Alternative Facts about the Height

A Time Line of Evasions or Denials.
  1. Case Officer, 9-Sep-13:
    Hello – I stamped these drawings on the day they were handed to me in reception, as I explained these are copies of drawings passed in 1996 by the T&W Development Corporation the only difference is that these drawings do not have the approved stamps on them.
  2. Councillor, J Anglin, 1-Dec-13:
    Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov
    Michael – I took no minutes as is customary at these informal meetings.
    For your record I am sure all would agree :
    The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.
  3. Case Officer, 20-Dec-13:
    Mr Dawson – once again – I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996 plans across to you twice already (attached again for your use) and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant…this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Please do not email me again.
  4. Case Officer,  13-Jan-14:
    Mr Dawson, I responded to you this morning as follows: The queries that you raise are not new, indeed I have been repeating my response to them for some time now, and you will recall that I explained the planning aspect of the Council’s position to you regarding this development during our meeting.
    This meeting included the chair and representatives of your residents group, and Councillors Anglin and McMillan.
    My understanding is that the responses that I had provided to you at this meeting enabled the matter to be closed.
  5. Planning Manager, 15-Jan-14:
    The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A. That shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the landward end. . .
    The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings. The variation in the angle of the pillars is not considered to be material.
  6. Planning Manager, 28-Jan-14:It is therefore reasonable to say that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996 (the only difference between 1A and 1B being to the foundation detail).
  7. Head of Development Services, 29-Apr-14:
  8. Head of Development Services, 02-May-14:
  9. Head of Development Services, 02-Jun-14:
  10. Customer Advocacy, 25-Sep-14:
    Completely ignores the question of height.
  11. Local Government Ombudsman 9-Mar-15:
    Completely ignores the question of height.
  12. Local Government Ombudsman 24-Mar-15:
    ~ HDS
  13. Local Government Ombudsman 15-Apr-15:
    #34Senior Planning
  14. JH
  15. GS


This entry was posted in Misinformation/Misrepresentation. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.