Hi Mick
Using info that I gleaned from emails circulating among our group, about two weeks ago I emailed Kevin Burrell to make a complaint. The complaint involved plastic sheeting from UK Docks that had (possibly due to wind) become entangled with the barbed wire on the top of their fence that borders my property.  The tatters that remain are an eyesore. I told Mr Burrell that the original complaint about this  matter was submitted to the Council shortly after the problem was discovered. Continue reading Litter from UK Docks →

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 →

Nobody else has made a Complaint!.

Dear all,

Following a conversation with a neighbour in Greens Place, I have sent the following email to Ian Rutherford, Principal Officer, Environmental Health, South Tyneside Council. Apparently when they recently made a complaint regarding noxious fumes emanating from River Drive they were met by the same reply as I have had from Mr Rutherford ‘nobody else has made a complaint’. Please can everybody take 5mins to lodge concerns/observations/complaints with Environmental Health whenever you observe noise pollution, light pollution or any other environmental issue coming from UK Docks site. The only time the Council take any notice is when we complain in numbers which is wrong but what we are facing.

Greens Place Resident

From: Greens Place Resident
Subject: UK Docks River Drive.
Date: 6 November 2015 08:58:37 GMT
To: Ian Rutherford <Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk

Dear Mr Rutherford,

There are several issues arising from the UK Docks site on River Drive which I would like you to investigate:

1. For the past two weeks the security light which is sited somewhere towards the base of the unlawful shed is intermittently turning on, possibly on a motion switch. This illuminates the end wall of the unlawful shed and is causing a light nuisance to us in Greens Place.

2. For several days there have been periods of time when the noise level from UK Docks River Drive site have been clearly audible within our house.

3. Over the last two weeks I have been aware of noxious fumes first thing on a morning appearing to be coming from River Drive.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Greens Place Resident

Letter sent out from the Head of Development Services on the 10 Sept 2015 to some residents Green’s Place and Harbour View:
Continue reading Renewed Application for 2nd Shed →

Email 13th February 2014 by the Planning Manager.

Not drawn to scale
The practice of drawing details without scale is frowned upon in standard drawing practice and there is no excuse for it with modern CAD and where there is plenty of space on the page.
There is no mention of the gable elevation not being to scale when he wrongly said it was the road end in the email of Jan 28 – to quote: “In fact the 15.6m height is the height to River Drive and the height on the river side is some 3m greater.“

Email 15th January 2014. from the Planning Manager.

Drawing no. 8296/14 is a recent drawing submitted to discharge condition 4 and it shows the strip curtain doors fixing details
Drawing no. 8296/14 is a recent drawing submitted to discharge condition 4 and it shows the strip curtain doors fixing details.This drawing has been used to point out that the shelter has been built 3m too high. There is no confusion as the elevation is clearly the river end. The drawing 8296/14 gives a detail of a beam (portal column) width 0.686m, so the height and width of this elevation (north elevation, the riverside end) can be gauged. This elevation in the drawing has a height of 15.6m and a width of 12.2m.

Your details have been passed to the appropriate team and will be read then actioned as appropriate. If a response is required a member of the relevant team will contact you as soon as possible.

Your confirmation details

Reply 13th January 2014 by the Principal Planning Officer.

[0] My understanding is that the responses that I had provided to you at this meeting enabled the matter to be closed.

I recall the meeting very well, it is one of the reasons this website exits. He said the cover was built to approved plans and is the first item in denials.

• I did speak to the Chair of the TGA at their next committee meeting and he did not believe me and he declined my offer to show him how I had ascertained the width without access to the site. However it was agreed at the meeting that he would check width with the Council and report back – there is no evidence that this was ever done.
• I was not happy with Mr Cunningham’s response especially his reference to the complaints procedure. This means he avoids having to explain why the Council had allowed work to continue on the shelter despite it not being built to approved plans. See evasions where he deflects a direct question about the height.

Not really – they can’t enforce conditions on an unplanned building.

South Tyneside Council say they cannot enforce any conditions of the original grant of planning permission because the shed/shelter/cover is built without planning permission. In brief:

That the doors must be closed when they are working on vessels in the shed and they must give advance notice if they want to work outside the conditioned hours.  (a picture here, of the Shields Ferry with its rear end poking some 3m out of the back end of the shed would be nice).

The Council (South Tyneside) allowed the shed to be built because they said that there was not sufficient material deviation from the approved plan to warrant the building work to be stopped. It had been pointed out to the Council by protesters from day 4 of the construction that the shed appeared to be too high. It took a further 5 months prove the validity of the protesters case but the Head of Development Services overrode this, still maintaining that there was insufficient difference from the approved plans to stop the work and still saying this when the shed was signed off in June 2014, 9 months after the frames first went up. Quote (from stage II complaint 253539, 2nd June 2014):
“I have investigated this and referred to the approved drawing cross-referenced with the dimensions taken on site by my planning staff. The height of the shelter does not significantly deviate from the approved scheme as you have suggested.”