January
| Date | Action | |
|---|---|---|
| 10.01.14 | Work on the slipway shed resumes and correspondence with the planning office is attempted. I complain to the Planning Office that work has resumed on the slipway cover in spite of evidence that it is not being built to any authorised plan. The plans produced for ST/1146/13/COND because thethe were approved in 2013 and would naturally have taken precedence over any othe plans and they give lie to the claim that the structure built is approved. | |
| 13.01.14 | My complaint was intercepted by the Principal Planning Officer who did not answer it but suggested that I speak with the Chair of the Tyne Gateway Assn but more importantly, he does not register the complaint. The Chair had made it very clear where his allegiances lay and it was with UK Docks and their fraudulent claim that the shed was approved. |
|
| 14.01.14 | On the receipt of Mr Cunningham’s response I determined that it would be wise to resign from the TGA. My response was to go over his head rather than to get embroiled in a corrupt complaints procedure. | |
| 15.01.14 | Response from Planning Manager showed that he was as much a part of the corrupt procedure as was his Principal Planning Officer and rather than a flat denial he says: “The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings” and to back his fraudulent claim he introduces 8296/1A as an approved drawing. It is not an authorised drawing. |
|
| 24.01.14 | In my reply I ask him for the actual dimensions of the shed as Mr Cunningham had never provided them. I also ask for a copy of any approved prints from 1996 as Mr Cunningham had not provided them either. I also resend the annotated drawing 8296/14 to put him back on track | |
| 28.01.14 | The reply from the Planning Manager is marked [Protect]. He includes two misrepresentations and refers me to Stage 2 of a non-existent complaint. 1) the only drawings that we have that are stamped ‘Approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation’ are 8296/2 and 8296/4. 8296/1A and 8296/1B are consistent with these two stamped drawings in terms of overall dimensions. 2) 8296/14 – 15.6m height is the height to River Drive. |
|
| To put it bluntly, he was lying :- 1) 8296/1A and 8296/1B not are consistent with 8296/2, /1A and /1B give the road end as 15.5m and /2 gives it as 12.7m 2) 15.6m height is the height at the river end. |
||
| P1: January | P2: February | P3: March and April |
| P4: May and June | P5: 2nd half of year | |