Cllr A: Dear Ms Hayton (Covering Email)

Covering Email:  11-Dec-18

Dear Ms Hayton,
I have used this format as there are a lot of references in the letter (attached). This saves on attachments as one only need to glance at them to see who is backing up what they say with evidence e.g. the Council say that the gable end on 8296/14 is not to scale but I say it is and you only have to take a look to see that it is to scale (1 to me, nil to the Council).
I can also pass comment on it, such as: I don’t particularly care whether Haig and Watson were representing UK Docks because they are Freemasons or Director and Procurement Officer of HB Hydraulics, it makes no odds, they are not representing the residents.
If you look at the emails following the meeting you can see Mr Cunningham is being a bit shifty about sending the drawings we were supposed to have seen. He kept on sending drawings (1B, 1B then 1A) that showed no evidence of ever having been to TW&DC let alone having been authorised by them. Surely if he was telling us that the shed had been approved, the drawings he was using must be authorised or approved as well. Is that why the likes of UK Docks, Mr Haig and Cllr Anglin prefer the term ‘legal’.
Sometimes I say the road end has a planned height of 12.5 meters and sometimes 12.7 or 8 and I’d like to say now that it depends on my starting point. For instance, the early versions of 1B did not show the river end height clearly so I subtracted 3 from 15.5. Later when the council started claiming the approved height of the road end was according to 1A, I subtracted 2.7 from 15.5 (river end – gradient) then finally with the appearance of 8296/2 I got to 12.7m for the planned height of the road end.
Now I have drawn the relevant bits of 8296/14 full size for myself, I am putting my money on 12.8m, not that it matters much as they are all within a foot. 2.7m is nearly 9ft and that is definitely a material consideration.
I did not like the way the meeting had got away from establishing whether the shed had been approved to a casual chat about phase 2 of the development when I knew that UK Docks had only got permission for their shed on condition they did not expand the site.
Basically Cllr Anglin had gone away from a TGA meeting to find out for us if the shed had been approved and he failed. He then appears to have sided with the opposition and left me to fight on my own.
I’m still here and as you can now see we, the Residents, were right all along. I hear the Council are looking for someone to occupy Middle Docks and it looks like the Port of Tyne could give up some of Mcnulty’s without even noticing it and they can put up with racket that UK Docks make and there is no-one around to be rudely awoken on a Sunday mornings.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Dawson

This entry was posted in LGO, Misconduct, 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.