The meeting at the Town Hall on 24th November 2013. Notice the use of ‘legal’ to mean compliant or built to approved plans. Notice also that he has grouped me in with the other two residents. The other two are local businessmen with an interest in ship repair yards.
I had overlooked the response of Councillor Anglin because of the Third Denial a day later. This was in response to my email informing him, his fellow Councillors and Residents that the shed had not been built to the correct width:
Please see below the reply from Peter (Cunningham).
” Hello – I confirmed at our meeting with Mr Dawson and others on 25th
SeptNov 2013 that I 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.
Councillor Anglin, 19-Dec-13
The strike-through is my correction. The first response was within an hour and from Mr Cunningham: Mr Dawson – when did you get access to measure the structure on site ?
I did not need access to measure the structure as it could be done quite accurately from Greens place.
I had the foresight to forward the email below to a neighbour and Microsoft have been looking after it for a few years now. Judging by later correspondence with Corporate Lead, it, along with his manager’s responses appear to be missing from the Council’s server.
This was the same neighbour who made enquires of Mr Cunningham regarding the height within a few days of the frames going up. His only response was to refer her to the Council’s Complaints Procedure. Nobody else could get any approved plans from the Council either.
It was not until the Planning Manager sent out 8296/2 at the end of January 2014 that we saw an approved drawing from 1996 and it gives a planned height that directly contradicts what UK Docks told the Council and the Council repeated to the protesters .
- None of the plans sent by Mr Cunningham were approved.
- His supposed measurements are suspect, and there is no record of anyone taking the measurements in 2013. EIR 17772-Summary
- The difference in width could be found by simple surveying from Greens Place. The difference in height from what UK Docks were telling us one can get from the gradient given on 8296/1A or 1B (2.7m) as both ends show a height of 15.5m .
From: Mick Dawson – hotmail
Sent: 21 December 2013 08:44
Subject: Fw: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov [PROTECT]
For your information.
—– Original Message —–
From: Peter Cunningham
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: TGA – Town Hall Meeting 25 Nov [PROTECT]
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
Principal Planning Officer
South Tyneside Council, Development Management, Planning Group,
Some of us are of the opinion that his conduct was less than desirable.
In response to the observation (complaint?), 10-Jan-14, that the structure was too high (3m) and too wide (1m), Mr Cunningham refers back to the meeting and the Chairman of the TGA where he had misinformed us about the structure for the fist time:
May I therefore suggest that you speak with the Chair of the residents group in respect of the points that you have raised below, as these have already been discussed and explained. If you are still not satisfied with the Council’s response then you should use the Council’s complaints procedure which has 3 stages.
We were no better off than four months earlier when he referred Melanie to the complaints procedure at the beginning of September rather than admitting that the shed was taller than planned.
The Council now have a problem. To put it bluntly, Mr Cunningham has misinformed the Residents at the meeting, brushed us off with the complicity of Cllr Anglin in the second denial and told us to get lost in the third denial.
The fourth is an example of the Back Pass – one of the devices uses to corrupt the complaints procedure.