July 8th 2014 – Meeting at Town Hall Town
to discuss Drawings/Plans of UK Docks Shelter
This was an informal meeting to discuss the plans for UK Docks Shelter and the detail drawing 8296/14.
Those present were: G Mansbridge – Head of Development Services, G Atkinson – Planning Manager, I Rutherford – Environment, B Dawson and M Dawson.
Brief Discussion of 8296/1A which was produced – M Dawson pointed out that the drawing showed a height of 15.5m at both ends of the shelter which brought the discussion to an end and then an even briefer discussion about 8296/2 which was produced. It bore no authorisation stamp but we were told that it han been authorised.
Brief mention of 8296/14 which was not produced and that was the end of the meeting. M Dawson then told the company that he thought that the Port of Tyne had undue influence on the decisions made by the Council’s Planning Department and in particular the development of the UK Docks site on River Drive.
Following the meeting an Email from the Planning Manager:
From: Gordon Atkinson
To: M Dawson
Cc: George Mansbridge; Ian Rutherford
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 1:34 PM
Subject: UK Docks [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Dear Mr Dawson
Further to our meeting yesterday, I have gone through the disc and found the TWDC report from 1996, and now attach a copy. The only reference to the dimensions are in the paragraph I have highlighted on page 1. The height is said to be ‘approximately 15.5 m high’ – I accept that there is no reference to whether this is the inland end, or the riverside end, but when read in conjunction with the drawing (8296/1A) it must refer to the inland end[1]. There is no reference in the report to the height (or indeed any other dimension) of the proposal having been amended in the period between submission and approval by the TWDC. There is a reference (highlighted) on p2 which refers to amended plans but I believe this can only be to 8296/4 [2] which introduced the windows as it is in the context of photomontages illustrating a solid structure. I have also spoken to Jonathon Wilson who confirms that the dimensions of the proposal were not altered during the assessment of the proposal[3].
Regards
Gordon Atkinson
1 – careful analysis of 8296/1A suggests otherwise.
2 – it possibly refers to 8296/3 which is notable for its absence, probably been authorised and likely to have been the reference for the draughtsman for the Agents, Maughan Reynolds and Partners, to draw 8296/14 in August 2014.
3 – is the word of Jonathon Wilson (Director, UK Docks) reliable in this context. He is probably responsible building the shelter without planning permission?
And also one from the Head of Development Services:
From: George Mansbridge
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Cc: Leanne Bootes
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:21 PM
Subject: UK Docks [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Dear Michael
I know that Gordon has already responded to you following his further review of the file and in particular the report by TWDC to their Board. I did however want to drop you a line just to thank you for your time yesterday. I fully understand that there are issues associated with the UK Docks development that you remain unhappy with however I did appreciate the manner by which to conducted yourself when we met; so thank you for that.
We did not get an opportunity to talk about the letter you sent to my Chief Executive. My assumption is that you would still like his office to review this matter as a stage 3 complaint [in accord with our complaints process]. If that is not the case then please let me know and I will pass that information on.
Kind regards
George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
South Tyneside Council
and reply
From: Mick Dawson
To: George Mansbridge
Cc: Leanne Bootes
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: UK Docks [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Dear George
Thank you for arranging the meeting and the email about it. I apologise for not writing to thank you before corresponding with Mr Atkinson.
I felt I had soured the meeting by not expressing myself well about the influence of the Port of Tyne over South Tyneside Council. I hope I did not convey the idea that there was any impropriety in their dealings with the Council. What I felt very strongly about was my belief that the Directors of UK Docks were using their monopoly in the maintenance and repair of vessels such as the Pilot Boats and Nexus Ferries to indirectly pressure the Council in making decisions that clearly blight the lives of those living nearby their works.
There did not appear to be anything new on the table regarding my
complaint and I cannot change my view that UK Docs built the Slipway Shed on River Drive to one set of plans while asking their agents to submit different ones [1] to suggest that they were complying with the conditions laid out in an earlier application.
I would still like the office of the Chief Executive to review my complaint.
Kind regards
Michael Dawson
1 – the detail drawn in August 13 is for a river gable end 15.5m high and the frames erected in September are 18.5m at the river end.
The trap: There is no Stage I and the Head of Development Services has tried to avoid a response to his Stage II before referring on the CEO and Stage III.
From: George Mansbridge
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Cc: Leanne Bootes
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: UK Docks [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Dear Michael
Please do not think that our discussion was soured by your views/ comments about the Port. I have advised the Chief Executive’s office that you would like this matter considered as a stage three complaint.
Regards
George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
South Tyneside Council
To full admission by Customer Advocacy.