Response to Complaint re Cllr A: MP

Dear Emma,

Cllr Anglin and the meeting at the Town Hall 25-Nov-13.

I wrote to you on the 1-Oct thanking you for taking notice of my complaint.

You will know by now the Council did eventually acknowledge my complaint and they used a secure platform, Egress File Encryption, to send it on the 12-Oct. I have now received their response through the same medium which is extremely tiresome. The secure platform was totally unnecessary and only served to confirm my suspicion that the Council was not interested in doing anything about the misuse their complaints procedure. Continue reading Response to Complaint re Cllr A: MP

Cllr A: Short Appraisal

Three main concerns about the Council’s response to my complaint against Councillor Anglin.

  1. no feed back reference number (FBR);
  2. rewriting of complaint to so that it does not have to be addressed;
  3. addition of misinformation/misrepresentation which is later repeated as evidence.

The first enables the second and third points, the second is self explanatory and the third lies at the heart of the corrupt complaints procedure and is almost impossible to correct as they will be presented as facts to the Local Government Ombudsman.
View response to complaint.

Editing (rewriting) the core out of the complaint or in plain English:

The Councillor promised to find out if the shed was taller than planned and we were told at the meeting that followed that the shed was neither too high nor too wide. Authorised or approved plans show otherwise and the Council knew this two months before the meeting.  Edited to:

You complain that Councillor Anglin has:
• failed to “obtain clarity’ concerning a planning application submitted by UK Docks relating to development on River Drive during a meeting at the Town Hall on 25 November 2013;
• misled or otherwise allowed the Local Government Ombudsman investigator to be misled as to the height and width of the development against the submitted plans and whether the differences in the height and width are “material” or “non-material” for the purpose of determining whether to commence enforcement proceedings.

The main misrepresentations regarding the shed occur in paragraphs 5 (the width) and 7 (the height) and are appraised in paragraph 11.

Council Solicitor’s Reply – a Critique

The residents were fairly certain that UK Docks had built their shed wider and higher than permitted but Council just kept repeating that it was approved. The Tyne Gateway Association (TGA) was resurrected as a means to break out of this deadlock but it failed and this can be attributed to Cllr Anglin. In simple terms he had promised the TGA that he would find out if the shed had been built with planning permission. Some of us did not trust him because he had been invited to an EGM (falsely presented an an AGM) by the Chairman and thought we should be in attendance when he met with the Council. This led to a meeting at the Town Hall in November 2013. Our lack of trust was justified as we were again told that it was compliant. Subsequent investigation backed our view that a) it was not built according to approved plans and b) the Case Officer knew that before we even got round to resurrecting the TGA. View Complete Response Continue reading Council Solicitor’s Reply – a Critique

Complaint to LGO

[Central to this complaint are the three emphasized paragraphs, 25-Nov, 20-Dec and 13-Feb. The approved drawings made their appearance between those dates.]

12-Dec-14 Complaint to LGO – What do you think the body did wrong?

The Council have allowed the UK Docks development on Riverside Drive to proceed despite multiple objections from residents and that in dealing with these objections they have neither been open or transparent. It has taken 15 months to gain the admission that the construction did not have planning permission:- Continue reading Complaint to LGO

Observations and Complaint, 10-Jan-14

From: M Dawson
Subject: Slipway Development – River Drive.
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:55:35

Dear Sir.
Please find attached copies of drawings nos. 8296/1A and 8296/1B, 8296/14 and a photograph of the road end elevation of the slipway development.
I notice that work on this site has recommenced in the last day or so and I am surprised as there is still an outstanding issue which I think has not been addressed. The issue relates to the second condition of planning permission granted under ST/0242/96/UD which has not been met. This condition states:- “The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications”. Continue reading Observations and Complaint, 10-Jan-14

denied – Request for approved documents

The Correspondence following a meeting, 25-Nov-2013, originally called because the Planning Officer had stopped communicating is laid out in a flat file below.
The initial drawings sent to the complainants indicated that the shed was about 3m taller than planned. We were then sent drawings provided by the management of UK Docks that can best be described as ambiguous. Vital details regarding the height were missing and they bore no evidence of being anywhere near the authorising body and were certainly not authorised. Continue reading denied – Request for approved documents

Cllr A: Dear Ms Hayton (Covering Email)

Covering Email:  11-Dec-18

Dear Ms Hayton,
I have used this format as there are a lot of references in the letter (attached). This saves on attachments as one only need to glance at them to see who is backing up what they say with evidence e.g. the Council say that the gable end on 8296/14 is not to scale but I say it is and you only have to take a look to see that it is to scale (1 to me, nil to the Council). Continue reading Cllr A: Dear Ms Hayton (Covering Email)

Cllr A: Dear Ms Hayton


Dear Ms Hayton,

I make no apologies for digging through early correspondence to establish the truth behind the slipway shed on River Drive. When decisions are made about whether a development has been built to plan it is obvious that non-approved drawing and plans with missing details or errors must be discarded. It was built without planning permission in late 2013 and was in breach of planning control with regard to the second condition (1m too wide and 2.7m too high) as soon as the first frame was erected.
Continue reading Cllr A: Dear Ms Hayton