Monthly Archives: November 2020

Corruption

South Tyneside Council and the Local Government Ombudsman

Leave a comment

30th November 2020

Dear All,
procedures one needs examples and I have chosen the two that I have been dealing with over the last seven years.
For each case to which I refer and use as evidence, the original and some approved plans are available. Copies of them can be found on the public website ‘theharbourview.co.uk’ and to save on numerous attachments they can be viewed by searching on the drawing reference number.
There is another case in the borough where building control and planning enforcement appear to have gone with the wind and that is where a developer built a block of flats with an extra floor. This
will always be open to speculation until a copy of the original plan turn up. They are believed to show approval for a three stories and has 4.
In the two examples to which I refer, the approved plans still existed when the complaints first arose, and it was shown quite clearly that both developments were not built to the approved plan. It appears from both, that the Council first corrupted their own complaints procedure then misused the services of the Local Government Ombudsman (Ombudsman), to hide the lack of building control.
Continue reading South Tyneside Council and the Local Government Ombudsman →

2020, Condition 2, Misinforming the LGO

STC Covering Tracks: Jan-May 2014

Leave a comment
Overwriting of Complaint 10-Jan-14 with 248789.
10/01/14 To: MD – Slipway Development – Work Continues
As the applicant has not discharged condition 2 why is there no retrospective planning application?
13/01/14 To: MD – Slipway Development – Work Continues
My understanding is that the responses that I had provided to you at this meeting enabled the matter to be closed.
The meeting 25-Nov-13 was not minuted so the Case Office was able to lie about the shed being approved.
14/01/14 See Email to Planning
15/01/14 Unauthorised drawing from the Council’s archives introduced to make a false claim – that the height of the shed had been approved when it had not.
Escalation from Stage 1 to Stage 2  and overwriting of 248789 with 253539 to hide it
03/02/14 To: G Atkinson – Slipway Development, River Drive
The north elevation height is therefore 15.5m and subsequently the south elevation 12.5m. (measured height is 15.5m)
13/02/14 To MD – Slipway Development, River Drive
The current structure is not built to approved plans.
04/03/14 To: G Atkinson – Slipway Development, River Drive
The immediate response from residents was to request the slipway construction be removed.
04/03/14 To: MD – Slipway Development, River Drive
The immediate response from residents was to request the slipway construction be removed.
20/03/14 To: G Atkinson – Slipway Development, River Drive
Why has the council not used its powers of enforcement to stop the work?,
21/03/14 To: G Atkinson – Slipway Development, River Drive
Now I have this the Council will be able to provide a response.
03/04/14 Petition about the Slipway Development on River Drive
300 Signatures.
04/04/14 To: G Mansbridge – Slipway Shed, River Drive
Request to explain their action or rather lack of it over the slipway shed.
25/04/14 Case  248789 passed up to G Mansbridge, the head of Development Service.
Head of Development Services, Mr G Mansbridge to give Response.
02/05/14 Response to Petition & Complaints
Repeats misinformation given by Planning Manager on 15-Jan-14
09/05/14 To: G Mansbridge – Slipway Development, River Drive
There is no supporting documentation which says that the approved height is 15.5m at the River Drive end.
12/05/14 To: MD – Slipway Development, River Drive
Overwrites 2489789 with 253539 i.e. content of the former deleted.
Sreen Print of 253539
The way is now set for a Senior Planning Office to give fraudulent misinformation to the Local Government Ombudsman
2/06/14 Psudo Stage 2 – Misrepresentation of drawings 15-Jan-14 repeated
25/09/14 Psudo Stage 3 – height not mensioned.
2020, Condition 2, Misrepresentation

A Criticism of Corporate Lead

Leave a comment

Critique – November 2020

Mr Dawson
Date: 1 August 2016                      Our Ref: CX/253539
Greens Place                             Your Ref: 2248789
South Shields
Tyne and Wear NE33 2AQ

Dear Mr Dawson

Thank you for your letter to Martin Swales, Chief Executive dated 8 July 2016, requesting matters related to your previous complaint to be raised as a new complaint, I manage the process and staff that support customer complaints and compliments. Your letter has therefore been forwarded to me to consider and respond.

Mrs Johnson has changed the reference 248789 to 253539. The latter was raised by the Head of Development Services to overwrite the original complaint of 10-Jan-14 again. I say again because the Planning Manager had already overwritten the original, after the Principal Planning Officer, Mr Cunningham, referred me back to the Tyne Gateway Assn instead of passing it and the responsibility for it to the Enforcement Section.

Having considered the contents of your letter and the final decision by the Local Government Ombudsman, I am now in a position to respond.

My letter was about the Council giving misinformation/misrepresentation to the Ombudsman and to reinforce that point I said: “I ask you to look again at this because there is a clear contradiction between what the Council were telling the LGO and what is known. Why your staff should misrepresent the facts to the LGO is for you to determine. That they have misinformed the LGO should be admitted and corrected and that is what this letter is about.”

There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman,
Continue reading A Criticism of Corporate Lead →