Concession – 13 February 2014 by the Planning Manager.
Not all is as it first appears in this email. There is a buried piece of misinformation.

RE: Slipway Development, River Drive
From: Planning Manager
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:39:01
To: Michael Dawson
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mr Dawson
Thank you for your email.
I’ll try and answer your outstanding questions as best as I’m able:

1 why didn’t we have drawings to hand on August 20th? The company had approached the Council in the summer about further developments at their River Drive site.  This was the first recent contact with the applicant; they mentioned they were about to commence work to complete a boat shelter which had already received planning permission, but this initial discussion related only to further works and it was not necessary for the Council to retrieve the drawings of the previous permission at that time.  The Council had no reason to dispute that they were to continue that earlier development, and it only became necessary to retrieve drawings when we were contacted by local residents in early September.

It was very clear to the local residents that it was taller and wider than planned and they resurrected a local action group which turned out to be failure because the delegates were told at a meeting by a Planning Officer that the ‘construction was legal’.

2 the status of the drawings-8296/2 and 8296/4 at A1 size are to the scale stated on each plan; it is therefore reasonable to say the four plans are consistent.

The plans 8296/2 and /4 are authorised by T&WDC; 8296/1A and 1B are not and show the height of both the river and road ends as 15.5 meters. If either of 1A or 1B is examined together with 8296/2 it becomes clear that the river end is 15.5 meters and that the road end has been incorrectly dimensioned and should read 12.5 meters.

3 the current structure is not built to “approved” plans (n.b. see note above about the plans) ~~~excuses for not enforcing planning rules are here ~~~ You have noted that the width of the structure is written on the approved plan at 12.2m but the requirement to improve the structural stability of the shelter by taking the steelwork to ground level has resulted in it being constructed to a width of 13.1m when measured at ground level.

It is more likely that the extra width is to take the travelling crane. The structural stability is gained by making the pillars vertical not making them wider apart.

4 why did we determine the elevation on 8296/14 is the south end?  The Drawing was submitted in discharge of condition 4 relating to fixing details of the end panels. Those details are the 1:10 sections and elevations at the left hand side of the sheet. The engineer chose to show a gable elevation of the structure (not drawn to scale) on the same drawing. It serves no purpose in discharging the condition. But neither does it conflict with the information to discharge the condition. I understand that on completion there is to be the opening on each of the gable ends.

• In an email of the 28th Jan Mr Atkinson stated “8296/14 is the recent drawing and the only purpose of that is in regards to the condition dealing with the strip curtain door fixing details. You explain that you have measured the height from this drawing as 15.6m, and you seem to have assumed that is the riverside elevation, and have adjusted for the gradient of the slipway and concluded that the height at the River Drive side should be in the order of 3m less.  In fact the 15,6m height is the height to River Drive and the height on the river side is some 3m greater.
  The bold is your editor’s – it is the buried misrepresentation. In the context of drawing 8296/14  the statement is not valid. The reasons that this drawing has been used are threefold:
• recently been drawn by the agents that were responsible for the original 8296 series of drawings – there is no reason to think that they would not have used the planned size of the authorised shed.
• it is easy to see that it is drawn to scale – the dimensions of the beams, rafters and pillars are consistent and stated on the drawing.
• it is very clear from the notes and details that the elevation is the river end of the shed.

5 Why do we consider the variation of the pillar angle is not material?- see answer 3 above.

This also adds 3 meters on the width at crane height. It changes the use of the structure from a shelter to a shed housing a crane. There is a very good case for saying the pillar angle is a material change.

6 Why did the Council not do more to consult local residents? I’m not sure what you are referring to here.  If you are suggesting this in respect of the applications to discharge the two detailed conditions, this is not something we would do on matters of that nature, and I’m not sure what the benefit would have been if we had notified local residents.

When UK Docks built the shed without planning permission and the Planning Authority did nothing to stop the build there was something wrong. It was very clear to the local residents after a brief study, and within a day or so, of the plans provided by the Case Officer that there was something wrong. That the same Case Officer repeated on 20th December, more than 3 months after the start: “I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant…this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.” was also wrong.

7 How can the Council justify allowing work to continue when condition 2 has not been discharged? Condition 2 is not a condition that requires to be discharged  (i.e. that requires to be ‘signed off’ in some way).  It was a form of condition that was routinely applied to planning permissions in the past, but that practice was stopped some years ago as the wording served no purpose.

Condition 2 states: The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The framework looked nothing like the plans sent to us in September.  It looks as if though condition 2 or its equivalent should be reintroduced to stop people building whatever they like.

I have gone through your email in some detail and hope I have identified and answered your outstanding questions; I can assure you there has been no attempt to evade any of the issues raised.

The actions of the Case Officer since mid afternoon of the 9th September belie that.

The only thing I can add is that if you feel the Council should be taking some action that it has not done already, then please let me know what that should be.
Regards

We did feel that the Council should be taking some action – Page 2.

The admission by Customer Advocacy – Page 3

The emails leading up to the admission are on Page 4.