Shed and Corruption 9A: Burying the Truth

The real Stage 2 and all the correspondence related to it was removed at the same time and this theme was developed in Shed and Corruption – Part 2.
This was the last item on the list of unanswered emails given to Paula Abbott by Alison Hoy to support their claim that I was being unreasonable with the obvious intention of hiding the truth about the shed. I am not ashamed to have used my immediate response to raise the subject of Sunday Working with them which I copied to the acting Head of Legal Services saying:

If you look through my correspondence to Mr Swales 2014 to 2016 you will see my main concern is that the shed on the UK Docks’ slipway off River Derive is nearly 3m taller than planned but a Senior Planning Officer told the Local Government Ombudsman that it wasn’t.
In plain language he lied to them and so the Ombudsman found for the Council and for a while the Council used this to seed enquirers, like MPs and the Press, with the impression that I was making allegations the most notable of which was in attachment 6 to the MP for Berwick on 25th June 2015 by Hayley Johnson:

“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. The matter was ultimately referred by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, the outcome of which was delivered on 14 April 2015.”

I got no response from either Customer Advocacy, Paula Abbott or John Rumney which was to be expected as Paula had been told to tell me that all my correspondence would be ignored for at least 12 months. This suits me as I am now free to explain what actually went on without interruption. Unlike January 2017 when I raised the subject of Sunday working and Corporate Lead interfered in th e process. No reference, please notice, and her letter was riddled with misinformation:

1. the email of 21st December 2016 was not from the Planning Manager, he had been given early retirement, it was from Alison who had been misinformed by either Mr Cunningham or Mr Simmonette. She was not specific about who had been giving her misinformation;
2. the working hours for the shed are restricted by the fifth condition. There were no restriction for the site and it was not an issue with anyone except perhaps, the boat club;
3. Alison’s email of the 21st did nothing to clarify the situation;
4. the historical complaint had been ignored for nearly four years by the time Corporate Lead put her spanner into the works. It can hardly be exhausted if it had never been started;
5.  if Mr Cunningham had not misinformed us at the meeting organised by Cllr Anglin in November 2013 the argument would have been been UK Docks and the Council not between the residents and the Council. I would not have had to raise the original complaint in January 2014 and none of the correspondence arising from it would have been necessary. Therefore your Corporate Lead was being a hypocrite when she said: numerous emails to different people and across the Council, make unnecessary demands on the time and resources of our staff,
6.  hypocrisy again when she claimed; You insist that your complaint is dealt with in ways that are incompatible with our adopted complaints procedure or good practice.