Shed and Corruption - Part 14 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 29/04/2022 (16:27:49 BST) To: Nicola Robason Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, Paula Abbott, Alison Hoy, Hayley Johnson Attachment: Shed and Corruption - Part 14.pdf
Please see the attached file. I hope my condemnation of the two planning officers needs no explanation. *
When Mrs Johnson first accused me of being unreasonable in my attempts to bring the truth about UK Docks’ shed to everyone’s attention, one of her claims was that I had adopted a ‘scattergun’ approach:- “pursuing a complaint or complaints with the authority and, at the same time, with a Member of Parliament/a councillor/independent auditor/the Standards Board/local police/solicitors, while an appropriate avenue is available via the Local Government Ombudsman;
I responded:- I have not written to the local police, independent auditors or the Standards Board which you are implying. If I think that the Council is acting improperly on any issue I believe I am entitled to write to my MP – it is up to the MP whether he or she takes up my case. I wrote to my ward Councillors because they, apart from the Chairman of the Planning Committee(Cllr Wood), attended the meeting where we were told the shed was ‘legal’. Are you suggesting that the Councillors should not be told that they were misinformed by a Principal Planning Officer of the Council?
I included members of the Residents Group Committee as well because I had to relay the ‘facts’ to a meeting with them a few hours after the same meeting where we were told the shed was ‘legal’. I did not believe what I had been told by the Officer and it took me 2 months and numerous emails to prove that shed was not ‘legal’ or should I say compliant. Are you suggesting that members of the Residents Group should remain ignorant of the fact that the shed was not compliant and built without planning permission?
Mrs Johnson sensibly dropped the scattergunning business after my response but I see Paula Abbott has included it again in her false accusations made against me in her email/letter to me a year ago. Please remind her that when the approved plans say that the shed is 2.7m taller than planned it is not unreasonable to say that it is taller than planned and the same thing goes for the width.
I went on to tell Mrs Johnson in September 2016:-The Council have not produced any legal documents in nearly three years to support their contention that the shed is built to an approved height and no-one will enter into a debate about it. When probed, they: a) avoid the issue, b) say or imply, wrongly, that the shed is built to approved plans, c) refer the issue on to someone else or d) say the subject is closed. Apart from a) they often add or repeat an item of misinformation which is what has complicated the matter.
It is now over eight years and the Council have still not produced any legal document(s) to back their claim that the shed had been built to the approved height and it looks like Paula has been used to continue the policies that were already in place when Mr Swales allowed the Head of Development Services to misinform us in 2014 in his response to our Petition when he told us the shed had been built to the approved height.
Mr Swales had retired by the time of Paula’s false accusations so who asked them to be made. I believe and sincerely hope it was not you.
* 1) the Principal Planning Officer. He never said it was ‘legal’ but he did not take the trouble to correct Mr Haig who is now a Director of HB Hydraulics when he said it to imply that mean the shed had been approved.
2) the Senior Planning Officer who spoke to the Ombudsman.