It was confirmed by the Council on 19-Dec-19 that retrospective planning was not awarded

30/04/19 View message Sent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

Hi Mick
I appreciate your arguments, but this far down the line there is 
nothing we can do.
Angela has talked to several relevant people, and the point is the 
council gave retrospective planning. Which they are allowed to do.
We are working with Angela to negate further issues with the site.
It's all we can do now: limit noise and any other issues If they 

Julie Routledge
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

To: davidroutledge <
Cc: Cllr Angela Hamilton <, David Francis <, Melanie Todd <

Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns]


You have totally missed the point, well 2 actually:

When the footings were set in 2001 they were a meter wider than planned. Which is not a slight variation from the plan. Even the Council admitted that to us when Mr Mansbridge responded to our Petition. Anyone who tells you otherwise is therefore lying.

The shed is 2.7 meter higher than planned and whoever tells you that the difference is only slight is also lying. Unfortunately for UK Docks the only approved plans from 1996 show the height of shed at the road end to be 12.7m. The built height at that point is 15.5m.

Ask anyone for proof that the shed is built to the approved height and they either change the subject or say that the difference is only slight. Planning Officer Cunningham has telling that lie since the beginning and you and Angela should be wary of repeating that the variation of the width, and especially the height, is of no consequence.

It was because Mr Cunningham would not answer the question of height that we went through the fruitless exercise of raising the TGA.


From: davidroutledge
Sent: 29 April 2019 13:20
Cc: Cllr Angela Hamilton

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns]

Hi Mick

I think you need to drop this argument now.
There's nothing anyone can do about the shed. Angela has been active
in talking to the owners, and has acknowledged the lack of help from
Anglin and McMillan.
All we can do now is keep open communications with UK Docks, and
promote respect from them regarding the neighbours.

Julie Routledge
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

——– Original message ——–


Date: 27/04/2019 07:50 (GMT+00:00)

To: David Francis <

Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP <, Angela Hamilton <, Melanie Todd <, Dave and Julie Routledge <, Eveline Trotter <, Peter Cunningham <, Cllr McMillan <, Cllr Anglin <, Customer Advocates <

Subject: [Fwd: Re: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns]

Dear David,

I should have copied you in to my email to Cllr Angela Hamilton but here is a bit of background to the size of the offending shed. Melanie Todd wrote:

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 3:25 PM
Subject: Martin Swales, Chief Executive | South Tyneside Council

Here’s the overview and email address for our Chief Executive. I have now been stonewalled by Ian Rutherford, Gordon Atkinson and George Mansbridge, so I’m emailing direct to Mr Swales.

She was wasting her time I believe because Mr Swales does not answer any correspondence about UK Docks but she left the original offender off her list, Peter Cunningham, he was the person telling everybody that the enclosure was approved. To put it bluntly he was lying when he said that and we have it in writing in an email from Councillor Anglin:

Please see below the reply from Peter (Cunningham).

” Hello – I confirmed at our meeting with Mr Dawson and others on 25th Sept Nov 2013 that I had measured the width and length of the ground floor external footprint and height of the structure and that these dimensions were all in accordance with the attached approved drawing and planning permission.

Councillor Anglin, 19-Dec-13

He changed his story after UK Docks had started on completing the structure, to saying there was not enough difference to enforce removal and that is the story now being broadcast by Angela in her email to a few of us :

Planning: While I understand the concerns you have raised about the buildings deviating from the original plans I cannot see any way to resolve this issue. You have said that the building is slightly wider and higher than the original plans but I have not been able to find out anything about why this happened. As I wasn’t a Councillor at the time I was not involved in any of the discussions so can’t confirm whether this was agreed before or after building works were completed and it wouldn’t be possible to reduce the building and it isn’t financially viable to remove and rebuild it.

Councillor Hamilton, 06-Mar-19, copied to you.

The highlighted comment has been on my mind since I first read it and I have just remembered what it was. Angela missed an opportunity to break the wall of silence about the height when she failed to take the authorised drawing 8296/2 along to UK Docks and confronted them with it.

It is possible that Angela did not realise the significance of the drawing and I have attached it again. It shows that the enclosure is actually built 2.7 meters higher than planned which is what we have been saying since January 2014. It is the only authorised drawing from 1996, with dimensions, held by the Council.

The road end is 15.5m high and UK Docks used and error on an unauthorised drawing (either 8296/1A or 1B) to claim, falsely, that they have built it to the permitted height. Logic tells one that the drawing was not authorised because it contained a very obvious mistake and it was one of these drawings used by Peter Cunningham to claim that the enclosure was the approved height and the lie about it being approved has been repeated ever since. Nearly 3m is equivalent to an extra story on a four story block of flats and that is certainly enough to require removal and it should have been requested when the framework was measured by Mr Cunningham on the 17th September 2013.

It was not done and that is why the Council stonewall everyone who questions the height of it. Angela and Emma have both wasted an excellent opportunity to set things right when the met with UK Docks on the 1st of March.



—————————- Original Message —————————-

Subject: Re: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns
Date: Wed, February 27, 2019 11:17 am
To: “Cllr Angela Hamilton”
Cc: “Mick Dawson”, “Emma Lewell-Buck”, “Dave and Julie Routledge”


Dear Angela,

Sorry about the quality of the attached print. It gives the authorised height of the shed which is not what UK Docks told the Council. The heights are clearer on the full sized print: the roof 118.8 meters above the datum and the footings are 96.1 meters above it making 12.7 meters altogether.

The first part of the shed is 15.5 meters tall at that point which is nearly 3 meters taller than permitted and the reason the shed it is still there is because UK Docks sent in documents to support the fraud that the shed has been built to an approved height.

Please confront them with the truth about their shed and see what they say. I and everybody else on my mailing list would dearly love to know.

If they show you 8296/1A or 1B claiming an approved height just point out that they show the river end as 15.5m as well. The river end is nearly 3 meters downhill and the roof does not slope down towards the river.

Good luck, I hope you fare better than when Emma went to see them in March 2017. Incidentally the containers did not get placed on top of each other until August of that year.

Kind regards,


Hi Mick

Just wanted to let you know that Emma Lewell-Buck and I are meeting with UK Docks at the end of this week.
I will provide an update on any progress after the meeting.

Councillor Angela Hamilton LLB (Hons), MCIPR
Beacon and Bents Ward
South Tyneside Council 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:01 PM +0000, "Mick Dawson" wrote:

Dear David,

I wish you luck with your enquiries but you are wasting your time asking Cllr Anglin to do anything about UK Docks. He sided with them years ago when I wrote and told him that the shed was too wide. When he wrote back he just repeated the lie that “it was built to approved plans” but what he did not know was the planning officer concerned was also hiding the fact that it was too tall behind that statement as well.

I think Cllr Anglin soon found this out but by then he was stuck with being one of UK Docks promoters and by the subsequent actions of the planning officer and his boss, so are the rest of the Council, and you can see that from my current feud with one of the Council’s Solicitors.

When I say the rest of the Council I include Cllr McMillan. Like Cllr Anglin she hides behind the wall of obfuscation erected to protect the Council officers who allowed the shed to be built at all. Cllr Hamilton must be excluded from ‘the rest of the Council’ as she like us, is stuck on the outside of the wall of silence.

By the way I have no objection to UK Docks placing their Headquarters on the site. It is the shipyard that I object to.

I’ve included Stuart Wright in the mailing as I believe he is in charge of planning. When permission was granted for the shed a restriction was placed on the working hours because of the location of the site and that is a planning issue which has not been resolved whatever Cllr Anglin tells you.

Kind regards

Michael Dawson

From: David Francis
Sent: 21 February 2019 09:24

Subject: Re: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns


Following my emails on the 4th Feb and then the 12th Feb, I just wondered where we are with all of this? A number of local residents are seeking clarification.

Many thanks,

From: David Francis
Sent: 12 February 2019 19:17

Subject: FW: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns

Hi again,
I’m just wondering where you have got to with this?
I know that the containers were moved last week but I know that the other issues mentioned in my email last week remain, along with concerns over light pollution with the floodlights on at all hours.
Can you please let me know what steps you are able to take as a local councillor to ensure that the work going on at this site does not adversely affect the residents of our borough?

Many thanks,
David Francis

From: David Francis
Sent: 04 February 2019 19:15

Subject: UK Docks / Harbour View Residents Concerns

Dear Councillors,

I am getting in touch following conversations I have had and email enquiries I have received from a number of residents in the Harbour View area.
I’m sure you are aware of a long-standing issue that some of the residents have with the work that is taking place on the site behind their homes.
There are a large number of crates and shipping containers which are stacked up and overlook the rear of these properties, blocking light and causing some privacy concerns. When these were first placed on site I gather that residents were told that they were temporary and would only be there until November 2016, but they are still there in February 2019.
There are concerns over the noise from the site, which I’m told often starts at 7am.
There are also concerns over parking on River Drive (on both sides of the road) and related safety issues for pedestrians and other road users.
I’m told that there are now cranes on site today with a constant rumble of engines, precariously close to the houses, especially in the high wind.
I do of course appreciate that there is a need for businesses to be able to operate in the borough, and that this brings with it employment opportunities but sadly many of these residents feel completely ignored.
They have told me that they feel their quality of life is very much taking a back seat to business interests with the finance and power to ‘work the system’.
Can you please let me know what steps you are able to take as local councillors to ensure that the work going on at this site does not adversely affect the residents of our borough?

Many thanks,
David Francis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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.