It would not look good to mark a Stage 3 response with a [PROTECT].
In truth she was copying the Mr Cunningham’s ploy of the back pass when she explained the reasons for the Council’s Head of Development Services’ decision, 2-Jun-14, that it was not expedient to take planning enforcement action with respect to the development. This in turn is based on the lie that the shed had been built to the approved height made by Mr Mansbridge in his response to our Petition and his faux Stage 2 response, when he was simply repeating the lie made by Mr Atkinson in January 2014:
Approved Drawings The following are details of the relevant drawings in the Council’s possession. The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A. That shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the landward end.
As you can see there are overlapping cycles of deceit but they are all based on the original where Cllrs Anglin and McMillan and two residents with an obvious interest in the shed’s survival, accepted the Principal Planning Manager’s view that the shed was compliant with drawings that were later shown to misrepresent the approved height of the shed by nearly three meters.
Whether they believed Mr Cunningham or not is immaterial, they are on record as agreeing with him and as I did not wish to be identified with those with vested interests, I made it very clear when I wrote to Cllr Anglin on December the 16th 2013:
I am concerned that the planning department is about to allow a building that is not being constructed to an approved plan,
The Council did allow the shed to be completed because successive Council employees with Cllr Anglin’s and without assistance were able to hide the fact that the shed was taller than planned and worse than that they hid it from the Committee who gave UK Docks permission to extend the shed on February the 1st 2016.
By then the Local residents were being falsely accused of making allegations about the height of the shed by your Corporate Lead to the MP for Berwick – please see link against Hayley Johnson in the table above:
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.
You can easily judge who is making allegations by examining the approved or authorised drawings from 1996 or 2013 and please do not make the same mistake, like the now Corporate Director Regeneration and Environment, Mr Mansbridge, made in April/May 2014 in believing that the height of the shed had been approved. He too was invited to look at the approved drawings.
When UK Docks could not prove to the MP for South Shields and Cllr Hamilton that they had permission for their shed they said that the Council had given them permission retrospectively for it and we both know that was not true but at least they did not call the good citizens as your Corporate Lead did, nor did they misuse a staff code to malign and Section me like she did a year later.
Nor did they call me, as Paula Abbott did, in April this year.
Councillor Anglin was not representing the interests of the residents of his ward when he asked the Executive of South Tyneside Council (Customer Advocacy) get him off the hook. He had been told, by reference to the authorised drawings from 1996 that the shed was nearly 3m taller than permitted.
It was a simple act of denial when Customer Advocacy said, on his behalf, “Regarding your comments regarding the additional boat shed, this was subject to a separate planning application and the Council’s planning department advise that past issues do not affect the validity of any new planning applications.”
My Email to Cllr Anglin was about existing shed, 8-Aug-17, “I think it probably best to properly involve our MP but please let me know quickly which side you and your fellow Councillors are on as UK Docksare currently preparing to extend the shed and the permission for that was gained by deceit.”