The Mansbridge Trap
There was no escalation to another stage, it was never written as it was not needed after Mr Atkinson’s concession on the height however he did say we could meet to review [8296/14]: 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. Anticipating that the meeting would come to nothing, if it was anything like the farce at the Town Hall in November, I wrote to the Chief Executive, 7-Jul-14, and copied its timeline to Mr Mansbridge and others.
The meeting took place on 8th July 2014 but drawing 8296/14 was not produced. Mr Atkinson produced /1A and /2 instead. The meeting ended abruptly when the error on 1 A, that it showed both ends to have as height of 15.5m, was pointed out and the trap was sprung the following day.
I had based all my arguments that the shed was taller and wider than planned on the approved drawing 8296/14 and while 8296/2 was also approved and showed that the shed taller it failed to show the extra width and change of section that allowed the travelling crane to be fitted. To me the change in section was as much a breach in planning control as the height and yet another reason that it should have been brought to a meeting arranged to view it.
7
I had to forget about the change in section with the fallout from the meeting as you will see from my exchange with Michaela Hamilton over the following month, 12-Aug-14. Notice that I had added Mr Mansbridge and Customer Advocacy to my list of miscreants: i.e. The misuse of the formal complaints system as operated by South Tyneside Council firstly by the Planning Office then by the Development Services and lastly by the Customer Advocates to stifle enquiry into what may be considered as bad planning practice by the Council.
I had plenty of time to review what had passed since Mr Mansbridge rewrote the history of the shed and hide the fact that UK Docks had claimed its height had been approved so Ms Hamilton, she has married since, exchange with Michaela Hamilton over the following month, 29-Aug-14.
It looks like Mr Mansbridge’ fictitious third stage in our complaint was presented to Ms Hamilton as the truthful Stage 2 so that she was able to respond on behalf of the Chief Executive at Stage 3.
It looks like she was told by Mr Mansbridge that the drawings seen at the meeting represented the approved dimensions of the shed, but she did attribute the lie about scale to him after all: Mr Mansbridge stated in his Stage 2 response that the engineer chose to include a gable elevation of the structure on the same drawing but told you this was not drawn to scale.
More to the point she also said: “Mr Mansbridge discussed the case with the Council’s Solicitor and with the Chair of the Planning Committee.” and it looks like they they advised her to avoid talking about the height altogether or she would have to admit that we were right about the shed being 3m taller than permitted.
It was no coincidence that the first draft of the Local Government Ombudsman’s findings did not mention the height either and I point out to her there would be little point in having asked her to look at this complaint if she did not mention the height and she says in her second draft: #21. 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. The Council says the permitted height at this end is 15.5 metres and this is the height as built.
As I have shown on pages 1, 2 and 3, that to say the permitted height at the road end is 15.5 metres was an outright lie but strangely she left something like the explanation given with Figure 1, in her final draft which is not quite an outright lie: #33. In response to a draft of my decision Mr X says the 15.5 metres height relates to the river end. He considers the land end should be 2.6 metres lower. He says the Council cannot prove 15.5 metres relates to the land end not the river end. I do not agree.