|
20 |
In February 2014 the Council said the increased width gave greater structural stability. It is possible the developer widened the foundations laid in 2001 to provide improved stability. Third indicator of collusion – it was made wider to accommodate the ferries built in the 5 years 1996-2001. Stability does not come into it. |
|
21 |
The Council considered if the building accorded with the approved plans. The planning officer originally assigned the case considered the developers were building the boat shed to the measurements in the 1996 plans. Mr X says he told residents this at a public meeting. The Council accepts these measurements were wrong; – the whole of paragraph 21 is a fiction to cover over the fact that Mr Cunningham was lying when he said the base was compliant (with the approved plans), 20-Dec-13. When Mr X, or as I prefer, Mr Dawson, went and measured the width for himself, November 2013, he found that it was in agreement with what the Council had found two months before. The Public meeting was 4 months later. |
|
22 |
A more senior officer checked the measurements; he found the width at ground level was just less than one metre wider than the permission allowed. The Council decided the developer had not built the shed entirely in accordance with the approved plans and so had not met condition 2. The Council decided this was a breach of planning control. True! |
As you can see the Ombudsman says that the extra width was a breach of planning but does not mention of the pillars having been made vertical. The enclosure had become a housing for the overhead crane and its use changed and this change has been hidden from the Ombudsman.
Someone had instructed her to change the sequence of events to hide the fact that the footings were set a meter wider in 2001. That is well before UK Docks had asked their Agents to draw one with vertical sides. It is very important to note that the agents drawing produced in August 2013 did not include the added width besides confirming our views about the height of the shed.
The change of angle of the pillars has been dropped and the increased width becomes non-material in paragraph 23. The question of height has been been ignored altogether and not considered until paragraph 30.
|
23 |
The Council considered the difference between the permitted width and the width of the built shed and decided not to enforce. Enforcement is discretionary and the Council explained to residents in great detail how it reached its decision. It explained the law and policy it considered. There is no need for me to repeat this. It decided the degree of departure from the plans – less than one metre – was “non-material.” Given the overall scale of the building, its decision is sound; – when the Council explained to the residents about the width they hid the fact that the shed was too tall by reference to a non-approved drawing containing a mistake – see page 2. |
|
24 |
I cannot fault the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. It is established in law that enforcement action merely to respond to criticism without clear evidence of harm is likely to be considered unreasonable. Such cases are unlikely to succeed and lead to an adverse costs award; – they did initially take enforcement action but dropped it following the Town Hall meeting of November 2013. |
|
25 |
Mr X says the Council should have made the developer submit new plans or take the shed down. The Council cannot make a developer submit new plans. It can request a new planning application as part of enforcement; it is then for the developer to decide if he wants to do this. The Council can only order removal as part of formal enforcement action. Any such notice to remove carries with it a right of appeal. The Council properly decided not to take enforcement action. It had no grounds to ask for new plans or removal of the shed; – the Council did take enforcement action because UK Docks stopped their work on the shed for three months in late 2013 and they would not have done that unless an enforcement notice had been served on them. |
Micheal I have experienced a similar issues with council complaint corruption. Then abusing contact restrictions to close down and silence the victim.
Hi Paul, thank you for your support.
Hi Paul,
Don’t worry, she’s what my mother would have called a nasty piece of work and I have marked your emails as spam. I get up to half a dozen a day.
I’d forgotten to include her in the list of Cc’s so I used the opportunity of commenting on Part 8 to pass a copy of it to her.
When she first slagged us off in 2015 she did not copy me or anyone else in and I did not find out about it for six months:
The matters and allegations raised by your constituent are well documented and have been subject to a number of enquiries from Mr Dawson and other local residents over a lengthy period of time.
As I do not want to be accused of hypocrisy, I like to make sure that she is aware my views.
The Council are operating their own Complaints Procedure corruptly. Is aking them why they persist in doing it unreasonable bevaviour?
Defined in Section 7: Complaints Policy 2019v1.5 :
7. Managing unacceptable and/or unreasonable behaviour South Tyneside Council is committed to providing an inclusive and accessible service for all of our customers, but we also need to ensure we provide a safe working environment for our staff.