The fourth link was the Planning Manager, who when I complained about the way my complaint about 71 Greens Place had been handled, had said, 13-Dec-12:- The points you made with regarding to no. 71 related to the scale of the proposal does not follow the SPD9 guidelines. Both these points were considered in detail in the report and no clarification was needed.
He does not say that Ms Matten had followed the guidelines because that would have been an outright lie but refers to a detailed report which had been sent the members of the Planning Committee to consider but it was never made public and only can only assume that it said something to the effect that Mr Haig had faithfully followed ST/0966/12/FUL.
By April 2014 South Tyneside Council got to hear of our Petition and persuaded the local press to provide more misinformation about UK Docks’ shed and with that we come to the fifth link between the Haig’s development at 71 Greens Place and the UK Docks development off River Drive. It was Mr George Mansbridge who told the residents of upper part of Greens Place and all those in Harbour View that UK Docks had approval for their shed on River Drive.
He repeated Mr Atkinson’s lie when he wrote in response to our Petition:- The approved dimensions of the steelwork are: Proposed height 15.5m at the River Drive end.
He repeated it again in June 2014 when he said:- “The approved dimensions that I state are those which are annotated on drawing number 8296/1A which was submitted to the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation on 11 April 1996.
And he added a trap whereby he could reintroduce 8296/1A into the complaints procedure:- “If it would help I would be more than happy to meet with you to show you the relevant plans and elevation as this may clear up this specific point.
Before I mention the fifth link between Mr Haig and Mr Wilson, Michaela Hamilton, the author of the two Stage 3 responses to my complaints against both of their properties expansion I’d like to pass comment on the Beacon on Greens Place. I suspect it has never found a buyer because that development was granted permission for a four story development and was even more likely to have trouble with any party wall agreement than I had. All a bit academic as the permission for the development of the Beacon into 7 flats would have lapsed in July 2018.
3
As early as June 2013 there was a clue to where the centre of corruption lay in South Tyneside Council lay, and that was in the response to a letter to the Chief Executive of the 3rd of that month: The officer who was tasked to respond, said correctly on the 18th June 2013
“Your main concern is that your objections regarding “privacy, outlook, over dominance, overshadowing and the effect on the integrity and character of the street scene and listed buildings” were not given sufficient weight and that the proposed development directly contravened many of the objectives set out in SPD9.
Her conclusion, which would be presented to the Ombudsman, completely misrepresented the situation:
“I am sorry that I cannot uphold your complaint but I hope you feel that this response adequately addresses the issues you have raised. If you remain dissatisfied with the way the Council has handled your complaint you may now approach the Local Government Ombudsman for advice. I enclose a leaflet explaining more about the Ombudsman’s role.
With her last statement the Performance and Information Officer had completely overwritten the 3 stages of the complaint.
Michaela Hamilton was writing on behalf of the Chief Executive Mr Martin Swales and I did not write to the Ombudsman because by the time I had received her whitewash of the complaint against the Haigs, they had instructed the builder to contruct, the partition wall between nos 70 and 71 Greens Place to a different plan to the one that had been approved.
Both her and my arguments had been overwritten by the Council in allowing Mr Haig with the help of his agent, to build the partition to a non-approved plan. The building inspector, Mr M Telford made himself unavailable while this was being and to quote: “Instead of gathering evidence Mr Eggington did nothing but the architect Mr J Martin obligingly redrew the side elevations to save Mr Egginton having to go to the bother of slapping an enforcement order on Mr Haig.