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.
He had obviously not told anyone that the shed was taller by 2.7m than planned because they continued with the work on the shed. The message does not appear to have got past the Planning Manager so the Head of Development Services was able revert, in his response to our Petition, to repeat the fraudulent misrepresentation:-
The approved dimensions of the steelwork are: Proposed height 15.5m at the River Drive end. The gradient of the slipway is 2.66m over the length of the shelter. This would mean the height at the riverside end would be 18.16m above the slipway.
By repeating this piece of misinformation in response to our Petition, the Head of Development Services had committed South Tyneside Council to repeating the lie or hiding the fact he had lied, by making statements like:-
It remains the case that all complaints procedures relating to this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.
MD – 12th April 2022
* from drawing 8296/1A or 1B
** The Council’s copy of 8296/2 – Not UK Docks’ copy which had been cropped to show no heights, date or drawing number. The accompanying drawing, 8296/1B was an amendment to 1A made in 1997. It was scarcely legal and using the pair to show an approved height at the landward end, was a fraudulent misrepresentation.