Category Archives: Misinforming the LGO

STC Covering Tracks: Jan-May 2014

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.

South Tyneside Council and the Local Government Ombudsman

From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 19/06/2019 (21:08:05 GMT)
To: Mike Harding
Cc: Andrew Tilbury, Alison Hoy, Gill Hayton (Solicitor), Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Cllr Anglin, Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Stephen Hepburn MP, Graeme Watson, George Mansbridge, Peter Cunningham, Garry Simmonette
Bcc: 24 Local Residents

Attachment: DearMH19June19.pdf

Dear Mr Harding and Everybody,

Please see attached signed letter. It should be self explanatory. I knew from complaining about 71 Greens Place that the Council were misusing their complaints procedure and using the Ombudsman as a hidden fourth stage of it to hide malpractice, bad planning decisions etc. and it was clear from the start that they were going to do the same thing with UK Docks shed.

If the Planning Officer who measured the shed had any evidence to support his view that the shed was approved we would have seen it long before we even considered resurrecting the Tyne Gateway Assn and certainly before the charade of the Town Hall meeting in November 2013.

It should of dawned on me before Alison’s email of 9-Dec-15 that they would use the Ombudsman’s findings to misinform other Residents, Councillors, MPs, Newspapers etc. but there you go, one does not expect people to lie to the Ombudsman.

Regards,
Michael Dawson

AH and Misrepresentation /misinformation given by South Tyneside Council

From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 20/05/2019 (09:26:16 GMT)
To:   Alison.Hoy@southtyneside.gov.uk
Cc:   Andrew Tilbury, Cllr David Francis, Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr Anglin, Mike Harding, Peter Cunningham, Garry Simmonette, Gill Hayton (Solicitor), Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Stephen Hepburn MP, Stuart Wright
Bcc: mick.dawson
Attachment: STDandLGO26Jan16.pdf (355 KB) Advice from Solicitor.

Dear Alison,

Please see my email below and answer the question. In the meantime please forward this letter to the Head of Legal Services along with Mr Tilbury’s advice given to me on the 26th January 2016 which I have attached. What had prompted me to seek his advice was your email to me of 9th December 2015[1] and please forward a copy of that to the Head of Legal Services as well if he is not Mike Harding.

Mr Tilbury said it was not really a planning matter at all, more a case of criminal fraud but the police were unlikely to take it up because they tend to refer planning matters to the civil court and that could get very expensive and Mr Cunningham and Co. would get away with incompetence or something like it. This is why we agreed that ‘misleading the Local Government Ombudsman’ (Ombudsman) was the best way forward.

I did write a draft letter to Mr Tilbury but it was 10 pages, and I had not covered everything so I thought it might be better to write to the CEO myself with a couple of the most obvious of the misrepresentations.

Your email confirmed that, not only was the Council using the Ombudsman to cover up malpractice, corruption of their own complaints procedure but to also use the Ombudsman’s wrong assessment to misdirect anybody who tried to find out why the Council gave permission for the UK Docks to relocate their business in a primarily residential part of South Shields.

They also use the findings to mislead anyone who enquires why they were allowed to build a much larger structure than that for which they were given permission such as my MP, Marie Trevelyan, and is second point in your email 9-Dec-15:

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.

What I said in that letter was; “You have not specified that the stated height (15.5m) is of the river end of the shelter and it is likely that, Mr Swales, if he follows the arguments of the Planning Manager and the Head of Development Services before him, will say it refers to the road end.” I followed this with a detailed explanation of why it referred to the river end and finally by; “If Mr Swales provides any new plans to show you that I am wrong in my assessment of the development on River Drive by UK Docks please let me know.”

Mr Swales did not provide any plans, new or old, because they do not exist. To get round this problem, Mrs Johnson who replied on his behalf makes out that we were wrong about the height;

The matters and allegations raised by your constituent are well documented and have been subject to a number of enquiries from Mr Dawson and other local residents over a lengthy period of time. The matter was ultimately referred by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, the outcome of which was delivered on 14 April 2015

The relabelling of our observations and or complaints as allegations appears to have become standard practice since Mrs Johnson replaced Mr Mansbridge in the ‘Complaints Procedure’ and I think it more than coincidence that that you now label my complaint that the enclosure is nearly 3m taller than planned as an ‘earlier allegation’.

This neatly brings me to the first point you were trying to make in your email of the 9th December [1] and the primary purpose of misleading the Ombudsman. To hide malpractice:

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 email of the 4th of December was written because Mr Simmonette, the planning officer promoting the expansion of the boatyard, had not responded to my email of of the 30th September.

In the earlier one I had explained the shed was a meter wider and 3 meters taller than planned and said: “You appear to be accepting an application to extend a structure that does not have planning permission.” In the email of the 4th of December I went into much greater detail backing up my claim about the height of the enclosure by reference to the approved drawings 8296/2 and 8296/14 and positing: “The request for permission to extend it by 25% appears to be an attempt bypass the planning regulations, see condition 2 in the original grant of permission.”

If you had checked what was being said in these two emails you would have realised that I was advising Mr Simmonette that the shed was too high and if he did not believe it just look at the approved drawings. There was nothing about enforcement and it appears he told you that because he did not want to admit I was right about the height. In this he was following a trend developed by Mr Cunningham in September 2013 when we first asked him about the planned height of the enclosure.

From what I could gather he, Mr Cunningham, was telling people at first that the enclosure had been approved while some of us had worked out that it had not in various ways. Our main objection was that it was 3 meters higher than planned. Some knew it was also wider than planned, thought it was inappropriately located and thought that the change of use breached the conditions of the grant.

Now it turns out that all of these are true but the Council/Ombudsman have found for UK Docks on all of them but the one thing they cannot skirt around is the fact that it is built 2.7 meters taller than planned and you and others get round this by implying that were lying or making allegations when it is the Council that are at fault in this respect. (Allegation: a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof).

I first came across this sort of libel in a copy of a letter to my MP from Mrs Johnson dated 25th June 2015 [2] in which she suggests that not only me but the other protestors are wrong about the enclosure. Notice that she does not have the grace to send me a copy of attachment 6 and I did not see what she was saying about us for six months It was not an oversight judging by her comment at the bottom and when I saw the copy you sent me in January 2016 I realised why Anne-Marie’s office had not responded to my enquires and what a nasty piece of work Mrs Johnson was.

I think we are entitled to know what else was said about us by Mrs Johnson in her letter and the five other attachments. Please forward them to me under the freedom of information act.

The letter of the 5th October was Mrs J Johnson’s 2nd response to my letter to the Chief Executive of the 8th July 2016 [3] about some of the misrepresentations presented to the Ombudsman and their source. Mrs Johnson earlier responded on his behalf by saying that there was no evidence of ‘deliberate’ misinformation having been made to the Ombudsman  [4]. Misinformation by its very nature is deliberate and she contradicts what Mr Tilbury says in his letter about what the Council have told the Ombudsman.

She carries out her threat in her letter of the 5th October and my response of the 2nd September 2016 and its accompanying letter to Customer Advocacy have remained unanswered all this time and UK Docks have extended their shed without planning permission onto footings laid in 2001.

This appears to be the real reason for closing down conversation about the enclosure. The plans for its extension, submitted by the agent Gary Craig, relied on the Council supporting the false premise that structure signed off in June 2014 had planning permission.

As for Mrs Johnson reasons for imposing her ‘omerta’ let me just refer you to the last point in your letter of the 9th December were spurious to say the least. The emails exchanged between us in July 2015 were about requests for information, not complaints (9th Dec, last paragraphs). It so happens the information you provided, and I thanked you for it, showed that it was the Council corrupting their complaints procedure, not I.

If you look at my letter of the 2nd September bottom of first page, you will see a statement that I had already been to a solicitor and received a response. The ball’s in your court. I see no need to engage Mr Tilbury again and I suggest someone from your legal section attends to my email of the 2nd September 2016 and discusses the matter with Mr Tilbury if they so wish.

Kind regards
Michael Dawson

Links: 
------
[1] http://theharbourview.co.uk/docs/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2015/12/FromAH09Dec.pdf
[2] http://theharbourview.co.uk/docs/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2015/12/HJtoAMT25Jun15.pdf
[3] http://theharbourview.co.uk/blog/letter-to-ceo/
[4] http://theharbourview.co.uk/docs/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2015/12/ReplyHJfor-CEO1Aug16.pdf

Letter to Monitoring Officer: 9-Apr-19

 Neither acknowledged nor answered

Amble
9th April 2019

Dear Mr Harding,

Councillor Anglin, UK Docks and the Enclosure on River Drive

Gill Hayton’s response to my complaint about Cllr Anglin and the Town Hall meeting of 25-Nov-13 is not sound but she does say I may ask you to review her decision if I am dissatisfied.

Her decision appears to be based on three misrepresentations given to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) by a Senior Planning Officer of South Tyneside Council:

LGOGill Hayton
121. The Council accepts these measurements were wrong.5. The Council later accepted that the measurements as taken in 2013 were incorrect.
231. The applicant stated the height at this end as 12.5 metres plus 3 metres making 15.5 metres.6. The Ombudsman found no fault in how the Council
determined the permitted height of the landward end
of the development was 12.5 metres plus 3 metres.
323. It decided the degree of
departure from the plans – less
than one metre – was “non-material.”
5. The Council decided not to take enforcement action
against the developer and considered the degree of
departure from the grant of planning permission was
“non-material” given the overall scale of the building.

The paragraph numbers in Ms Hayton’s response have been added by me. Her statements are virtually straight lifts from the Ombudsman’s findings and the first is a complete fabrication. The measurements were not wrong. When I wrote to Cllr Anglin on the 16-Dec-13, I was just
confirming what the Principal Planning Officer (PPO) found 3 months before. Similarly with the height and the formal complaint of 10-Jan-14.

The second is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the plans and if Ms Hayton had troubled to look at the authorised plan 8296/2 she would have seen that the Senior Planning Officer was deliberately misleading the Ombudsman. When I first raised a formal complaint with Planning Enquiries on 10-Jan-2014 and pointed out that the enclosure (shed) was a meter wider and 3 meters taller than permitted, I got this response from the PPO:
The queries that you raise are not new, indeed I have been repeating my response to them for some time now, and you will recall that I explained the planning aspect of the Council’s position to you regarding this development during our meeting. May I therefore suggest that you speak with the Chair of the residents group in respect of the points that you have raised below, as these have already been discussed and explained. If you are still not satisfied with the Council’s response then you should use the Council’s complaints procedure.

Principal Planning Officer, 13-Jan-14

and 2 days later from his Manager:

Approved Drawings – The following are details of the relevant drawings in the Council’s possession. The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A. That shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the landward end.” . . . . . “The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings. The variation in the angle of the pillars
is not considered to be material.

Planning Manager, 15-Jan-14

Note: – the measurements were made by the PPO on 17-Sep-13 and the complaint on 10-Jan-14. 8296/1A does show a height of 15.5m at the landward end but it is a mistake on an unauthorised drawing. What the Planning Manager does not say is that the river end is shown as 15.5m as well and that is not a mistake as confirmed by the authorised drawing 8296/2. The copy of 8296/2 sent to the PPO had the details about the height removed and did not show the authorisation stamp of the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation.

The third was an invention by the Senior Planning Officer which I should not have to explain except to say that the increase in width was a material consideration when the measurement was made on 17-Sep-13.

Cllr Anglin had promised to find out for us if the shed was built to the permitted height but failed to do so. The drawings supposedly seen at meeting suggested that the shed was in fact higher by nearly 3m, though it could also be used misleadingly to say otherwise. See top of page. Added to that, he returned to us with the lie that that there was no variation in width. I had not told him but we had proof that the shed is actually nearly 3m higher than permitted by the Council publishing drawing 8296/14 on 10-Dec-13, so we can also reasonably claim that we were misled (height and width) when the PP O asked Cllr Anglin to relay the message:
Hello – I confirmed at our meeting with Mr Dawson and others on 25th Sept Nov 2013 that I had measured the width and length of the ground floor external footprint and height of the structure and that these dimensions were all in accordance with the attached approved drawing and planning permission.

Councillor Anglin, 19-Dec-13

Cllr Anglin and the PPO had already lost any credibility when they agreed to drop any consideration of whether the shed had been built to plan (condition 2) from the agenda:
Cllr Anglin has spoken to Graeme and informed him that he is meeting with Peter Cunningham next week with a view to clarifying that procedures have been followed correctly and ascertain future proposals for site. It was suggested that someone from the committee should attend this meeting; Graeme will contact Cllr Anglin and ask if the committee can be represented. Graeme and Mick to attend, and others if appropriate.

Minutes of the Tyne Gateway Assn, 15-Nov-13

Graeme and I did attend and Ken Haig turned up as well. They may have been happy to accept the word of the PPO but I was not and I have not excused Cllr Anglin for including me with them when he said: “The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.” They may have been happy to support UK Docks but I was not.

I went and measured the width; Graeme Watson, by implication Mr Haig, and the PPO, all questioned how I had managed to do it without gaining access to the yard. This has to be made very clear to everyone involved and until I get an apology from Cllr Anglin I will continue to remind
everyone that he is to blame for the shed being there in its present form. When I get the apology the blame will then rest entirely on the PPO, he has left it a bit late to shift the blame onto UK Docks.

We could see from the drawings provided that the height was not in accordance with the plans but until we had an approved drawing any argument was pointless. I’m surprised that the PPO and others could not see the logic in this but then they, UK Docks/Council, needed the error on an unapproved drawing to justify their view that the shed has been built to the approved height. It appears that I did not make this point clear to Gill Hayton:
Drawings 1A or B could be said to represent the approved plans if the height dimension on the river end, 15.5m, is accepted as true rather than that on the landward end. Bearing in mind both of these drawings give a planned width of 12.2m one could reasonably say that the shed was a meter wider than permission allowed from 2001 and 2.7m taller than permission allowed from the 5th or 6th September 2013.

Michael Dawson to Gill Hayton, 11-Dec-18

There is no confusion about the width, the planned width is 12.2m and found by the PPO to be 13.1m though this was denied at the meeting, then by Cllr Anglin and again by the PPO and lastly the Planning Manager. This was put right by the Head of Development Services in his letter to the Petitioners:
Apart from the width these dimensions are either entirely in accordance with the approved plan, or subject to such minor deviation that they are properly categorised as non-material changes.

Mr G Mansbridge, 2-May 2014

It got changed, 1st to: no material harm in a Stage 3 response and eventually to paragraph 23 of the Ombudsman’s findings; “It decided the degree of departure from the plans – less than one metre –
was “non-material.” This is a very good illustration of how the Council manipulate their own complaints procedure and the good offices of the Ombudsmen to cover for the fact that the PPO did not tell the Enforcement Officer about the breach planning control.

UK Docks had made the footings wider in 2001 and told the Council that they had been approved and the issue should have been sorted out when the PPO measured the structure in September 2013. The PPO had the opportunity to concede the point about the shed being wider than planned at the meeting in November 2013 but he declined. He was given another chance when I wrote to him via Cllr Anglin a few weeks later but he continued to deny that the shed was wider than planned.

It looks like neither UK Docks nor the PPO had worked out, now that the pillars were upright, they pointed directly to the footings. It also appears that they did not realise that the removal of the vital dimensions from the left hand edge of 8296/2 made no difference because one could still gauge the planned height shed from the gradient. Maybe they had not spotted that the vital dimensions on 8296/2 give lie to the proposition that there is no or only slight variation in height as well.

When UK Docks got the OK to restart work on the shed in January 2014, I realised that no-one had actually put in a formal complaint to the Council about the shed not being compliant with the second condition and that the meeting at the Town Hall had been had only been a window dressing exercise for the benefit of UK Docks and or the Council.

In this context please ask Ms Hayton to forward you, her copy of the email that I sent to Cllr Hamilton on the 27-Mar-19. The email included my original complaint of 10-Jan-14 and a letter explaining the whys and wherefores of the UK Dock’s/Council’s dishonesty.

I invited her, Ms Hayton, 11-Dec-18, to look at drawings 8296/2 and ../14 but it is apparent that she has either not looked at them or misunderstood what they mean or else she could not, in all honestly, have replied as she did. I now invite you to do the same and say what is the planned height (authorised) of the shed on River Drive and what is to be done with my complaint of 10-Jan-14.

Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson

Subject: Cllr A: Slipway Development – River Drive

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.

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