Reappraisal of Planning Breaches


Dear Angela,

Since I wrote to you, and copied Cllr Francis and others on 12-Sep-19 things have rapidly moved on and are mirroring events that took place more than five years ago. You and everybody can now see them unfold in real time. In the spring of 2014 the Planning Officers stifled a legitimate complaint so they did not have to respond to it. The complaint was that the enclosure on the slipway on River Drive (shed) was not built to the approved plan and the Council had done nothing about it.

UK Docks and or South Tyneside Council, it was not clear from the correspondence, in telling you that permission had been granted retrospectively for the shed have admitted that the shed was built without planning permission and thereby conceding that we had been right for all along and it was nearly 3 meters taller than planned. Continue reading Reappraisal of Planning Breaches

Issue dodged by Building Control

Date:  17/09/2019 (03:12:21 PM BST)
From: Deborah Graham
To: Planning applications
Copy To:
Subject: Tyne Slipway & Eng Co Ltd Erection of a Shelter 
ST/0242 /96 
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Hi Planning
Please see attached and email below which I believe was meant for planning
Debbie Graham Operations & Partnership Officer
Town Hall and Civic Offices, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne & Wear,
NE33 2RL
T 0191 424 7899 I 07436038432 I 0

It is clear that Debbie Graham has been asked to pass the issue, by those responsible for it; i.e. enforcement, to planning and I have asked her to pass it back to where it belongs and attached two more drawings:

 Tyne Slipway & Eng Co Ltd Erection of a Shelter ST/0242 /96        
 Date: 19/09/2019 (07:12:34 AM BST)          
 To: Deborah Graham,Building Control Services          
 Cc:  Planning Applications, Customer Advocates    

Continue reading Issue dodged by Building Control

Building Control at South Tyneside

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:55:15 +0100
To: Building Control
Cc: Cllr Angela Hamilton,
Cllr David Francis,
Cllr Anglin,
Emma Lewell-Buck MP,
Stephen Hepburn MP,
Customer Advocates
Subject: Tyne Slipway & Eng Co Ltd Erection of a Shelter ST/0242 /96

Dear Sir or Madam.

Please see the grant, set of drawings and photograph attached:

8296/1A is not approved, presumably because it shows both ends of the shed to be the same height (15.5m) while also showing a gradient of 2.7m between them. One of the dimensions is obviously wrong and reference to to 8296/2, one of which has been authorised and gives the landward end as 12.7m. When one takes into account that the footings at that point are at 96.1m the permitted height at the river end is therefore 15.5m. The length and width are clearly given as 22m and 12.2m respectively.

The shed we see today is 27.5m long (my estimate using the sixth, photograph of the set of footings laid in 2001- attached), 18.2m high at the river end and 13.1m wide as measured by the Council in September 2013. It was therefore in breach of planning control in length and breadth since 2001 and in height since September 2013 but nothing has been done about it because no enforcement orders were made. It was claimed that the variation from plan was not material so there was nothing to enforce.

Following approaches to the current owners by Councillor Hamilton and the MP for South Shields, they – UK Docks, are now saying that they they were given permission for it retrospectively which I know to be untrue.

Please confirm that this is so and issue a somewhat belated enforcement notice and put the argument about whether the 2nd condition was met back where it belongs: between UK Docks and the Council and not where it has been for 5 years; between the local residents who say it is too high and the Council who say it is not.

It will be their choice then between removing/rebuilding the shed to the approved plan (22m x 15.5m x 12.2m) with sloping sides or applying retrospectively for permission for what they now have (27.5m x 18.2m x 13.1m)

In both cases they will have conceded that we and not the Council were correct about the breaches in planning control but the second will additionally expose the Council, and quite justifiably, to charges of corruption and misleading the Local Government Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson

Dialogue – UKD, Spring 2019

————- Original Message ———————–
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns]
From: Local Resident
Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 5:40 pm
To: “Mick Dawson”
Cc: “Cllr Angela Hamilton”

Hi Mick
I appreciate your arguments, but this far down the line there is nothing we can do.
Angela has talked to several relevant people, and the point is the council gave retrospective planning. Which they are allowed to do.
We are working with Angela to negate further issues with the site. It’s all we can do now: limit noise and any other issues If they occur.
Local Resident

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

——– Original message ——–
From: Mick Dawson
Date: 30/04/2019 16:55 (GMT+00:00)
To: Local Resident
Cc: Cllr Angela Hamilton , David Francis , Melanie Todd
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns]

Local Resident, You have totally missed the point, well 2 actually:

  • When the footings were set in 2001 they were a meter wider than planned. Which is not a slight variation from the plan. Even the Council admitted that to us when Mr Mansbridge responded to our Petition. Anyone who tells you otherwise is therefore lying.
  • The shed is 2.7 meter higher than planned and whoever tells you that the difference is only slight is also lying. Unfortunately for UK Docks the only approved plans from 1996 show the height of shed at the road end to be 12.7m. The built height at that point is 15.5m.

Ask anyone for proof that the shed is built to the approved height and they either change the subject or say that the difference is only slight. Planning Officer Cunningham has (been) telling that lie since the beginning and you and Angela should be wary of repeating that the variation of the width, and especially the height, is of no consequence. It was because Mr Cunningham would not answer the question of height that we went through the fruitless exercise of raising the TGA.

Cheers Mick

Continue reading Dialogue – UKD, Spring 2019

Cllr A: South Tyneside Council and the Ombudsman

Introductory email to Councillor Hamilton :

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:51:39 +0100
To: Cllr Angela Hamilton <>
Cc: Cllr David Francis <>
Cllr Anglin
 <>, Peter Cunningham
 <>, George Mansbridge
 <>, Customer Advocates
 <>, Stuart Wright
 <>, "Gill Hayton (Solicitor)"
 <>, Mike Harding
 <>, Graeme Watson
 <>, Emma Lewell-Buck <>, Stephen  Hepburn MP <>
Subject: UK Docks, STC and the LGO - May , 2019
Bcc 24

Dear Angela,
This email outlines what I have detailed in the attached letter. I have used this technique for a while now so that I can reference drawings, emails etc. as evidence to prove my point and the easiest way to do this is via a letter in pdf format.
The trouble we have had over Mr Wilson’s boat shed goes right back to the drawings UK Docks sent to Mr Cunningham the day after they started erecting the frames in September 2013. They were said to represent the shed approved in 1996 but they did not. Although some vital details were missing it did not take much to calculate what they were and determine that the shed was the equivalent to the gradient(2.7m) taller than planned.
As far as I know Melanie was the first to try and get something off the ground but she kept hitting the wall placed by Mr Cunningham repeating that it had been approved. We could see that the plans had not been approved and in spite this the Council continued to insist that it was built in accordance them even after they were presented with evidence to the contrary as shown in:
• email about the width to Cllr Anglin on the 16-Dec-13;
• email about both the width and the height to Planning Enquiries 10-Jan-14.
I, or should I say we, hit the wall when Mr Cunningham just repeated that the dimensions of the shed were according to approved plans when we knew they were not. This was following the meeting in November 2013 used to hide the fact that no enforcement action had been taken. It was obvious that it was taller and wider than planned and one has to question why the structure was not being measured by the building inspector.
The Planning Manager let it slip that we were right about it being too tall but not until he had repeated the misrepresentation that it was built to the approved height using an error on an unauthorised drawing and from then on the Council were stuck with either coming clean or repeating the lie that it had been built to the approved height. One of the earliest instances of them not coming clean was the response to our Petition in May 2014 and they were still repeating it in December 2018.
We requested the Council ask UK Docks to stop work on their shed until the question of the height was sorted out in January 2014 but they either failed to do so or they were told to get lost because work on it carried on regardless and now UK Docks tell you they had permission, retrospectively applied for and granted, for their extended shed. Please see trail below.
Has anyone seen an approved drawing of what we see now? No they haven’t. It does not exist nor does the permission and we have hit the wall of silence again. I asked the Monitoring Officer nearly three months ago to confirm whether they had applied for retrospective planning permission and have not yet received a reply. I think you can take it that they haven’t but you had better ask them for yourself.
Over to you and David Francis, this is above party politics. In fact it is above local politics and that is why I have been copying both MPs into my correspondence. I’m sure South Tyne Council are not the only people using the Ombudsman to hide malpractice and to put up a barrier to any investigation.
Kind regards,
Michael Dawson