| Page 1 | Contents: |
|
1) Work continues on the slipway shelter, some 7 weeks after the height issue was raised by me although it had been raised by at least one other householder in September 2013.
A Port of Tyne tug is taken onto the Slipway on March 17th at about 16:00 and I write a reminder on 20th March to the Planning Manager and get the response next day:
Dear Mr Dawson
Thank you for your email. Before the Council makes any decisions on the planning aspects of this case, we need to have a full understanding of the history of the site, and analyse all the facts. This is a complex matter and will take some time.
Regards
Gordon Atkinson
2) Gazette Spoiler 1st April 2014
The Shields Gazette do a front page splash and publish an article on the Petition being raised about the slipway shelter. It contains subscriber figures which could only be obtained from this website but more importantly contains a substantial error about the height of shelter. It does say however that “Homeowners also say the structure is wider and taller than stipulated in the original application”. At the same time, it reports a spokesman for UK Docks who said “All I can say is that we have been through all the controls with the planners, and the work meets all the necessary legal requirements. All we are doing is going ahead with the previous planning permission.”
It would appear that seven months after they started, UK Docks, have still not been asked why they are building an unplanned shed by South Tyneside Council. Nor has the Council made this information available to the local paper.
3) The Gazette Report of April 1st prompted me to write to Mr Mansbridge, the Head of Development Services a day or so later. I wrote, partly in response to the Gazette Article but also to chase up my email on behalf of the Residents because the noisy slipway was causing grief. It was apparent that the slipway had not been built to plan and was being put to use before completion. Besides chasing progress, I could also advise him that it had been built too high and that Planning Department had tried to deny this. I had a suspicion that he might ignore the height issue and said in the main part of my email to him:
To cap it all there was an artical in the local paper on Apr 1st showing most flattering photograph of the offending shed saying that it was only 36ft high. The author of the article may have got away with saying that in September but not now. You should know that it is over 50 ft high and that is what we have been saying for months now. It’s planned height is about 42ft.
Mr Mansbridge did not respond to my comments about i) continued working, ii) the height of the shelter and iii) what appeared to be a cover up (Planning Officer told a residents group that it was legal in November) .
One of his staff amended Complaint 248789 and he to advise me of this. I had assumed, wrongly, that they had raised 248789 in response to the email and complained to him that he was doing was an extension of what I said his staff were doing, that is; referring people to ‘Complaints’ rather that answering their queries .
4) The Planning Manager responded three weeks later
and added a response date to the same complaint.
From: Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk
To: daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:43:07 +0100
Subject: feedback case 248789 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Dear Mr Dawson
I’m sorry for the delay. Mr Mansbridge is hoping to get a comprehensive response off to residents by the end of next week.
Regards
Gordon Atkinson
The complaint still sits there in that condition because a new complaint was raised by Service Delivery which avoided some of the inconvenient issues raised during my correspondence with the Planning Office during January and February.
5) The Letter to Residents of Greens Place and Harbour View
from the Head of Development Services.
As you can see below [1-14] it is difficult to give a short analysis of this letter, some the inconsistencies have been touched on elsewhere and some may be summarised in the Overview.
Resident Date: 2nd May 2014
Greens Place Our Ref: GM/LB
South Shields Your Ref:
Tyne and Wear NE33
Dear Resident
Development at UK Docks Ltd, Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields
I am sending this letter to all households in Harbour View, and households between 32 and 99 Greens Place to explain the outcome of the Council’s investigations into the recent developments at the Tyne Slipway in River Drive.I have endeavoured to answer all the various questions that have been raised with the Council in recent months, including in a petition which many local residents have signed.
The Development Permitted in 1996
Planning permission was granted on 8th July 1996 by the former Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (TWDC) for the erection of a shelter to allow boat repairs to be carried out under cover[1: to contain emissions]. Work commenced to lay foundations and this was inspected by South Tyneside Council’s Building Control service on 26th February 2001. A further inspection on 22nd May 2001 showed that the foundations were fully concreted. This was a material operation for planning purposes in order to begin the development approved in 1996[2: condition 2 is not met in meeting condition 1 of the grant of permission].
The approved dimensions of the steelwork are:
• Proposed height 15.5m at the River Drive end [3: a) which according to any reasonable assessment of this drawing is not true. The drawing referred to,8296/1A also states the other end is 15.5m and b) the drawing produced in August 13 by the Agents also gives a height of the other end as 15.5m ]. The gradient of the slipway is 2.66m over the length of the shelter. This would mean the height at the riverside end would be 18.16m;
• Proposed length 22m;
• Proposed width 12.2m.
The measurements which the Council took on 17th September 2014 are:
• Height at the River Drive end 15.5m and at the riverside end 18m.
• Length 22.254m;
• Width 13.1m;
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[4: an opinion]. It was following queries raised in mid-January that that the plans were re-examined. We discovered that the overall width of the steelwork at ground level was shown as 12.2m on the plan, not 12.9m as previously understood[5: this is the first time that the dimension 12.9m has been quoted in any document or correspondence].
Designated Purpose of Land
The 1996 planning permission did not change the lawful use of the land for planning purposes, which is general industrial use, which is defined as a use for carrying on an industrial process. The activities of UK Docks are within that definition. The slipway dates from a planning permission granted in 1976, for ‘new slipway for maintenance/repair of fishing vessels’[6: it is believed the proposal for shed about this time was dropped because the lessee was not allowed to build a shed big enough to be economically viable]. The site was extended in the late 1980’s from the original boundary downstream for approximately 40m [7: believed to have been owned by STC – did they clear the hazardous waste residues from Velva Liquids or was it a condition of sale to the new owners to clear this waste?]. Was an area that was formerly part of the Velva Liquids site?
Conditions of the Planning Permission
The development has not been built in accordance with the approved plan. This means that the conditions attached to the permission are unenforceable against the building which was constructed. In such a situation the only option available to the Council, should seek to take formal enforcement action, is to secure the removal of the unauthorised structure[8: it is still there].
Specifically with regards to condition 5, which relates to the hours of use of the shelter, a planning permission for operational development where there is an existing lawful use could not impose conditions which seeks to limit or restrict that lawful use. Therefore a condition which seeks to limit the hours of operation is unlawful[9: circular argument with 8 ].
The Alleged Breach of Planning Control
There was an oversight by the Council when we first compared the dimensions of the steelwork with the approved plan. Having established that there was a breach of planning control [10: only after representation to the Planning Manager after the denial by the Case Officer] (carrying out development without the required planning permission ) any action that the Council could take would only be against the shelter as erected, and not against any activities at the site [11: and not the building of the unplanned shelter in 8]. The Council may only take enforcement action where it is expedient to do so, having regards to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations. The existence of the 1996 permission, and the evidence of the lawful beginning of that development, is a material consideration in this case. The principle of the shelter on this site, of the dimensions approved in 1996, was established by that permission. The site is allocated in the South Shields Town Centre and Waterfront Area Action Plan for a mix of uses, including general industry. Other policies in the development plan deal with design and residential amenity and no material harm is caused by the differences between the approved scheme and the shelter as built[12: is his opinion]. Enforcement action is at the discretion of the Council as Local Planning Authority. The Council must act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. We do not condone the carrying out of development without first obtaining the necessary planning permission. For the reasons I have explained, regarding the existence of the 1996 permission and the provisions of the development plan, I have concluded that the development as constructed is acceptable on its planning merits. It would not therefore be expedient for the Council to take enforcement action[13: his opinion see 8,9,10 and 11].
Environmental Controls Over Activities on the Site
The activities on site are well-established small ship and boat repair. Whilst they would not fall under national regulatory pollution controls, they may be addressed by existing statutory nuisance legislation dependent upon the nature of work undertaken and the measures any operator adopts to mitigate its effects. The Council is happy to respond to any complaints about noise or other nuisance emanating from this site, but I have to emphasise that legislation can only enable the Council to achieve a reasonable balance between the requirements of all parties[13: with his thumb upon the scale].
Notwithstanding what I explained about planning controls, the matters of Sunday working and general working practices have been brought to the company’s attention and advice given by the Council’s Environmental Health service.
Further Proposed Developments at the Site
UK Docks has indicated that it wishes to carry out further development at its River Drive premises. Any planning application which the company makes will be the subject of local publicity, which will include letters to the recipients of this letter, and the public will have the opportunity to make representations on any application[14: but not comment that the council has accepted the application ]. .
I trust that this explains the various issues that have been raised about this site over recent months.
Yours faithfully
George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
Expanding:
- [2:] failure to meet the conditions of grant email to planning 03-02-14;
- [3a: and b:] proposed height (15.5m) at the River Drive end which is probably not true drawing explained. He neglects to say that the other end also shows a height of 15.5m;
- [4: and 8:] justifying inaction over a breach of planning because in his opinion it was only a minor material deviation should have been challenged. If the Planning office say that the shelter has been built without planning permission then that is because the deviation from the plan is not minor, a breach is a breach after all;
- [8: and 9:] the lack of action, breach of planning control correspondence with householder in Harbour View;
- [10:] denial by Case Officer that there was any breach of planning, interception of complaint.
- [14] the application ST/0461/14/FUL is still extent see email trail.
The response to the letter above is in the second page of this sorry saga .
6) Letter from Director of UK Docks to Households.
Dear Resident,
I am writing to inform you about plans for further development of the boat and yacht repair yard at the Tyne Slipway facility based on River Drive, South Shields.
Our company is family owned and operated, and has been in operation for 20 years now. The business started off in 1994 from the River Drive boat repair facility when the family purchased it, and since that time additional marine associated companies have been established with facilities located within the Port of Tyne, Port of Sunderland and Gosport (Located within Portsmouth Harbour) [1: since this letter, Teesside Dockyard has been added to their portfolio].
Our other boat repair facility based within the Port of Tyne, which is a leased facility, has recently come under threat due to the Port of Tyne’s acquisition of the former McNulty site and we have been informed that water access to our facility will soon be blocked due to the construction of a new road connecting both sites. This in effect makes this site redundant and will potentially close by June/July 2014 [2: it would appear that this is what is driving the inappropriate expansion of the slipway off River Drive and why neither the Case Officer, Planning Manager nor the Head of Development Services, have asked UK docks to stop work on the shelter and to submit a retrospective planning application. The Inspectors signed off the shelter in June 2014 ].
From this site, our company carries out repair contracts to vessels such as the two River Tyne Ferries operated by Nexus, Ministry of Defence training craft, pilot and survey vessels operated by the Port of Tyne Authority and a large number of privately owned leisure boats and we are in the process of tendering for further contracts which will provide long term employment for our employees [3: there is apparently no complaint registered about this potential closure in planning application ST/0098/13/FUL nor are there any details shown for any arrangements made for the future of this slipway business. It has been mentioned elsewhere that UK Docks have a virtual monopoly on the repair and maintenance of the pilot boats and Nexus Ferries. In view of the lead times involved with MOD procurement it is also likely that UK Docks were contracted to them before the redevelopment of the slipway on River Drive application was submitted ].
After much review, this work can be temporarily relocated and carried out at our other facilities outside of the South Tyneside area however, we feel as a family concern with close roots to the South Shields area and the fact that this is where the business very first began, our preference is that we remain in the South Shields area and that we develop our facility at the River Drive site in order to continue with our existing and future contracts. Our premises in Sunderland, like the Port of Tyne, is leased so River Drive South Shields is our only available option for investment[4a: does that mean there is to be no investment in Sunderland and 4b: does ownership of the land make any difference to a planning application?].
Plans are currently being developed and if approved, a second boat repair shed has been proposed serviced by a low level workshops and an extension to the existing office building and a second slipway will be installed for the launch and recovery of multiple smaller vessels[5: close inspection of the detailed plan show that the second boat shed is 25% longer and 7-8% wider than the existing shed. I say ‘detailed’ but there are actually no heights shown anywhere on any of the 35 documents accompanying the application ST/0461/14/FUL ].
As you will see by the attached plan, the development has been focused on maintaining the development to the west side of the site replacing the existing dilapidated workshops and office building making way for modern buildings.
This development would improve the visual appearance to the already under invested facility and this is an excellent opportunity to bring this important site back into full boat repair use with the creation of full time and part time jobs for the local community and providing head office facilities for the companies nationwide group organisation.
We hope that this explanation along with the attached plan details the reasons and why we need to develop this site and we would welcome any feedback you may have and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jonathan Wilson by e-mail jonathan.wilson@ukdocks.com or by post at the address below.
Yours faithfully
Jonathan Wilson
Wear Dock and Engineering Co,
South Docks
Sunderland,
When looked at closely this letter does nothing to make one feel comfortable with the expansion of UK Docks Boat repair yard in South Shields especially when he says:
“River Drive South Shields is our only available option for investment.”
7) There is no Stage I to the complaint raised January 10th – 248789.
Mr Mansbridge had complaint 253539 raised and went directly to a Second Stage of the Complaints Procedure. The opportunity to send in a letter of complaint at Stage I for 248789 was eliminated.
The original complaint of the 10th January had, to all intents and purposes, been ‘lost’ to the system.