Prologue to Shed and Corruption

Ms Hamilton had nothing to do with the Beacon but her responses for both the other developments were evasive:-

1. The proposed redevelopment of 71 Greens place where she implied that the SPD9 guidelines had been followed or were not relevant. She left it open for the Ombudsman to follow as she wished and as was mentioned above, she said:- I cannot comment on the reasons for the officer’s view, and I cannot say it is at fault because their views differs from yours.
2. UK Docks’ shed where she failed to mention the height of it at all (in) her response.

Messrs Cunningham, Atkinson and Mansbridge had put Ms Hamilton in an awkward place with their responses to our complaint that the shed was 3m taller than planned; she either had to repeat their fraudulent misrepresentation that it was not taller than planned or expose them for being fraudsters by admitting that we were correct about its height and exhausting the complaints process.

Exhausted is the Council’s favourite word but ending would be more apt or perhaps finishing but anyway she stepped out of the trap set by the introduction a new complaint, created for Mr Mansbridge in April 2014, ** by not mentioning the height of the shed at all in her response. It then went forward to the Local Government Ombudsman because it had not ended with her and this was in spite of several reminders from me, that the approved documents backed our claims about the shed’s height and not the claims made the planning officers and Mr Mansbridge.

Those who forced Ms Hamilton to sit on the fence went round the side and repeated the fraudulent misrepresentation directly to the Ombudsman and I have covered this in my criticism of paragraphs 30-38 of the Ombudsman’s findings, paragraph 30 especially:-
“Mr X says the shed is also 3 metres higher than shown in the 1996 plans. He says a scale measurement from the plans shows a total height of 12.75 metres at one end of the shed. – this is true and for confirmation see 8296/2 which gives an authorised
height of 12.7m.

The Haigs avoided a retrospective look at what they had done with 71 Greens place when the Council accepted the redrawn plans/drawings made by an architect and it matters not whether they, South Tyneside Council, or the Haigs persuaded him to produce them.

UK Docks avoided a retrospective look at the slipway enclosure being constructed on River Drive by producing a pair of drawings, one with a mistake which they matched with one with its only vital dimension removed. Whether it was removed deliberately or by mistake became irrelevant when the Planning Manager declared that the mistake was part of the approved plan in January 2014, see reference to paragraph 35 in the criticism of the Ombudsman’s Findings.

When Chief Executive was asked to produce some plans to back Mr Mansbridge’ claims about UK Docks’ shed, he appointed a spokeswoman to make a great many false claims so that he did not have to admit there were none.

A few years later when UK Docks were asked a similar question by Cllr Hamilton, both she and your MP had been fobbed, off the month before, by their management, they told her that they had been given permission retrospectively for their shed. It has since been proved to be a lie like the one a planning officer told the Ombudsman in 2015 – paragraphs about 35 and 38 of the criticism refer.

At least UK Docks’ Management never accused us, in public anyway, of making allegations about their shed.

M Dawson

* Revised, 30th October 2022
Page 1 – Was it archived or deleted? – Comment removed and last paragraph clarified;
Page 2 – Figure 1: Drawing 000 from ST/0749/13/HFUL – added and last paragraph clarified;
Page 4.1 – responses for other developments now reads, responses for both the other developments;
Page 4.2 – ‘he appointed a spokeswoman to make a great many false claims so that he did not have to admit there were none’ was clarified and the pointer to the  URL amended:- ‘he needed someone to divert attention from the fact that were not any plans to show that the extra height had been authorised and there was no-one better placed than his Corporate Lead who had made already misled the MP for Berwick in 2015.
Page 4.3 – URL reference added – paragraphs about 35 and 38 of the criticism refer.

** by his Business Support Officer – Leanne Bootes who overwote 248789,  which in turn was based on the escalation of original complaint, and not on the original complaint which was raised on January 10th 2014.

4