FBR 248789 – the Misepresentations

The complaint of 10-Jan was not recorded. The description in 248789 is not the complaint. It reads: Comment: see email to planning 14/1/14.
Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive, South Shields.

The complaint had simply been hidden away and may as well been chucked in the bin. If you read through the entire lot you will see that the Planning Manager conceded that shed had not been built to approved plans and that was with reference to 8296/14.

You will also notice that he has written each of his responses in such a way to support the lie that the shed has approval and that included some fraudulent misrepresentations. The Planning Manager said:

  1. 28-Jan:  “In fact the 15.6m height is the height to River Drive and the height on the river side is some 3m greater when referring my figures on the gable end of the river end;
  2. 28-Jan: “It is therefore reasonable to say that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996 – it is not reasonable. ../1A or ../1B give a height of landward end as 15.5m and are not authorised. ../2 is authorised and gives the height as 12.7m
  3. 13-Feb: The engineer chose to show a gable elevation of the structure (not drawn to scale) on the same drawing – it is to a scale of 1: 100

March 2014

21-Mar From: Planning Manager
Sent: 21 March 2014 15:50:06
To: Mick Dawson
Cc: 22 Residents GP and HV
Subject: Slipway Development, River Drive
Dear Mr Dawson
Thank you for your email. Before the Council makes any decisions on the planning aspects of this case, we need to have a full understanding of the history of the site, and analyse all the facts. This is a complex matter and will take some time.
Regards
Planning Manager
04-Mar Local Residents Wish List
I say “Thank you also for confirming that the Slipway Shed is not built to the approved 1996 plans,” knowing that the only approved drawing with dimensions that we have seen shows a road end height of 12.7m.

Jan-Feb 2014

13-Feb Admission that the Shed is not built to plan
3-Feb Dialogue leading to Concession
Thank you for confirmation that the current construction is a meter wider than the “approved plans” at 13.1m.
What made you determine that the elevation is the South end when there is no such detail on the drawing?
28-Jan Planning Manager’s Evasions
24-Jan Questions Unanswered
15-Jan Planning Manager’s Denial
14-Jan Escalation to Planning Manager
Registration of Complaint 248789
Comment: see email to planning 14/1/14.
Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive, South Shields, which is
not the complaint, see 10-Jan.
13-Jan Interception and Denial by Case Officer
see 20-Dec
Work continues with Photograph
10-Jan Complaint Initiation, Photograph,
A8296_1A, B8296_1B and D8296_14 with notes

December 2013

20&21 Collusion GW and PC
The Chair of the TGA did not respond nor did any of the others respond. Note that Councillor Anglin was informed.
20-Dec Denial No 1
*PROTECT is for internal use by STC
19-Dec Collusion JA and PC:
Cllr A: Michael, Please see below the reply from Peter.
16-Dec Email to Councillor, PP Officer and TGA
10-Dec 8296/14 replaces 8296/1B on the portal
Drawing  1B is not approved, it is an amendment drawn in 1997. Drawing 14 was approved by the Planning Manager 14-Oct-13.

One thought on “FBR 248789 – the Misepresentations”

  1. This email from the Planning Manager is the first one to give a complaint number:

    From: Gordon Atkinson
    To: M Dawson
    Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:43:07 +0100
    Subject: feedback case 248789 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
    Dear Mr Dawson
    I’m sorry for the delay. Mr Mansbridge is hoping to get a comprehensive response off to residents by the end of next week.
    Regards
    Gordon Atkinson

    The complaint he registered bore no details from the original complaint!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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