Misrepresentations to the LGO

There are many and they are sorted/grouped in the order in which they appear in the Final Draft by the First Inspector.

The main complaint against the Inspector is that she has not addressed the actual complaint and that is:

    • 20-Dec-13, the Case Officer said it was compliant.
    • 13-Feb-14, his Planning Manager conceded that it had not been built to approved plans
    • 2-May-14, the Head of Development Services partially reverted, in his response to our petition, to what the Case Officer was saying – “Apart from the width these dimensions are either entirely in accordance with the approved plan, or subject to such minor deviation that they are properly categorised as non-material changes”

The Inspector omitted to mention the height at all in her first draft and I had to tell her, “there will be little point in pursuing this with the Ombudsman if the height of the structure is not considered.”

The first eight paragraphs of her report are an introduction.

  • 9-18 are not relevant to my complaint but 3 require comment
    • #13 Condition 2 is also standard. It is a simple statement of the law.
      Condition 2. The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications. – the Case Officer said it was but when pressed, his manager said it wasn’t.
    • #16 The Authority’s view is that condition 5 should not have been imposed. Condition 5. No works, other than the launching or beaching of vessels, shall take place within the shelter between the hours of 7pm and 7am Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidaysshe means the Council when she says The Authority and more particularly it is a Senior Planning Officer’s view.
    • #18 The Council investigated. It located the historic permission and plans. It had to decide whether the building was authorised. – it used plans that had not been approved. The approved plans contradicted the plans used by UK Docks and the Council.
  • 19-23 see post lgo-paras-19-23.
  • 24-29 are not relevant to the complaint.
  • 30-38 see post lgo-paras-30-38.
  • 39 >  are not relevant.
This entry was posted in Misinformation/Misrepresentation, UK Docks. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Misrepresentations to the LGO

  1. Pingback: Critique of Legal Monitoring Officer – 2017 | Harbour View

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Your email address will not be published.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.