Questions Ignored

Examples of Observations and /or Complaints arising from the breaches in planning control of the conditions of the grant in 1996 that have not been directly addressed:

  1. Condition 2
    25-Nov-13, Observation that the structure was too high and too wide dismissed;
    16-Dec-13, the cover was a meter wider than planned;
    10-Jan-14, the cover was also 3m too high;
    4-Apr-14, to attempt to correct the misinformation given in Petition spoiler in Shields Gazette;
    2-May-14, the planners were abusing the complaints procedure;
    9-May-14, response to Petition repeating misrepresentations made by the Planning Manager;
    8-Jul-14, Planning Manager does not bring the Agent’s drawing to a meeting specifically arranged to review it;
    29-Aug-14, CA advised about nil show of 8296/14 at meeting ;
    5-Sep-14, CA advised that no action had been taken on email to Head of Development Services, 4-Apr-14;
    21-Nov-14, no-one responsible for making sure that structures are built to plan;
    this list under review and could easily grow to 30 items.
  2. Condition 5
    23-Dec-2016, Sunday Working

Please note these are the ones raised by me, only, and they all stem from the meeting in November 2013 were we were told against all the evidence that cover was compliant with regard to the second condition on width and height.
The last example is a breach of the fifth condition. This is a completely separate issue from the second condition, it is logically a separate entity and it would make no difference whether the structure is compliant with the second condition.

It is included here because like the non compliance with condition 2 it would need a retrospective planning application to change or remove it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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