Town Hall 25-Nov-13
Where we were told the shelter was legal.
Present: Cllrs Anglin and MacMillan,
Mr Cunningham – Principal Planning Officer and Case Officer,
Mr G Watson – Chair of Tyne Gateway Assn (TGA),
Mr K Haig – Treasurer of TGA,
Mr M Dawson – Committee Member of TGA.
A transcript of my notes is below. I had gone to the meeting with a set of questions based on conversations with, and comments made by, residents at meetings. Mr Cunningham had brought a plan to this meeting which showed a structure with vertical columns but copies were not available for the members of the TGA to examine closely. I was sent a copy of 8296/1B when I asked him to send a copy of the plans seen*.
| Meeting Town Hall Monday Nov 25 13:15 [ Room 115 – Members Room Flaws in planning application.1) Was condition 3 & 4 discharged properly. [20 Aug] 5) to 7-7 not Sundays or B.H. +minor, material consideration blue to soft grey,full samples of materials for details 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. ▬► Wait for planning consent (new) 5) Processes – shot blasting, noise, pollution, working hours. — 6) Inappropriate development in a residential area. — 7) Understand that there is pre-planning submitted for at least two further sheds. — 8) Rumoured MOD Work. In view of the current work. — |
I managed to command the meeting with my list of questions as neither Messrs Watson nor Haig contributed until ▬►. Mr Haig, at this point effectively bought the meeting to an end by saying something like “Well it’s legal then, there is nothing we can do until the planning application [for the expansion] is made”.
Before that there was a lot of discussion about conditions 3, 4 and 5 and while they were interesting they were really not to the point. I wanted to the meeting to consider condition 2: The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications. (Condition 1 was: The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of decision.) The note [20 Aug] refers to the date of the meeting between UK Docks and Mr Cunningham and there was quite a bit of chatter about this but it was not really relevant to the meeting +minor is summary of a brief discussion about the colour and sloping sides in the plans ( the vertical sides built are considered to be a minor deviation). The main thing is Mr Cunningham was saying that the shed was built to plan.
I have published my notes to show that if one considers Cllr Anglin’s notes and mine together one can see that the TGA were told:
a) the conditions made in the original plan had been met especially, condition 2, that slipway cover was built to plan.
c) there was nothing we could do till the plans for the expansion of the slipway were submitted.
It was clear to all concerned parties outside the STC Planning Office that the slipway cover was not built to plan (see detail). It seems to have been overlooked at this meeting that the meetings held at Littlehaven Hotel, 7th Oct 2013 (Residents) and St Stevens Church, 9th Nov 2013 (TGA) were about the size and location of the slipway shed.
From Cllr Anglin’s notes: 1. The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.