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:
- 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;
- 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
- 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
|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.
|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.
|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|
|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
Work continues with Photograph
|10-Jan||Complaint Initiation, Photograph,
A8296_1A, B8296_1B and D8296_14 with notes
|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.