Shed and Corruption – Part 8: Misusing CA to Misinform

Our protest that UK Docks’ shed built 3m taller than planned was killed off by Ms Hamilton on the 24th November 2014 when she wrote and told me:-

I can confirm that as previously advised, the Council accepts that the structure in question does not have planning permission. My Stage 3 response to you dated 25 September 2014 also explained the reasons for the Council’s Head of Development Services’ decision that it was not expedient to take planning enforcement action with respect to the development.”
I note your intention to approach the Local Government Ombudsman and this is the correct route for you to now follow if you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of this matter.

Ms Hamilton was the author of a letter to me titled ‘Stage 3 Response‘ which:- a) failed to mention the height of the shed, and b) wrote the extra width off as a non-material consideration. I could see the way things were set as Mr Mansbridge had created a new complaint at Stage 2 – 253539, to overwrite the original complaint, 248789 which had been exhausted at Stage 2 by the Planning Manager as explained in a letter to the Chief Executive 7th July 2014.

The Ombudsman, in her first response also failed to mention the height of the shed and said in paragraph 21:- “It decided the degree of departure from the plans – less than one metre – was “non-material”, but a year earlier we had been told by the Head of Development Services in his response to our Petition:- “Apart from the width these dimensions are either entirely in accordance with the approved plan, or subject to such minor deviation that they are properly categorised as non-material changes.

For some strange reason the compaint  to the South Shields MP got diverted to the MP for Berwick and she was told that our claims were on founded on allegations.

I say strange because while I had taken up lodgings in Amble the shed was still on River Drive but it did show that South Tyneside Council were content to give misinformation to the Ombudsman so they could quote from the findings to misdirect people. We knew from the responses we were getting from the South Shields MP that they must lying to her but the response given to the MP for Berwick, was the first written evidence that it was being done:-

  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″
 — Corporate Lead, 25 th June 2015

The claim that the shed was nearly 3m taller than planned was based on plans approved by the predecessor to STC in 1966, 8296/2, and by the Planning Manager of STC in October 2013, 8296/14 and it was therefore the truth. When the Local Residents were said by Mrs Hayley Johnson, to be making allegations about the height of the shed to the MP for Northumberland,  in mid 2015, she was therefore, lying.

It was therefore significant that Ms Hoy will not say what was said in the letter nor any of the other 5 attachments to Anne-Marie Trevelyan. In view of the 9 misdirections outlined in the attachment, Second Phase of the Shed’s Development, it would be fairly safe to assume they were made to support of Mrs Johnson’s lie about the Local Residents.

It was how South Tyneside Council managed to hide the fact that the shed was 3m taller than planned until UK Docks got permission to extend it on February 1st 2016. The primary purpose now appears to be to hide wrongdoing by building control. They had failed to report that UK Docks had not complied with the 2nd Condition:- The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Second Phase of the Shed’s Development
Date: 26/07/2021 (12:59:19 PM GMT)
To: Paula Abbott
Cc: Alison Hoy, Nicola Robason, Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP,
Cllr Angela Hamilton, David Francis, John Rumney, Garry Simmonette,
Peter Cunningham, George Mansbridge
Attachment: toPA26-Jul-21-SandC-8.pdf (179 KB)

Dear Paula,
I hope this email finds you well and please see it’s attachment which should be self-explanatory.
It seems that quite a few staff have been using Customer Advocacy to avoid answering direct questions about the shed and it started with the Planning Manager in March 2015 and lasted till 2018, about the same time as Alison says she sent me a letter dated 18 April 2018.
I never received the letter as your office would (not) have known my Amble address. It was not until April 2019 that I sent a letter to the then Monitoring Officer, Mr Harding with my address in Amble.
He did not answer it, nor was my email to him about it on 19th June 2019, so obviously the restriction imposed by Hayley October 2016 had not been lifted as Alison has suggested and it looks like you have been coerced into reinforcing it.
If you look at the item tagged, 25 June 2020, on your list you will see it was addressed to Cllr Hamilton and copied to Emma Lewell-Buck MP only, i.e. it was not copied to Alison or anyone at the Town Hall so how did it get onto the list?
The only explanation is that Cllr Hamilton must have been asking about the shed and it looks like someone in your office has been telling her that, contrary to the evidence, the shed is kosher and that I was making allegations and not to be trusted.
It is unlikely that Emma was making the enquiries her MP’s inbox has been set (MimecastTM) to reject mick.dawson at and I’m almost certain that was done by Mr Buck or one of his pals and it does not take much to work out it was a Keith Palmer.
If you look at the item tagged, 4 February 2021, there is also the possibility that someone from the Chronicle/Journal has been trying to find out the truth behind the shed so I have copied in their editor as well.
As you read through the misdirections you will see that in the early ones it would not be obvious the various officers were giving her (Alison) misinformation/misrepresentation but by the time we get to Cllr Anglin and the shed being extended in August 2017 it is obvious and that is what made me think about coercive control rather than Alison giving you a list of unanswered emails.
Kind regards

Second Phase of the Shed’s Development

We received notice that UK Docks planned to use the foundations to extend their shed onto the extra set of footings in June 2014 and I remember protesting about it to Planning Applications on 14th July 2014, my main point being:

4. The current slipway shed is considered by residents to have been built 3m higher than plans provided show. However there is considerable ongoing argument with the Planning Department about which plans are those originally approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation. It seems incomprehensible that further work should be considered until such time as issues surrounding the current construction have been resolved.

I did not even receive an acknowledgement but in September it was confirmed that UK Docks had sought permission to extend their shed on the 20th June, three days after it was signed off in June:

Hello – The Head of Development Services is out of the office at the moment and I have been asked to respond to your email – my colleague from the Building Control Team has confirmed that they sent the completion certificate out on June 17th. The final Building Control inspection was on 13th June.
Regards, Principal Planning Officer

The colleague was the Senior Building Inspector, Mr Telford and the Principal Planning Officer was Mr Cunningham, see Shed and Corruption – Part 2, the last item on the list provided by Alison.(29-Apr-21)

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

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.