Shed and Corruption – Part 3: Sundays

Shed and Corruption - Part 3 
Date: 30/04/2021 (08:28:29 AM BST) 
To:, John Rumney 
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Peter Cunningham, George Mansbridge, Hayley Johnson, Alison Hoy, Garry Simmonette, Angela Coutts, Nicola Robason, M Dawson

Att: Shed and Corruption – Part 3

Dear Paula Abbott,

Thank for copy of the Council’s Complaints Policy and the list of unanswered correspondence since January 2020. It is a very timely interruption because my first task today was to write a covering email for the letter I was going to post to John Rumney today: Shed and Corruption – Part 3. I only finished checking it at three this morning and attach it now.
I notice on page 4 of the Complaints Policy a comment about unreasonable behaviour. If you look through my correspondence to Mr Swales 2014 to 2016 you will see my main concern is that the shed on the UK Docks’ slipway off River Derive is nearly 3m taller than planned but a Senior Planning Officer told the Local Government Ombudsman that it wasn’t.
In plain language he lied to them and so the Ombudsman found for the Council and the Council then used this to seed enquirers, like MPs and the Press, with the impression that I was making allegations the most notable of which was in attachment 6 to the MP for Berwick on 25th June 2015 by Hayley Johnson:

“The matters and allegations raised by your constituent are well documented and have been subject to a number of enquiries from Mr Dawson and other local residents over a lengthy period of time. The matter was ultimately referred by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, the outcome of which was delivered on 14 April 2015.”

They were not allegations and it looks like Hayley was given similar misinformation to that given to the Ombudsman. I suggest you read ‘Shed and Corruption’ Parts 1 and 2 and take this up with Nicola Robason before we go any further.
She said was going to respond to 2nd to last 2020, letter on your list, RE: Conflation of Complaints, but has not done so:

From: Nicola Robason
Date: 24/12/2020 (11:37:26 BST)
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Peter Cunningham, George Mansbridge, Hayley Johnson, Alison Hoy, Garry Simmonette, Angela Coutts
Dear Mr Dawson
Thank you for your email regarding complaints you have raised with the Council. I am writing to acknowledge receipt and confirm that this matter will be looked into and you will receive a response week commencing 4th January.

When the approved drawings say the shed should be 15.5m at the river end but it was built with a height of 18.2m it is not an allegation to say it is taller than permitted, it is the truth.

Kind regards
Michael Dawson

Shed and Corruption – Part 2

Shed and Corruption - Part 2
Date: 12/04/2021 (11:31:07 BST)
To: Cllr David Francis
Cc: Melanie Todd, Alison Hoy, Hayley Johnson, Nicola Robason
Attachment: Shed and Corruption - 2.pdf 

Dear David,

The Shed and Corruption – 2

I have tidied the letter to Melanie of March 12th and saved it the website which has a been a sort of hold-all for some years, as ‘The Shed and Corruption: Part 1‘. Hopefully the worst of the errors in grammar, never one of my strong points, have been corrected.
While attempting to tidy the website it soon became clear that the timeline on which it was built was sound. It was based on the complaints raised by many, including Melanie and myself, that the enclosure (shed) on UK Docks’ slipway off River Drive, was to not built to the approved plans. It was taller by some 3m. The facts behind the letter to Melanie remain the same as do the conclusions one can draw from it and it beggars the question: why did the Council persistently lie about the height of the shed?

The reality lies in the fact that they were never told to remove their shed or rebuild it to the correct height in writing otherwise it would have gone. UK Docks would not have have sought permission retrospectively because the approved plans from 1996 would have had to have been produced and that would have proved that the residents were right about it being taller and wider than planned, and to put it bluntly, that both UK Docks and the Council were lying when they said or implied that approval had been granted for the shed we now see.

UK Docks needed a longer one to make their business on River Drive viable and while they may have got away with a wider one it was unlikely that they would have got away with a taller one and certainly not the longer one. The footings laid in 2001 were for a longer shed.
Continue reading Shed and Corruption – Part 2