Shed and Corruption – Part 14

Evidence of Fault

• i. It was agreed that until Planning Permission (permission to lengthen it) was requested no other action or re-action could be made by the Council. Cllr Anglin, 1-Dec-13. i.e. he assumed permission for the structure in the slipway when there was none.
• ii. I confirmed at our meeting with Mr Dawson and others on 25th Sep Nov 2013 that I had measured the width and length of the ground floor external footprint and height of the structure and that these dimensions were all in accordance with the attached approved drawing and planning permission. Principal Planning Officer, 19-Dec-13. The drawings were not approved.
• iii. False accusation by the Chair of the TGA that I had gained access to the boat yard. G Watson, 20-Dec-13. The width of the shed could be measured from Greens Place sufficient accuracy to state it was nearly a meter wider than planned.
• iv. Mr Dawson – once again – I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996 plans across to you twice already (attached again for your use) and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant…this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Principal Planning Officer 20-Dec-13. Compliant with drawings that had not been approved because they contained a mistake.
• v. Mr Dawson, I responded to you this morning as follows: The queries that you raise are not new, indeed I have been repeating my response to them for some time now, and you will recall that I explained the planning aspect of the Council’s position to you regarding this development during our meeting. Principal Planning Officer 14-Jan-14. See points 1-4 and note that he passed me copies of 8296/1A and 1B following the meeting. Neither were approved.
• vi. 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. Planning Manager, 15-Jan-14. It was never approved because it contained a basic flaw i.e. it showed both ends of the shed to have the same height despite the gradient between them.
• vii. The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings. Planning Manager, 15-Jan-14. They were not in accordance with the measurements shown on any approved drawing.
• viii. It is therefore reasonable to say that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996. Planning Manager, 28-Jan-14. It was only reasonable if one assumed the height of the river end (15.5m) as representing the approved height.
• ix. In fact the 15.6m height is the height to River Drive and the height on the river side is some 3m greater. Planning Manager, 28-Jan-14. A lie, the gable end on the drawing 8296/14 is of the river end of the shed.
• x. The engineer chose to show a gable elevation of the structure (not drawn to scale) on the same drawing. Planning Manager, 13-Feb-14. It is drawn to a scale if 1:100 and to a sufficient accuracy that the height could be gauged to better than 1%.
• xi. When we met on 8 July 2014, with Mr Mansbridge, we spent some time through the approved drawings – the height annotated on 8296/1A are 15.5m at River Drive. Planning Manager, March 2015. The meeting was arranged to view 8296/14 which was not brought to the meeting. I told the meeting that 8296/1A showed both ends of the shed to have the same height and as it was very obvious that the River Drive end was wrong it brought the meeting to an end.
• xii. We explained then that 8296/14 is of no relevance in that matter (& in fact it was prepared after the steel frame had been erected). Planning Manager, March 2015. 8296/14 was the drawing to which the original complaint, 10-Jan-14, referred and was drawn in August 2013, (before the steel frame were erected).
• xiii. Your email to Mr Atkinson has been forwarded to our team as your complaint on this matter has exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure and is now with the Local Government Ombudsman’s office. Alison Hoy on behalf of Customer Advocates, 12-Mar-15. Application ST/0461/14/FUL which included the extension of the shed was first made on 20-June-14, four months after the Planning Manager had conceded that the shed was taller than planned.This is fully described in Shed and Corruption – Part 8 under Misdirection No. 1