An Inescapable Truth

There are two drawings that show a height for the landward end of the shed of 15.5m and neither were approved because it was a mistake made by the draftman in 1996. Why the Council do not hold a corrected one has never been explained but it matters not because there is one approved drawing from 1996 that survived and it is 8296/2

The detail given by the Head of Development Services in his response to our Petition was a mistake on a drawing 8296/1A or 1B and repeated more detail in his fraudulent Stage 2 response a month later, where he specifically referred to the error on a drawing 1A, “height of the steelwork at River Drive is clearly marked as 12.5m+3m (total 15.5m)”. The approved drawing from 1996, 8296/2, clearly states that the height should be 12.7m.

It is the only authorised drawing from 1996, in the Council’s possession, with dimensions. The detail on the left hand side gives an approved height of the landward gable of 12.7m. The roof height is 108.8m and the gound height at the foot, from 8296/1A is 96.1m, confirming that the planned height of the shed was 12.7m

Even where these heights have been removed from the drawing, as in the case of the copy sent from the Planning Office in September 2013, one can still estimate the planned heights by using the gradient on the side elevation of the shed shown on the part drawing. It makes the land end about 11m and therefore the river end of about 14m. Not the 15.5m measured in September 2013.

The Principal Planning Officer, Mr P Cunningham had told the Councillor that he had
measured the width and length of the ground floor external footprint and height of the structure and that these dimensions were all in accordance with the attached approved drawing and planning permission and that he had copied these two documents to Mr Dawson after the meeting as per his request.

The Drawing had not been approved and as I have shown, it gave the height of the shed incorrectly at the landward end as 15.5m and the planning permission of 1966 clearly stated:- “The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.”

From the first week in September 2013 he had been repeating the lie about shed’s height to all enquirers, including the MP South Shields or her Agent but on the 20th December he modified the misrepresentation about the height:

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.

I do not email him again because there was no need. Two weeks after the meeting to which he referred, South Tyneside Council published an amendment to the plans for the shed which reflected what UK Docks were building rather that what had been approved in 1966. They had been approved by the Planning Manager on the 14th October 2013 and I placed a complaint with Planning Enquiries on January the 10th, 2014 based on the plans that had been submitted on the 27th September, by the their agents, Maughan, Reynolds Partnership Ltd.

8296/14

The 8296/13 was missing but there is sufficient detail on 8296/14 to see that original planned height was as the protesters claimed, 15.5m at the river end and not as claimed by Mr Peter Cunningham at the meeting in November 2013, as 18.2m.

When determining whether UK Docks has been built to approved plans drawing 8296/14 should be used along side 8296/2 and 8296/1A or 1B because it would show that neither the planned height nor the width had changed since 1966 as it was only the change to the shed’s section that was approved in 2013. The main thing to notice is that the planned height of the landward end was not changed and remains at that shown on on 8296/2 as 12.7m.

8296/1A and 1B

The drawings used by UK Docks and their promoter South Tyneside Council are either 8296/1A or 1B which are not authorised and both contain  the same fundamental drawing error.

9840 or 9750 depending on which drawing is used

Even without using a scale ruler on a full sized drawing one can see that the dimension at the landward elevation of the shed is wrong. The 3000, roughly a quarter of the whole, nearly half way to a mid point line, confirms this and three is a quarter of 12 not 15.

The River End The first drawings seen did not show the true height of the river end.
If one looks at the top of either drawing one will see that the river end is shown as 15.5m as well and as there is a gradient (2.7m) between the ends and only one of them can reflect the planned height of the roof or the roof would slope downwards toward the river. It does not, so the landward end = 13.3m (river end – gradient) which agrees with the authorised drawing from 1996 – see 8296/2 at top.

Height of landward end aprroved in 1966:

Neither 1A nor 1B were approved and anyone who says or implies otherwise is intending to misinform; 8296/1B was an amendment made to 1A in 1997 and sent to the Ombudsman as an approved document from 1996 to compound the lie.

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

One Response to An Inescapable Truth

  1. Mick Dawson says:

    In the response to our Petition, the Head of Development Services referred to, a non-approved drawing, implying that it was approved. It was 8296/1A and was not approved as the landward end had been incorrectly given as 15.5m.
    What the Planning Manager had not told his boss was that the drawing showed the river end to be 15.5m as well.
    The side elevation from 8296/2 using the heights from the river end detail on 8296/1A or 1B gives a value of 12.8m for the landward end of the shed. The first copies of 8296/2 given out, had the vital dimension at the landward end had been removed (height of the roof at 108.8m above footings at 96.1m = 12.7m).
    Cropped 8296/2

Comments are closed.