Email to Paul

On 3 Aug 2017, at 17:19, Michael Dawson wrote:
Hi Paul,
Because the landing was a restricted byway it was not really owned by anyone but it was the Council’s responsibility and they needed a Secretary of State’s decision to stop it off. To all intents and purposes the Council have given it to the Port of Tyne. 
Peter Cunningham just happened to be the Case Officer and what I trying to say was that he would have known Tyne Dock Slipway (leased by UK Docks) was going to close years ago and they were going to have to move another site. UK Docks would have to be found a new home when Tyne Dock was closed. Their MOD work specifies it had to be done under cover and the planned shed was not big enough to house an overhead crane and there was no guarantee that the plans for a bigger shed would be approved.  
The River Drive slipway the only suitable one for the pilot boats, border patrol boats and the Shields Ferries on the whole river I believe the UK Docks place on the Wear is suitable but the PoT would not let that happen. Nexus wouldn’t like it either. There is loads of foreshore suitable for another site but a slipway would have to be made.
UK Docks would have known that they could probably got away with the extra width but there is no way the could have got away with the extra length or height so they had to kid the Council that it was the approved height and use a second planning application to lengthen the shed. For that they needed the services of a new planning officer and a new agent, Gary Simmonette and Gary Craig.
The deception, that the shed was built to the correct height, was exposed when the drawings from the agents, Maughan Reynolds Partners, arrived at the Council’s offices. Its ironic that the Planning Manager approved them and then spent the next year and a half trying to devalue them.
I appreciate your commentary because it helps me sort my ideas out when I have to explain them to you.
I’ll stick with bounders although liars or hypocrites would be more accurate.  
Cheers,
Mick
 

2 thoughts on “Email to Paul”

  1. I think Paul has put his finger on it when he says, “not ‘what you know’ but ‘who you know’”

    From: Paul Hepburn
    To: Michael Dawson
    Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 4:23 PM
    Subject: Re: The Council and UK Docks.

    Mick
    Your email answers the questions that were puzzling me.
    In regards to the slipway you may be correct about it being singular to the Tyne but it’s purpose can be replicated by dry-docks – of which I think there might be a few. However I am not sure if any have a roof (maybe some do), though that does not seem to effect the many vessels that use them.
    As to the shenanigans re drawings / planning / etc it might not be a matter of ‘what you know’ but ‘who you know’?
    Paul H

    1. The ‘Email to Paul’ was in answer to –
      From: Paul Hepburn
      Sent: 02 August 2017 17:05
      Subject: Complaints against UK Docks.
      Mick
      I was not commenting on your grammar but trying to understand who originally owned the land; as the Council gave it to PoT then I assume they must have owned it (on behalf of the people).
      What has the Secretary of State got to do with it?
      Though it is obviously quite clear to you, I get confused by the names used in your description.
      Just to clarify, the slipway used by UK docks is Tyne Dock Slipway?
      So Peter Cunningham (who I am not sure what Council Rank he has) is powerful enough to organise the passing of the Readhead Landing to PoT?
      How did Tyne Dock Slipway (UK Docks) have a monopoly on Pilot Boat repairs? I would have thought other yards further up the Tyne would have been interested in the work?
      The story of the the footings along with the ‘approved and non approved’ plans beggars belief.
      I feel some stronger name than the one you use (bounders) should be used to describe them.
      Paul H

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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