Complained to them in 2015 about the goings on between South Tyneside Council and UK Docks – received an out of office reply then nothing.

Then two schemes from the Agents: Gary Craig Building services Ltd. were pushed through a Planning Committee meeting on 01-Feb-16 which was not minuted; *

• ST/0461/14/FUL – UK Docks Expansion, Case Officer, Gary Simmonette ;
• ST/0746/15/FUL – Demolition of the Beacon, Case Officer, David Rogerson.

UK Docks went unreported but the demolition of the Beacon was. It seems the total close-down of any commentary about UK Docks by South Tyneside Council was then complete by spring 2016.

This was first achieved by misinforming the Local Government Ombudsman and when this did not guarantee 100% success an ‘omerta’ was put in force by the person administering the complaints system but she had to say that there was no misinformation given to the Ombudsman to justify it.  See items 25 and after on the list of evasions.

The first items (< 5 ) were from other residents as I was more interested in why was it there at all, I naturally assumed that they would have had approval before they invested in moving their entire business to River Drive. It was spread across 3 sites (4 including Sunderland) before their eviction from Tyne Dock.

My interest  this stems from item 5 where the 2 of the 3 representatives were Director and Procurement Officer of HBHydraulics. They do not seem to have a presence on the Tyne these days but in 2013 their living was dependant on ship repair yards, of which there were only two left on the Tyne and one was UK Docks.

Neither of the two representatives declared an interest when they were elected to the Committee of the Tyne Gateway Assn six weeks before and they appeared to be singing from the same hymn sheet as the Planning Officer who told us that the shed had been approved .

Mick Dawson
The 3rd Representative

Not a typo. The picture was taken on a trip to Amsterdam in 2010 and it clearly shows six sets of footings which were laid in February 2001. It appears that the original planning permission was granted for the slipway cover on condition that the business was not allowed to grow any bigger in an area primarily intended for residential and leisure use. The sale of land downstream to Mr and Mrs Wilson, former Velva Liquids, apparently has covenants restricting the use of the land as well.
Continue reading Footings 2010 (laid in 2001) →

Daft or what? The cover doors/shutters should be closed before use.

One of the conditions of the grant in 1996. South Tyneside Council let UK Docks use the slipway in spite of the shed being built without planning permission. They say they cannot take enforcement action because it has been built without planning permission. This is bending the rules so far as to make even the worst Tory Councils look good.

09th December 2015 – Customer Advocacy use unsound LGO  decision to silence debate on the height question;
07th Dec 2015 – the Case Officer did not respond to a query about the planned height of the existing shed [laid off to Customer Advocates]
Continue reading Don’t talk about the Height. →

The Application for change of use of an Industrial Site – Clevedon West – North Somerset.

Permission is sought for the change the use of an attached pair of industrial units from class B1 (light industrial) to class B2 (general industrial).  Permission was granted for the buildings in 2002 under reference 02/P/1114/F.

Consultations

Third Parties:  Two letters of objection have been received.  The principal planning points made are as follows:

1.             Noise, pollution and disturbance.  Nuisance from loud noises, spray paint and fumes experienced in the past.
2.             B2 use would generate more noise.
3.             Proposed increase in working hours would be unacceptable.
4.             B1 use should be enforced.

Clevedon Town Council:             “No objections”.
Environment Agency:       Objects to the proposal on the grounds that the application fails to demonstrate that the risk of pollution to controlled waters has been addressed and that no Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted.

Planning Issues
The principal planning issues in this case are (1) The principle of the development, (2) The impact on the living conditions of neighbours, (3) Flood risk, (4) Contamination and (5) Highways and access.

RECOMMENDATION:  REFUSE for the following reasons:

1.      The siting of a general industrial use in close proximity to residential property is likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of noise nuisance for adjoining residents.  The proposal will therefore be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents and is contrary to policies GDP/2 and E/4 of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan and to advice contained in PPS24 (Planning and Noise).

2.      The site lies within a high-risk flood zone (zone 3) and the application fails to include a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment.  In the absence of a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment, the development is considered to be at an unacceptable risk of flooding and the proposal conflicts with policy GDP/2 of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan and advice contained in PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk).

3.      Given the history of the site, the site is considered to be at risk from pollution.  The application fails to include an assessment of the pollution risk at the site or any relevant mitigation measures.  In the absence of details to the contrary the development is considered to pose a risk of contamination to controlled waters and the proposal is therefore contrary to  policy GDP/2 of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan and to advice contained in PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control).

Reference: http://apps.n-somerset.gov.uk/cairo/docs/doc18584.htm

can a structure as big a UK Dock’s shelter be built without planning permission.
There seem to be two camps:

The road end is 15.5m high. All indications from documents held by South Tyneside Council the planned height of that end is 12.5m. Despite objectors telling the Council that the shelter was not built to plan, it is now completed and in use (day 708).
Day 3 the height was being questioned- not answered-PC
Day 81 the height and width said to be compliant-PC
Day 106 the height and width said to be compliant-PC
Continue reading Work Continues on Shed built without Planning Permission →

Below is a clarification of a complaint against the council (at stage 3).

Subject: Inappropriate Development on River Drive. STC [PROTECT]
From: “Customer Advocates”
Date: Mon, November 24, 2014 10:12 am
To: “mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk”

Dear Mr Dawson

Thank you for your email dated 21 November 2014 which was forwarded to me for consideration.

I can confirm that as previously advised, the Council accepts that the structure in question does not have planning permission. My Stage 3 response to you dated 25 September 2014 also explained the reasons for the Council’s Head of Development Services’ decision that it was not expedient to take planning enforcement action with respect to the development. I am sorry that I am unable to make these points any more clearly than I already have.

I note your intention to approach the Local Government Ombudsman and this is the correct route for you to now follow if you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of this matter.

Yours sincerely
Performance and Information Officer