by STC on behalf of UK Docks: Download
First communication from the Council in writing started off, Re:
Boat repair shelter at Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields
they soon became by 9-Sep-13, Re;
Approved boat repair shelter at Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields but the drawings supplied indicated otherwise, i.e. it was not approved.
At about the same time the Council stopped being honest about the height.
1 09/09/13
Evasion
Forward Pass
Case Officer asked about the height of the shed, “Has the
revised height of 15.5metres been approved or is it in breach
of the 1996 Planning approval?
No answer and the enquirer was referred the Council’s
Complaints procedure.
2
09/09/13
Misinformation
Shields Gazette reports that the shed is 36ft (11m) high and
UK Docks, 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 is over 50ft (15+m) and has planning permission for
42ft( 12.5m).
They had also set the footings for a structure wider and
longer than planned.
3
10/09/13
Misinformation
Shields Gazette repeats that the shed is 36ft (11m) high and
work started in 2001;
It is over 15m high and the footings set in 2001 are 1m
wider and 5.5m longer than planned. The planned height
is less than 13m.
4
11/09/13
Evasion
Request to Case Officer to confirm planned height: “Could
you please confirm what height the structure is being
constructed to? It seems that one had approval (12m), and
the other didn’t (15.5m).”
By mid October there was still no answer – nor to any of
the other questions raised.
5
13/09/13
Evasion
Reminder to Case Officer to confirm planned height: “Could
you please confirm what height the structure is being
constructed to? It seems that one had approval (12m), and
the other didn’t (15.5m).”
No Answer
First meeting at Town Tall
Where we first come across the denial about the extra width.
6
25/11/13
Denial
Meeting arranged to determine whether there has been
approval for the slipway cover. Downgraded by the Planner
and Councillor to an informal meeting. Therefore, no
minutes, no documents and no need to produce any any
approved plans. Hardly a satisfactory way to conduct a
meeting to decide the fate of the shed.
Local Residents are told that the structure is built to plan
(in the Cllr’s words -‘legal’).
It has actually been built without planning permission.
7
16/12/13
Denial
Councillor Anglin wrote on 16-Dec-13:
Michael,
I took no minutes as is customary at these informal meetings.
1)For your record I am sure all would agree The Exec
representatives of the Group accepted that the construction
had been made legally as per drawings seen.
We were given to understand that the meeting would be
formal. i.e. agenda and drawings provided, minutes and
action points also I knew that the shed was too big.
8
19/12/13
Denial
Councillor Anglin wrote on 19-Dec-13:
Please see below the reply from Peter (Cunningham). “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.
Planned width 12.2m, built as 13.1m.
Planned height 15.5m and 18.2m built.
9 20/12/13
Denial
Misrepresentation
In response to a question about width ;
I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996
plans across to you twice already and 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. See #8
10
10/01/14
Complaint
Ignored
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the current
structure has not been built to the ‘approved plans’ as
provided by Council, ie 1A,1B nor does the drawing of the
cladding/door fixing detail match what exists, for example
the structure is 3 metres higher and 1 metre wider than
shown on 8296/14.
Notified that they are still working on the shed.
11 13/01/14
Denial
Forward Pass
Back Pass
Not logged
The queries that you raise are not new, indeed I have
been repeating my response to them for some time now.
See 8#
Officer repeats his message of 25th Nov & 20th Dec 2013,
about the shed being compliant.
And I am referred the Council’s Complaints procedure.
End of stage 1 of the complaints procedure:
Michael Dawson
Tue 14/01/2014 14:46
Dear Mr Cunningham,
Thank you for your message. As you no doubt observed my message was sent to the Planning
Department in general and not to you specifically. However out of courtesy I will respond.
Firstly I was contacting planning not under the umbrella of the Tyne Gateway Association, but as an
individual and resident of Greens Place.
Much as I appreciated your meeting with the above mentioned Association I am personally not
satisfied with the outcome, particularly as new issues have come to light. The issues I refer to are
the date stamp on drawing no 0296/1A and drawing for application ST/1146/13/COND which is not
a match for the current structure.
Therefore until I have some satisfactory answers to my very reasonable questions I do not consider
this matter closed.
If you are unable to supply me with answers to my questions could you please pass the issue to
someone who can.
Sincerely
Mr M Dawson
12
15/01/14
Denial
Misrepresentation
Not logged
The Planning Manager says there is no breach.
A complaint is logged but it is not the complaint
sent into Planning Enquiries:
248789 initiated – see email to planning 14/1/14.
Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the
ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive,
South Shields.
13
28/01/14
Misrepresentation
Forward Pass
1) The Planning Manager implies 8692/1A and 1B are
approved.
They are not.
2) He also says a drawing of the river end of the shed
is road end.
Completely wrong: the drawing has a note on it to
the effect that it is to allow access for boats and
boats come up the slipway from the river.
14
13/02/14
Misinformation
Admission: the current structure is not built to
“approved” plans. The quotes are not necessary as we
were discussing only the height with respect to the
approved drawing 8296/14.
The question; “What made you determine that the
elevation is the South end when there is no such detail
on the drawing?” there was no answer but he goes on
to say to say that drawing that the gable end detail is
not to scale.
Completely wrong: it is drawn to a scale of 1:100.
End of stage 2 of the complaints procedure:
From: Michael Dawson
Sent: 04 March 2014 11:09
To: Gordon Atkinson
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Slipway Development, River Drive
Dear Mr Atkinson,
With this e-mail I have agreed to act as spokesperson for the local Riverside Residents.
A meeting was held with members of the local community and I can now answer your question as
to ‘what kind of action we would like the Council to take’. Thank you also for confirming that the
Slipway Shed is not built to the approved 1996 plans*.
The immediate response from residents was to request the slipway construction be removed.
However the universally agreed request of Council, is that there is immediate cessation of work on
the Slipway Shed until such time as appropriate community consultation with the relevant council
departments can be arranged.
* The approved plans gave a height of the landward end of the shed as 12.7m. It is
15.5m as measured by the Council in September 2013.
15 01/04/14
Misinformation
Shields Gazette repeats misinformation of 9th and 10th
Sept;
i.e. they say no breach of planning permission.
16 04/04/14
Evasion
Back Pass
Head of Development Services advised of inaccuracies
about the shed in the local press.
Ignored, Letter passed back down chain. Email of 4-
Apr back to the very staff being complained about on
the 2-May.
17 02/05/14
Evasion?
Conduct of planning staff queried with Head of
Development Services.
Completely Ignored
18
02/05/14
Misrepresentation
Response to Petition 1:
The approved dimensions of the steelwork are: • Proposed
height 15.5m at the River Drive end. 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
above the slipway.
The drawing,(1A or 1B) referred to, was:
a) not approved;
b) in error in the dimension at the road end.
c) shows the river end as 15.5m
19
02/05/14
Misrepresentation
Response to Petition 2:
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 nonmaterial changes.
The shed is 2.7m higher than the approved
drawings say.
20
02/05/14
Misrepresentation
Response to Petition 3:
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.
I told them it was a meter too wide in December
and it was denied by the planning officer then
his manager. See denials 6, 7 & 8.
21 09/05/14
Denial
Letter to Head of development Services about
misrepresentations of drawings in response to Petition.
Ignored.
Complaint switched from one of compliance to one of enforcement.
New Complaint generated at the behest of the Head of development Services 253539.
22 02/06/14
Denial
Forward
Pass
Back Pass
He is basically repeating the misrepresentations made in the
response to the Petition, having ignored my letter to him of the
09/05/14 (#21).
Complaint Job No. 253539 raised – effectively deleting the
original (Job No. 248789) which was about non-compliance.
There is no Stage 2 escalation from me.
23
07/07/14
Evasion
and Denial
Letter to CEO about height and width of shed:
On the 5th Sept 2013 work started at UK Docks premises on
River Drive to build a slipway shed length 22.3m, width 13.1m
and height at end facing River Drive 15.5m.
On 27th Sept an application was received in the planning office
from the agents for UK Docks, Messrs Maughan, Reynolds
Partnership Ltd to meet conditions of a previously granted
application ST/0242/96 for a slipway shed length 22.3m, width
12.2m and height at end facing River Drive 12.5m.
MH who replied: did not address the variation in height and
implied the width was not material.
Second meeting at Town Tall
24
08/07/14
Evasion
Denial
Meeting with Council to discuss 8296/14 but 8296/1A & 2
brought along instead.
Drawing in question not tabled. The Planning Manager’s
excuse was that it was just an engineer’s sketch. It was the
one he said:
• was of the wrong end;
• was not to scale.
25
12/08/14
Evasion
to MH: I would like to add that at no point all this
correspondence has Mr Atkinson, and he heads the Planning
Department, said that I am wrong in my assertion that the shed
is built 3m too high. Mr Mansbridge in his letter says that the
engineer did not draw the gable on drawing 8296/14 to scale.
The fact that the dimensions of the portal column are given (an
industry standard RSJ 686 x 254mm) and the projected width
of 12.2m give lie to this.
Response: Mr Mansbridge stated in his Stage 2 response
that the engineer chose to include a gable elevation of the
structure on the same drawing but told you this was not
drawn to scale. You have disputed this. I have not
considered this point further because it is clear that
drawing 8296/14 was submitted in 2013 for a wholly
different purpose, and as such, could never supersede the
previously approved plans in terms of defining the
dimensions of the approved development.
26
29/08/14
Evasion
To MH: I had hoped at this meeting that we would discuss
these plans and in particular my contention that the
specification of the RSJ used for the portal column gives scale
to drawing 8296/14 which leads to a planned height at the road
end of the shed of 12.5m.. . . I would like it put on record that
these plans were not shown or discussed in any detail at the
meeting and only mentioned in passing.
She says she will need to meet again with the Council’s
Planning Manager and take further advice from the
Council’s solicitor. She never mentioned the height in her
only and final response..
27 24/09/14
Evasion
MH of Customer Advocates: switches main emphasis of
complaint from variation from plans to enforcement of
planning rules.
Questions about variation from approved plans remain
unresolved. #18, 21 & 22 ignored.
28
21/11/14
Evasion
Request for information of CA: “It would appear from the
responses by the Council to queries by affected residents that
there is no-one taking responsibility to ensure that
developments are built to plan. Please say who is the signatory
on the completion certificate as as they will have do until your
office can find someone to take responsibility for this planning
oversight.”
The refused to say and referred me to the to the LGO.
29
12/12/14
Evasion
What the LGO was told:
20-Dec-2013 Mr P Cunningham said that the base and height
of the structure are compliant.
13-Feb-2014 Mr G Atkinson, Planning Manager said that the
the current structure is not built to “approved” plans.
02-May-2014 Mr Mansbridge, Head of Development Services,
responded to the Petition and said; “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”. About 15 paragraphs
of misrepresentations:
The main ones being that 8296/1A or 1B are authorised and
the gable on 8296/14 is not drawn to scale to say the height
was approved and the width was not material but the main
one is the rewriting the sequence of events to remove the
denials of #8 and #9 from the record.
30 31/03/15
Misdirection
Email MP for South Shields
Passed to MP for Northumberland writes to the Chief
Executive STC
A good summation but she is not specific about which end
of the shed has a planned height of 15.5m.
LGO misinformed and trouble with MPs
27 09/06/15
Denial/
Evasion
Letter to MP for Northumberland copied to CEO about the
river end having a planned height of 15.5m and a request
that he provides evidence to back any claims to the
contrary.
Non provided.
31 01/08/15 Denial/
Evasion
The Council say that we are making allegations and
that the shed is the correct height using LGO summary:
“The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher
than it should be. The Council says it is not.”
32 30/09/15
Evasion
Statement to Council “It does not appear to be good
planning practice to consider an application to extend a
structure when it has been built without planning
permission.”
No Response
33
04/12/15
Evasion
To 2nd Case Officer “If you disagree with the proposition
that the shed has been built 3 meters higher than planned
please give your reasons to me and I will ensure that they
are circulated widely.
Ignored – laid off to Customer Advocates to respond.
34 07/12/15
Evasion
2nd Case Officer given more details about the first shed.
Laid off to Customer Advocates with #28 and #29.
35 09/12/15
Misinformation
Unsolicited email from Council.Customer Advocacy did
not reply to questions asked of the 2nd Planning
Officer.
They use unsound LGO decision to try silence debate
on the shed.
Seek advice from Solicitor re: email 09/12/15 as it now becomes clear that the main reason for
misleading the Local Government Ombudsman is to misdirect enquirers such as Newspapers
and MPs
36 08/07/16
Misinformation
Letter to CEO about conduct of his staff re: Complaint
248789 and non-compliance with condition 2.
Passed to Corporate Lead Officer who may not have the
authority to deal with the conduct of the Head of
Development Services.
37 01/08/16
Misinformation
Corporate Lead Strategy and Performance ignores
questions of height, non-compliance with condition 2
and by her statements adds to the list of
misrepresentations made by the Council about the
Enclosure.
38
02/09/16
Misinformation
Response to Corporate Lead and copy to Customer
Advocates.
Customer Advocates pass letter for them back to the
Corporate Lead.
Two important emails remain unanswered.
39 05/10/16
Misinformation
Virtual repetition of letter of 1st August on behalf of the
Chief Executive.
40 20/01/17
Evasion
Letter to Cllr Anglin re non compliance.
Ignored – he said he could not interfere.
41 23/01/17
Denial
Misinformation
Letter from CA covering for Cllr Anglin
An important email remain unanswered.
42 21/04/17
Evasion
Letter Cllr Anglin and other Ward councillors about
non compliance.
Ignored completely.
Work starts on Sixth Frame
43 11/08/17
Misinformation
Email to Cllr Anglin about the planning breach of 2001
passed to Customer Advocacy Their response about a
second shed is a complete misrepresentation.
44 06/09/17
Misinformation
Response to email of the 29th March about MP meeting
UK Dock’s representatives.
Introduces events that took place after the meeting.
45
06/09/17
Class of its own
MP told: The previous issues relating to the boat yard
have in fact now been looked at by the Local
Government Ombudsman and they found no issue with
the yard or anything relating to its development.
Unfortunately, the Ombudsman’s decision cannot be revisited.
46 12/12/18
Encoded
Misinformation
Council solicitor repeats 3 items of misinformation
given to the Ombudsman, width, height and sequence of
events.
47 09/04/19
Letter
not even
acknowledged
to the Monitoring Officer asking what is the planned
height?
no answer!
48 19/06/19
Email
not even
acknowledged
to the Monitoring Officer informing him that a solicitor
agreed with the view that the Ombudsman had been
misled.
no answer!
48 Evasions or Denials and silence.
The Council have known since September 2013 that it is about 3m taller than planned but will they
admit it – No, they they do not and they managed to avoid it by quoting the Ombudsman whom
they have conned into saying that it is not taller than permitted.
The Planning Manager conceded in February 2014 that it was indeed too tall but his replies could
be interpreted to mean that there was no breach in planning control and now they have been
reduced to repeating the misrepresentations given to the Local Government Ombudsman.