at that time you had received complaint responses from both the Council and the Ombudsman.
You also submitted a further complaint to the Council on the same matter on 13 July 2015. I have attached my responses to your contact which confirmed the Council were not to consider the matter further.
As advised in my email of 22 July the Council do not intend to address this matter further. We ask that you refrain from referring to these historic issues in your further contacts with the Council.
Your comments on the revised planning application ST/0461/14/FUL are being dealt with through the legal planning procedure and any comments will be considered when a decision is made on the application in due course.
Yours sincerely
Alison Hoy
Performance and Information Support Officer
Customer Advocates
South Tyneside Council
Unplanned Shed – ST/1146/13/COND
To: Garry Simmonette
CC: George Mansbridge; THV Admin for Circulation;
Emma Lewell-Buck MP; Stephen Hepburn MP
Cllr John Anglin; Cllr Audrey McMillan; Cllr John Wood
Unplanned Shed – ST/1146/13/COND
(Amended Planning Application – ST/0461/14/FUL.)
Dear Mr Simmonette,
In my email to you on Friday 4th Dec I assumed, possibly wrongly, that you would be familiar with the planning application ST/1146/13 submitted to meet the conditions of the grant of permission ST/0242/96 in 1996. This email is to give you some background but I wish first to dispel a common assumption held about drawing 8296/1A.
Drawing 8296/1A.
It has been assumed, wrongly, in recent correspondence I have had, that the section of the shed on this drawing is the landward end. It is the river end and there is no note to say that it, against standard drawing convention, is otherwise.
Background to ST/1146/13.
In October 2013 Local Residents (20 or so) met in the Littlehaven Hotel, South Shields, to discuss the Shed or Slipway Cover being constructed by UK Docks, nearby, in River Drive. The meeting agreed that the shed was built much higher than planned but this was difficult to prove because the plans provided by the Council could be interpreted to indicate that the height was not materially different from that planned and anyway the Council would not say how high the framework was. The the meeting decided to enlist the help of the Tyne Gateway Association.
About 30 Residents attended meeting of the Tyne Gateway Assn meeting on 9th November 2013 to which the ward Councillors were invited (Councillors Anglin and MacMillan attended, apologies were given for Councillor Wood).
To the view that the Shed was too high and in the wrong place,* it was added that it was too wide as well. Councillor Anglin said the meeting appeared to be confused about which end of the shed was planned to be 15.5m and that he would try and arrange for a meeting with the Council to clear this up. There is a gradient of nearly 3m between the ends of the shed and the shed is, by all accounts 3 meters too high.
A meeting was arranged on the 25th Nov 2013 with the Council. Three TGA Committee Members, along with two Councillors, Anglin and MacMillan, apologies were again given for Councillor Wood, attended as well. We were told that the shed was built to plan and that there was nothing we could do about it until the application to add another shed, slipway, rebuild the office block etc. was received.
The width of the shed was measured shortly after as it could be quite easily done by very simple surveying and was found to be a meter wider than planned. It took three more months before the Council admitted that the shed was also too high. Please see email from Mr Atkinson, 13th February 2014, he was the Planning Manager at that time. We were using drawing 8296/14 in our discussion as it did not have misleading errors.
Mr Mansbridge in his letter to Residents, in May 2014, defending his wish not to take enforcement action used 8296/1A to justify his position. This is why I asked you in my email to take a fresh look both drawings and determine for yourself what you think the planned height should be.
It would appear that the shed should be dismantled or a retrospective planning application made for its continued use and that is what you should be addressing, not an application to extend it.
Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson
* it is believed that UK Docks were offered an alternative site by Port of Tyne: it is the extension of River Quay and the infill behind it that put an end to the slipway business in Tyne Dock after all.
PS who has taken over Mr Atkinson’s responsibility in respect of complaints about planning decisions?
Amended Planning Application – ST/0461/14/FUL.
To: Garry Simmonette
CC: George Mansbridge; THV Circulation
Emma Lewell-Buck MP; Stephen Hepburn MP
Cllr John Anglin; Cllr Audrey McMillan; Cllr John Wood
Amended Planning Application – ST/0461/14/FUL.
Dear Garry,
Please note that on the 3rd of November I moved back to Greens Place. Your
Council Tax Section has already been informed of this move.
I have included the Ward Councillors and our MPs because I think they
should be appraised of the goings on at UK Docks on River Drive. I’ve
copied in 2 Local Residents for circulation as they see fit.
Please thank Mr Mansbridge for the letter advising me of the amendment to the Application ST/0461/14/FUL.
I wrote to you directly on the 30th Sept because of some concerns of mine about the application (pdf copy attached). My concerns regarding the planning procedures appear to have been covered but you have not replied and the second part of my email has not been addressed. The shed, UK Docks, River Drive was built without planning permission.
Continue reading Amended Planning Application – ST/0461/14/FUL.