Monthly Archives: March 2019

2019, Misinforming the LGO

Subject: Cllr A: Slipway Development – River Drive

Leave a comment 
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: Wed, March 27, 2019 5:40 pm
To: "Angela Hamilton" 
Cc: "Andrew Tilbury" "Emma Lewell-Buck MP" "Stephen Hepburn MP" "Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP" "Cllr Anglin" "Cllr McMillan" "Gill Hayton (Solicitor)" "Customer Advocates" "Fiona Stanton" "Graeme Watson" "Evening Chronicle"

Dear Angela,

I have retrieved my original complaint from the ‘bin’ this morning. The mighty servers at Microsoft have been looking after it for me for all these years. I would resubmit it but would only get a response similar to the one from Gill Hayton, 12-Dec-18 or one like Emma relayed, 6-Sep-17, whenhad I pointed out another one of Cllrs Anglin’s transgressions: The previous issues relating to the boat yard have in fact now been looked at by the Local Government Ombudsman and they found noissue with the yard or anything relating to its development. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman’s decision cannot be re-visited.

The attached letter started of as a response to Monitoring (putting it in writing to her boss Mr M Harding was not an option considering how much ink and paper I would have to use especially as, on current form it is going to get ‘binned’). I quickly realised that I would immediately fall into the trap set for me by Gill Hayton. The bait is the misinformation about the height coupled with the invitation to write again to the Monitoring Officer and the trap is sprung by writing to them again. It is a set piece and was used on me when I complained about the development of 71 Greens place. Then, I did not gather what was going on. I was more prepared for it when it was tried by Planning in late 2013/early 2014, the bait being repetition of misinformation given at the meeting by Mr Cunningham and the trap being sprung when I wrote to his Manager. Mr Atkinson re-baited the trap with a rather wordy version of of what Mr Cunningham wrote: “The approved dimensions of the steelwork are: Proposed height 15.5m at the River Drive end.” and invited me to write to the Head of Development Services, where, as you can see, the trap was reloaded.

I tried various devices to avoid this trap but they just keep on baiting with variations of that lie until we get Gill Hayton quoting the Ombudsman directly. I did take Mr Tilbury’s advice and wrote to the Chief Executive but a ‘new’ complaint was not raised the reason given being that; “There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman”. I personally would believe Mr Tilbury rather than someone chosen by the Chief Executive of South Tyneside Council.

It was actually the second inspector for the Ombudsman that said; “I consider that your latest complaint remains that of your previous complaint which has already been determined (whether or not to your satisfaction) and the opportunity to request a review of that decision has passed.” Notice he said nothing about the Council misleading the Ombudsman, but that I was too late in reporting it. I believe the period to challenge what a Council has told them is now a month. The shed is still 3m taller and 1m wider than planned and the Council have still not responded to my complaint made in January 2014. Please ask them nicely to pull their finger out and respond properly to it – see complaint below.

Kindly yours
Michael.

2019, Misrepresentation

UK Docks

Leave a comment 
Subject:UK Docks
From:"Cllr Angela Hamilton" <cllr.angela.hamilton@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, March 6, 2019 11:46 am
To: David and Julie, Melanie and I.
Cc: David Francis and, Emma Lewell-Buck MP.

This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Hello All

As you are aware myself and Emma Lewell-Buck MP met with UK Docks on Friday lastweek when I raised a number of concerns on behalf of residents. I apologise forthe slight delay in responding but I needed to clarify a couple of points with officers first to make sure I answered as many of your concerns as possible.

Background
UK Docks are the owners of a boat yard on River Drive which is the companiesHeadquarters. The main services provided from the River Drive location includerepairs for boats and small ships, a marine supply store, workshop facilities and base for staff who repair and maintain ships in various locations around theworld. There are no repairs to large ships or shipbuilding on the site as the dock is not large enough for this. The business provides jobs in the local area and offers traineeships and apprenticeships.

Issues raised
Since UK Docks opened the site on River Drive a number of concerns have been raised by residents about the operation of the premises. My response to each of these issues are below:

Containers: As I believe you are already aware the containers have now been moved. Some of the containers will be removed from the site while others have been moved to another location on the site which does not overlook any houses. There was a delay in these being moved due to delays in building works being completed (see below) but hopefully this issue is now resolved.

Jetties: Although there were proposals for jetties included in the plans there has never been any confirmation of if and when these would be built. At the moment there are no plans to build the jetties. I have asked UK Docks to let meknow if this position changes.

Lighting: UK Docks confirmed that there were some problems with lighting when the office building first opened. This was due to a fault with the automatic lights which were not turning off when the building was empty. As I am sure youcan imagine this was a concern for the company as well as local residents. The fault has been fixed and I have been reassured that the only lights that are on overnight are security lights that are required on sites such as this. Given that there is street lighting in the areas these lights are unlikely to have anyadverse impact on the area.

Building works: The work to build the office building was delayed as the builders contracted to do this went out of business meaning UK Docks had to complete the work themselves using local contractors. The main building work isnow complete so hopefully there will be no further issues relating to this.

Car park: UK Docks have told me that they will be carrying out the works on thecar park over the next few weeks. While this may mean there will be some increase in noise for a short period of time I have been assured that this will not be carried out early in the morning, late in the evening or on Sundays. There may be a need to carry out some work on Saturday mornings but this will be kept to a minimum. Once the car park has been completed this will create a gap between houses and the area where work is carried out which should assist in reducing noise levels.

Noise reduction: The noise reduction boards that are currently in place are not MDF but a heavy duty material used in the marine industry and are seen as the most effective in reducing noise. UK Docks are not opposed to planting trees along the border and will consider this but there are a number of issues that need to be considered before this is agreed including: type of trees; impact ofplanting trees on surround properties as it is important that anything planted does not cause problems for the foundations; and whether planting trees would help reduce noise levels. This is something we can discuss with UK Docks once the car park is finished.

Privacy: Having visited the site and attended a meeting in the office building Idon’t believe there are any issues. There is one window that faces the rear of the houses on Harbour View but it is virtually impossible to see into either the houses or the gardens from this window due to the angle of the building and the window. If you are still concerned please let me know and I will contact UK Docks to see if there is anything that can be done to provide you with additional reassurance.

Planning: While I understand the concerns you have raised about the buildings deviating from the original plans I cannot see any way to resolve this issue. You have said that the building is slightly wider and higher than the original plans but I have not been able to find out anything about why this happened. As I wasn’t a Councillor at the time I was not involved in any of the discussions so can’t confirm whether this was agreed before or after building works were completed and it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the building and it isn’t financially viable to remove and rebuild it. I believe that many of the issues may have been caused by a lack of communication between UK Docks, the Council and residents which is something I hope will not be an issue going forward.

UK Docks are happy to talk about any concerns going forward and, if you would like me to, I can facilitate discussions as and when required. I realise this may not be resolve all of your past concerns but hopefully it will allow us to build a relationship to prevent similar problems arising in the future.If you have any questions or need any more information please don’t hesitate to get in touch.RegardsCouncillor Angela HamiltonBeacon and Bents WardSouth Tyneside CouncilEmail: Cllr.angela.hamilton@southtyneside.gov.uk