Shed and Corruption – Part 4: Shooting the Messenger

The Planning Manager did write to me twice in January and in doing so seeded the many of the lies and misrepresentation in 31-35, thus adding to the misrepresentation that the shed had been approved, given by his Principal Planning Officer at or after that Town Hall meeting of 2013. Saying the shed was legal or compliant to mean it had been approved was simply fraudulent misrepresentation.

36

I have seen the report written for the planning committee by officers of the Development Corporation in 1996. The report says the height is 15.5 metres. Mr X says it does not specify which end is 15.5 metres. The report says “the design, height and location of the proposed shelter can be seen in the display material which will be presented at the meeting”. The planning committee also had the plans to refer to. From this it is clear the Development Corporation knew the proposed height was 15.5 metres at the inland end and gave permission for this;
neither Adele nor myself were at the meeting where they must of given approval for 8296/2 but not for ../1A. That shows the proposed height of the river end must be 15.5m. As I have pointed out on page 2, boats enter the shed from the river and Mr Atkinson will have known that.

37

Mr X says plan 14 shows 15.5 metres as the river end height. The Council has explained to Mr X why this is not the case. The developers submitted plan 14 in 2013 as part of their application to discharge condition 4. The Development Corporation did not approve plan 14 in 1996 and it is not a plan subject to condition 2. It shows how the developers intend to attach the end panels. One drawing shows an end with the panels in place to provide an impression of the final appearance. The drafter has not specified which end this is and the drawings are not to scale;
one only has to take a cursory glance at the drawing to see that it is to scale and notice the drafter said that portal covers should be drawn aside to admit boats and I repeat boats come up the slipway from the river.

38

The Council has provided a consistent and sound justification for its view the shed as built is the same height as that granted permission. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council’s view;
but Mr X can, and has. Only two paragraphs, Nos. 22 and 30, out of the eighteen, escapes just criticism and that is because it reflects the truth about the height of shed.

I now turn to the second point made in your misuse of Complaints Policy 2019v1.5:

continuing to contact us without presenting new and relevant information

When I advised the Ombudsman about the Planning Officers’ misconduct – see top of Page 6, I was had forgotten that the Council had indeed closed down the work on the shed or enclosure on the slipway of River Drive, in September 2013 – please see the details, reference 2, Page 4.

I put this quite succinctly then I advised Councillor Francis in what was to become, Shed and Corruption – Part 2: “As I hope I have shown, the fraud actually began with the UK Docks only asking for the conditions 3 and 4 to be considered when they knew that they would be in breach of the second condition as soon as the frame for the portal door was erected and continued when the drawings they gave to the fabricators of the stanchions to be bolted to the slipway were different to the ones drawn by the agents and meant they ended up with ones 2.7m longer than the approved drawings indicated.

It looks like someone in the Council was aware of this fraud and someone with the authority to order UK to stop work on their shed. Most likely they had seen the approved drawing from 1996 that showed the true planned height of the shed.

This entry was posted in Abuse of Complaints System, Corruption. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Shed and Corruption – Part 4: Shooting the Messenger

  1. Paul says:

    Micheal I have experienced a similar issues with council complaint corruption. Then abusing contact restrictions to close down and silence the victim.

    • Mick Dawson says:

      Hi Paul, thank you for your support.

    • Paul says:

      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.

  2. Mick Dawson says:

    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.

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.