Questions Ignored

Examples of Observations and /or Complaints arising from the breaches in planning control of the conditions of the grant in 1996 that have not been directly addressed:

  1. Condition 2
    25-Nov-13, Observation that the structure was too high and too wide dismissed;
    16-Dec-13, the cover was a meter wider than planned;
    10-Jan-14, the cover was also 3m too high;
    4-Apr-14, to attempt to correct the misinformation given in Petition spoiler in Shields Gazette;
    2-May-14, the planners were abusing the complaints procedure;
    9-May-14, response to Petition repeating misrepresentations made by the Planning Manager;
    8-Jul-14, Planning Manager does not bring the Agent’s drawing to a meeting specifically arranged to review it;
    29-Aug-14, CA advised about nil show of 8296/14 at meeting ;
    5-Sep-14, CA advised that no action had been taken on email to Head of Development Services, 4-Apr-14;
    21-Nov-14, no-one responsible for making sure that structures are built to plan;
    this list under review and could easily grow to 30 items.
  2. Condition 5
    23-Dec-2016, Sunday Working

Please note these are the ones raised by me, only, and they all stem from the meeting in November 2013 were we were told against all the evidence that cover was compliant with regard to the second condition on width and height.
The last example is a breach of the fifth condition. This is a completely separate issue from the second condition, it is logically a separate entity and it would make no difference whether the structure is compliant with the second condition.

It is included here because like the non compliance with condition 2 it would need a retrospective planning application to change or remove it.

Alternative Facts about the Height

A Time Line of Evasions or Denials.
  1. Case Officer, 9-Sep-13:
    Hello – I stamped these drawings on the day they were handed to me in reception, as I explained these are copies of drawings passed in 1996 by the T&W Development Corporation the only difference is that these drawings do not have the approved stamps on them.
  2. Councillor, J Anglin, 1-Dec-13:
    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 :
    The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen. Continue reading Alternative Facts about the Height


The gable end is drawn to scale of 1:100:  the 16m x 12.5m on the drawing held by the Council should be taken as a good guide to the planned height, i.e. 12.7m at the landward end.

Detail notes on the drawing ” strips to draw back to each side to allow access for boats” show that it is the river end rather than the road end and the boats arrive on the slipway from the river.
The added figures 15.6 and 12.2 were measured from an A4 file displayed on a screen and are suitably good enough to show  it has a planned height of 15.5m.
This is confirmation that the architect or ‘engineer’ was using the approved drawings from 1996 which show a landward end of 12.7m giving a river end of 15.5m

Customer Advocacy said in a Stage 3 response, said;
it is clear that drawing 8296/14 could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development”
and I agree with that. They also said;
Mr Mansbridge stated in his Stage 2 response that the engineer chose to include a gable elevation of the structure on the same drawing but told you this was not drawn to scale. You have disputed this. I have not considered this point further because it is clear that drawing 8296/14 was submitted in 2013 for a wholly different purpose (i.e. for the purposes of discharging a planning condition) and as such, could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development.
Note that the author of the  Stage 3 is careful not to say that the drawing is not to scale but attributes the falsehood about the scale to the author of the Stage 2 response. She says she has not considered the scale but she has not disputed the point.

The original complaint very specifically mentioned the height but in spite of the author being told at least twice about its variation from plan she does not consider the  height at all in this final stage before it goes to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman also fails to mention the height at all in her first draft and this is a strong  indicator that she and a Senior Planner from the Council were colluding over this matter.


The only Authorised Drawing from 1996 with dimensions that STC say they possess.

The height of the landward end is 12.7m (roof height: 108.8m – height at the foot: 96.1m)* and confirms that it is reasonable to say, “that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996” only if one accepts that the river end has a planned height of 15.5m. That makes the planned height of other end 12.8m and not 15.5m as claimed by UK Docks or the Council.

This was the drawing** referred to when I thanked him for confirming that the Slipway Shed was not built to the approved plans of 1996. The only other drawing authorised in 1996 was 8296/4 and that shows no dimensions. Continue reading 8296/2

The Truth about the Height Using 1A.

Explanation of Drawing 8296/1A – (copy of document sent to the Ombudsman)

1. There is a clearer picture shown in the accompanying file: drawing 82961A.pdf
2. Mr Atkinson, the planning Manager has said that when this drawing is viewed alongside 8296/4 and 8296/4 it can be considered as approved and I do not disagree (if the river end is taken as 15.5m).
3. The fall along the length of the shed is 2.6 m
4. A full sized A1 drawing was kindly provided by Mr Mansbridge, the Head of Development Services and I have used this to get a solution to calculate
5. While some of the dimensions are foreshortened to accommodate all the elevations the drawing can be reliably used to calculate missing or erroneous dimensions within an elevation.
6. Both ends of the shed are shown as 15.5m and this cannot be true.
7. The Planning and the Development Services Department say that the road (south) end is 15.5m high. This is the word of the applicant.
8. I say that the height of the road end is 12.5m high and back it with the explanation below:
1) Detail of river end (north) elevation:
Height of shed at river end is 15.5m (12.5+3m)
2) The height of the river end (2): below. The river end of the side elevation has no dimensions in the drawing. There is no requirement for them as they are given on the gable end detail. They can be worked out however: the depth to the hip is 3m (see below ) and by proportion from hip to ground 12m giving a total height of 15m.
3) Height of the road end (south) elevation: below. Using the depth to the hip of 3m the height from hip to ground works out at 9.7m giving a total height of 12.7m. The 12.5 dimension should be pointing to the top of the shed. If this drawing equivalent of a typing error is corrected then the drawing
makes sense. The road end of the shed has a planned height of 12.5m. The Planning Office have put forward an explanation to try and justify a road end height of 15.5m and account for the fall of 3m by making the planned height of the river end 18.5m. This cannot be supported if one looks carefully at the drawing.

The Condition “if the river end is taken as 15.5m” is missing from the original Lexplanation1A.pdf