Dissection of Response to Petition, 2-May-14

Response to Petition by the Head of Development Services, 2-May-14 included a repeat of the fraudulent misrepresentation given to me by his Planning Manager on 15-Jan-14:-

Approved Drawings
The following are details of the relevant drawings in the Council’s possession. The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A. That shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the landward end.

I had already told the Head of Development Services that the shed was taller than planned in response to an article in the Shields Gazette but he did not want to know. He later informed me that he had passed it back to to his Planning Manager! – see Faux Stage 2 response, 2-June-14

Dissection of Response to the Petition

Date: 2nd May 2014
Our Ref: GM/LB (Ltr – 29 04 14 – Residents (Uk Docks) Rev 1)

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.

He has generally answered the questions with misrepresentations and they are highlighted in blue .

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.

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.

Six pairs of of footings were laid for frames to stand on when they had permission for five and the owners had more than ten years to apply for permission for them retrospectively. They were also set nearly a meter wider than what had been approved as well.
It appears that they may have been given permission for a wider shed but certainly not for the longer one.

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;

This response was a simpler version of his later stage 2 response* to the observation that the shed was 3m taller than the approved drawing allowed. Therefore say that the proposed height of the river Drive end was an approved height was a fraudulent misrepresentation. The approved dimension of the River Drive end was 12.7m per the only authorised drawing from 1966 with dimensions.

• Proposed length 22m;

• Proposed width 12.2m.

The measurements which the Council took on 17th September 2014 are:

We were told in December 2013 that the shed had been built to the approved width i.e. 12.2m:
“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…I copied these two documents to Mr Dawson after the meeting as per his request.” This was not true.

• 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. 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.

The overall width of the steel at ground level is very clearly marked as 12.200m (which would have given 11.5m between the midpoints of the pillars not 12.9m). Just another misrepresentation to cloud the issue.

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’. The site was extended in the late 1980’s from the original boundary downstream for approximately 40m. This 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.

A rear moment of truth.

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.

He is correct when he says condition 5 relates to the hours of use of the shelter and it is: No works, other than the launching or beaching of vessels, shall take place within the shelter between the hours of 7pm and 7am Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
The rest is gobbledygook.

Of rest of his letter, while not gobbledygook, is written to mitigate the misrepresentations given above.

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 (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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Which evidently they ignored.

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.

I trust that this explains the various issues that have been raised about this site over recent months.

It did not because the Planning Manager withheld the truth about the planned height from him i.e. the height of the river end of the shed: 15.5m = true and the River Drive end: 15.5m = false on the drawing to which he may  have referred. There was no evidence that either of the two drawings to which he was quoting, had been approved or authorised.

Yours faithfully

George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services

Ltr – 29 04 14 – Residents (Uk Docks) Rev 1
Town Hall & Civic Offices Telephone: 0191 427 7000
Westoe Road Fax No: 0191 27 7171 South Shields
Tyne and Wear, NE33 2RL Website: www.southtyneside.info

* there was actually no need for a Second Stage complaint as the Planning Manager had conceded that the shed was nearly 3m taller than planned. It appears that following my email, on behalf of the residents, to the Planning Manager, 3-Mar-14, the Council changed their story from the shed had been approved to one that the variations were only minor. They were not, and they were covering for the negligence of their building control inspectors by lying over the phone to enquirers. Was there anything in writing until this response to our Petition? I doubt it.