About UK Docks Shed or Slipway Cover on River Drive.
This was an informal meeting to allay the local residents fears that the boatshed or slipway cover was not being built to plan.
Attendees:
Principal Planning Officer: Mr P Cunningham
Councillors: Anglin & McMillan (who gave apologies for Councillor Wood)
Local Residents: G Watson, K Haig and M Dawson (Chairman, Treasurer and Committee Member of the TGA)
I had gone to the meeting with a set of questions based on conversations with, and comments made by, residents at meetings: with response
An account of the meeting can be seen at the bottom of this page.
1) Were conditions (3 & 4) discharged properly.
– discussion about conditions 3, and 4 and 5:-
minor material consideration blue to soft grey – full samples of materials for details
change of conditioned hours to 7-7 not Sundays or B.H with advance notice.
2) Structure higher than approved plan15.5m (not 12.5).
– it isn’t
3) Believed to be wider than the approved plan.
– not true
4) The structure is too small to accommodate the ferry. Close doors.
▬►Interruption by Mr Haig “Well it’s legal then – We will have to wait for planning consent for the second shed etc to be put in” or something like it. The meeting effectively finished for me except I did manage to ask if the Planning Officer had seen the picture of the ferry poking out of the frames.
5) Processes – shot blasting, noise, pollution, working hours.
– not raised(x working hours see 1)
6) Inappropriate development in a residential area.
– not raised
7) Understand that there is pre-planning submitted for at least two further sheds.
– Meeting UK Docks and Planning on Aug 20th – details off the record
8) Rumoured MOD Work.
– It’s a rumour.
In summary, we were told that the shed or cover had been built to the plans on the table which we took to be approved and I have copied the Councillor’s email about the meeting, below, as I broadly agree with it.
In the meantime I had measured the width of the frames and they were a meter wider than planned but the Planning Officer still said on the 20 Dec:
“Mr Dawson – once again – I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996 plans across to you twice already (attached again for your use) 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.”
I had asked for copies of authorised plans because I was given to understand that the plans on the table were authorised and none of the plans sent to me were authorised. This lead to my complaint to planning enquiries on the 10th January 2014.
Account of meeting at town Hall 25-Nov-13
From: cllr.john.anglin@southtyneside.gov.uk
To: daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:37:40 +0000
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
Michael
I took no minutes as is customary at these informal meetings.
For your record I am sure all would agree :
1. The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.
2. The Exec representatives accepted that Items 3 and 4 which had not been complied with by the building company previously had now been properly addressed.
3. Concern was expressed that the building as approved would be unfit for purpose ( eg not big enough to take in the Ferryboat ) but this was accompany problem until/ or if, additional construction was made.
4. Concern was expressed as to the fact that there had been rumours that the Company was preparing to apply for further Planning Permission for at least one more building of about the same size.
It was agreed that until Planning Permission was requested no other action or re-action could be made by the Council. Indeed, that if a request was made the final decision could end up being made by persons from outside the Borough.
Best Regards
John