248789 Disappears out of sight.

The Complaint raised on 10-Jan-14  can easily be summarised as:

Approved drawing 8296/14 show that the enclosure or shed is 2.7m taller and nearly a meter wider than planned than the measurements taken in the September before thus not meeting the 2nd condition and begs the question; “As the applicant has not discharged condition 2 why is there no retrospective planning application?”

It still remains out of sight and the question has never been answered because:

  1. the Principal Planning Officer, 13-Jan, refers me back to the meeting where the residents were told a lie, saying: “I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant..
    No audit trail is left because he has not registered the complaint.
  2. the Planning Manger, 15-Jan, repeats this lie in so many words: “The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings..
    No audit trail is left because although he registered a complaint. It is meaningless:
    see email to planning 14/1/14. Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive, South Shields. No reference to the observation that the 2nd condition has not been met.
  3. the Head of Development Services reverted to the Planning Managers view after he had conceded that the shed was too high in February 2014.
  4. Customer Advocacy doe not mention the height at all and dismiss the extra width as not being harmful.
  5. A Senior Planning Officer presents a combined view of 3 and 4 to the Ombudsman.
  6. A second Ombudsman allows the view of the first to stand.
This entry was posted in Planning, UK Docks. 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Your email address will not be published.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.