Overview

The Height Question

From very early on, people living near the slipway on River Drive, South Shields could see that the shed erected on it by UK Docks was not built to plan. Amongst other things it appeared to be built 3 meters higher than planned.

The first difficulty that objectors had in any discussion with Officials or Councillors about the height of the shed was that the gradient along the length of the shed was about 3m as well. It is easy to confuse, or get confused, by any argument about the shed being 3m too high when one end of it was 3m taller than the other. The first time the residents came across this confusion the was when a Councillor, invited to a meeting of concerned residents a month after start of the development, tried to explain to the meeting that we were getting mixed up about which end of the shed was which. The residents, who had a month to examine the documents provided by UK Docks, knew exactly which end was which.

The Councillor did arrange to meet the Planners to clear this confusion up. At the meeting in November, to which some residents had been invited, the Principal Planning Officer said the shed was built to authorised plans.

Later the Planning Manager when discussing a drawing of the river end said that it was the road end which was wrong. He went on to say, when shown evidence that it was in fact the river end, that shed was not built to approved plans and by implication 2.7 meters too high. We were not discussing the width of the shed at the time. By then it was mid February 2014: five months after the frames shed the shed were first erected.

The second difficulty with South Tyneside Council was all staff from the Case Officer up to the Chief Executive, when questioned about the height of the shed the refer the enquirer to a deceptive plan or the ‘Complaints Procedure’. Thus, effectively, closing off any discussion about the height. The only exception to this was the Planning Manager, see above, who couched his reply in such a way that it could easily be misinterpreted.

Even the Head of Development Services, under whose control Planning lies, used a modification of this stratagem. When challenged about his staff being evasive he ignored the question completely by killing off the complaint in which the issue was first raised and creating a new one new one.

When the Head of Development Services said in a letter to Residents: “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.” he has used an unauthorised drawing, including a major error.

The Council have not been able provide any valid plans or drawings to suggest the height of the shed is a minor material consideration. But they still admit it has been built without planning permission.

Throughout the whole business it has been clear that UK Docks were not building the shed to the same plans as those held by South Tyneside Council and they were allowed to carry on regardless of the more legitimate protests of the local residents.

UK Docks have been using the shed without closing the doors on vessels that are too long to fit in it. On top of this the Council say that they cannot enforce the condition that the doors should be shut when working on vessels because the shed has been built without planning permission.

To cap it all there is a further planning application* in which, amongst other things, UK Docks wish to extend the ‘unplanned’ shed by 25%.

MD 10th December 2015

*Permission for this was granted the Planning Committee in Jarrow Town Hall on 1st February 2016.