Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practise to deceive!
Part II
Where it gets Complicated.
2.5.2014
Mr G Mansbridge responds on behalf of South Tyneside Council to the Petition and questions raised by the objectors to the shelter built on the slipway owned by UK Docks. He writes to all the households of Harbour View and households between 32 and 99 Greens Place and a full copy is available on this site.
He says “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” but I think that anyone who looks carefully at the various issues will see that he has probably raised more questions than he has answered.
In the section ‘The Alleged Breach of Planning Control’ he says: “Having established that there was a breach of planning control (carrying out development without the required planning permission)” but goes on to justify taking no action.
-
He is implying that the Planning Office established that there was a breach when in fact it took the work of a few protesters, months, to get anyone in Planning to admit there was any breach.
- Is there any justification for taking no action against a developer who has built a structure without planning permission?
To continue:
On the first page of this letter he makes a statement: “The approved dimensions of the steelwork are:- proposed height 15.5m at the River Drive end, proposed length 22m and proposed width 12.2m.” but fails to tell the householders is that that the same drawing/1A shows the river end to be 15.5m as well. This is an error on the drawing as there is a gradient of about 3 meters.
He also fails to tell the householders, and this is a more serious omission that using a later and more reliable drawing/14 the planned height of the River Drive end can be seen to be about 13m. Neither Mr Mansbridge nor any of his staff have been able to counter the argument, sensibly, that the shelter has been built about 3m too high since Feb 13th.
It was significant that drawing/1A is one of the three, stemming from the year that permission was granted, that has not been authorised. It was also significant that Mr Mansbridge was also using a drawing that was not readily available for inspection so that no-one was able to see for themselves that his statement about approved dimensions, particularly in respect of the height, was dubious to say the least.
Two issues raised by statements made by Mr Mansbridge in his letter :
- “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.”
The shelter is still standing and has been in use since March 17th 2014.
- “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.”
They were laid in February 2001 at 13.1m (to take the frames fitted some 12 and a half years later). That they are not laid to plan is beyond dispute. As they were laid to meet Condition 1 of the Grant of Permission it appears to be a dereliction of duty for the Inspector in Charge to ignore the fact that they were not laid in accordance with Condition 2 of the same Grant.
May.2014
An undated letter/circular was sent out to some householders in Green Place and Harbour View at about the same time as Mr Mansbridge’s response to the Petition by one of the directors of UK Docks It is reviewed here:
Our premises in Sunderland, like the Port of Tyne, is leased so River Drive South Shields is our only available option for investment.
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.
Whether a property is owned or leased is a not a planning consideration and permission was granted on Condition that there was to be no further expansion of the yard.