Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:40:28 +0000
To: Nicola Robason
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP,
Keith Palmer, Simon Buck, Customer Advocates,
Peter Cunningham, Cllr Anglin,
Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis,
Subject: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck
Attachment : D8296/2
Please see trail below. I’d like to emphasise that when I gave my personal details to Mr Buck I did it in good faith and said I would talk over phone to Mr Palmer about the corruption with UK Docks.
I should not have talked over the phone but the pair of them hooked me with the bait that we could talk honestly about UK Docks. If Mr Palmer’s intentions were honourable he would have told me that that Mr Buck was listening to the call as well. The Message I got from Mr Palmer was that he actually wanted to close down any dialogue about UK Docks which reminded me of one of the first written communications from Peter Cunningham, Principal Planning Officer, Fri, 20 Dec 2013: Continue reading Trouble with Phone Calls
Dear Mr Palmer,
You seem to have done some homework before our phone call on Tuesday 14th but if you had paid attention to the facts rather than opinions based on fraudulent misrepresentations you would have come to the conclusion that UK Dock’s shed is 3 meters taller than planned. This can be confirmed by examination of the authorised drawing 8296/2.
Many of the protesters including me had suspected it was wider as well as taller than planned before the meeting held at the Town Hall in November 2013. I confirmed for myself that it was nearly a meter wider than planned when I measured it shortly after the meeting. Continue reading Some Truth about the Shed
Originally published 8-Jul-16 this letter has been republished in full for the attention of all because the Council position has not changed since. They maintain that the shed is built to the approved height despite evidence to the contrary; authorised drawing 8296/2.
He did not reply but asked his Corporate Lead to present an alternative view to avoid the questions raised in the penultimate paragraph:- I suggest that you ask your legal department to review the original complaint of the 10th January 2014 and the correspondence following it up to 13th February and ask them to answer the simple question, What is the planned height of the shed? and the for you to answer the fundamental question: “As the applicant has not discharged condition 2 why is there no retrospective planning application?”
Neither question was answered. The Corporate Lead replied on his behalf saying: "Dear Mr Dawson -Thank you for your letter to Martin Swales, Chief Executive dated 8 July 2016, requesting matters related to your previous complaint to be raised as a new complaint, I manage the process and staff that support customer complaints and compliments. Your letter has therefore been forwarded to me to consider and respond."
She went on to say that there was no evidence of misinformation having been given to the Ombudsman.
The ‘New’ Complaint:- Continue reading STC and the LGO
Two emails were sent to the MP and copied to Mr Palmer but not to Mr Buck as it was assumed that Mr Palmer had taken over from Mr Buck.
I spoke to on the phone to Mr Palmer but Mr Buck responded and therefore became the inadvertant target of Mr Palmer’s attempt to stitch me up. Following the phone call I wrote to Emma with a copy of the letter from Peter Dunn and Co. about the Council giving misinformation to the Ombudsman and copied it to Mr Palmer not to Mr Buck as I assumed from the call that Mr Palmer had replaced Mr Buck.
the email I sent in the morning was addressed to the MP (Emma), as was the one I sent the evening before. Both were copied to Mr Palmer, neither of them to Mr Buck and both emails to Emma had been blocked so how could Mr Buck respond to them without input from Mr Palmer?
- it looks as if Mr Palmer had not made Mr Buck aware of the contents of the morning’s email as he could not of given his response in all honesty;
- Mr Buck says Mr Palmer was polite, informative and accurate implying that I was not polite;
- Mr Palmer was neither accurate nor informative and in the absence of a recording of the conversation you will have to take their word against mine. To the ‘Dissection’ > >
Continue reading Misrepresentation: 14-Jan-20
Fwd: Complaint: 248789 – Unplanned Development on River Drive
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 23/12/2019 (11:00:46 AM GMT)
To: Cllr Angela Hamilton
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck, Nicola Robason, Cllr David Francis, Alison Hoy
Bcc: The Local Residents
there two responses:-
Date: 23/12/2019 (16:09:38 BST)
Good afternoon Mick,
I am aware Angela and David are dealing with this, please can you let me
know if there is anything needed from me.
Best wishes, hope you have a lovely Christmas
Date: 08/01/2020 (11:22:22 BST)
Good morning Mr Dawson,
I wonder if it is possible to have your telephone number, I will then pass this on to my colleague Keith Palmer who will call you later today.
Office Manager for the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck MP
Dear Angela and Everybody,
Please see the response from the Council’s Monitoring Officer. Please note it is seven months after I asked her predecessor the same question. Better late than never.
It confirms that the Council did not give retrospective planning permission for the slipway shed on River Drive but beggars the question why did UK Docks tell you and Emma they had been given permission for it. The answer is in the third paragraph of my email below: Continue reading Broadcast – 23rd December 2019