Review of the Shed and Corruption Series

Move of UK Docks into a designated Residential Area

If the Port of Tyne wished to close Tyne Dock they had to provide, what was to become UK Docks, with a new slipway to replace the one lost by the closure of the dock. It so happened that Tyne Slipway and Engineering had a virtual monopoly on the repair and maintenance of their pilot boats. Without pilot boats the Port of Tyne would have to shut so it was imperative that they be found a new slipway on the Tyne.

Rather conveniently, the firm that was to become UK Docks had one called Tyne Slipway off River Drive in South Shields, acquired in about 1992, and permission had been given in 1996 to Harry Wilson Associates to put an enclosure or shed on it. Unfortunately it was not big enough to house the ferries.

In addition, while the Port of Tyne was planning to close Tyne Dock, what was to become UK Docks were seeking to win a Ministry of Defence contract to maintain Border Patrol vessels and the contract specified that the maintenance work needed to be done under cover. It presented both the Port of Tyne and UK Docks with a problem because the Tyne Slipway had not been covered and the Shields Ferries would no longer fit in any enclosure that met the 2nd condition to the permission granted in 1996.

The owner, Harry Wilson Associates met the first condition when the foundations were laid in 2001 but they were nearly a metre wider than the plans from 1996 allowed. Not only that but he kept quiet about the extra set of footing laid because the ferries had become longer in the 5 year interval. Things remained that way until 2013 when UK Docks had to look for a new home and asked the agents, Maughan Reynolds Partnership Ltd. to produce some new ones, 8296/14, in August 2013.

These were approved by the Planning Manager, Mr G Atkinson in October 2013 but the drawing to which the approval was not made available until December 2013. Customer Advocacy, in September 2014, confirmed its validity in giving the approved dimensions:-

I have not considered this point further because it is clear that drawing 8296/14 was submitted in 2013 for a wholly different purpose (i.e. for the purposes of discharging a planning condition) and as such, could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development. Customer Advocacy, 25-Sep-14

The important part of that declaration was that the drawing could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development. They could have been justly be accused of fraudulent misrepresentation if they had made changes to the planned width or height and they had not, which is why height on 8296/14 matched the height on 8296/2.

It was UK Docks who did that by handing the pair of drawings, a cropped one, with what turned out to be vital details missing and one that had been amended in 1997, 8296/1B, to Mr Cunningham in September 2013 which showed a wrong height at the landward end of 15.5m:-

The height to the hip, 12500mm is very obviously wrong as can be shown by ‘ratios’ which is not difficult. Use control and + to make the 3000 approximately 3cm on the screen and the 12500 becomes about 9.8cm which equates to 9800mm or a total of 12.8m for the landward end of the shed. A more elegant way to get the same result is from the cropped drawing that accompanied it.

I used ratios in September 2013 to calculate the height from the complete drawing 8296/1B, one of a pair given to Mr Cunningham and registered by him on the 6th September 2013. The ratio of the dimensions for the height of the landward end of the shed looked wrong and I felt the one for 12.5m should be pointing to the peak of the roof and not to the hip but it still did not ‘feel’ right and I eventually settled on 12.8m (9.84m + 3m) for the landward end. When one added the gradient of 2.7m it made 15.5m which shown clearly on the river end of drawing 8296/1A. Mr Cunningham, was being economical with the truth when he was telling people that the structure had approval.

By mid September 2013 Mr Cunningham had stopped corresponding with the main protester and by 23rd September, work had stopped on the shed and some of us thought that it might be a good idea to resurrect the Tyne Gateway Assn which had part in getting redevelopment the SAFT site stopped. It turned out to be a failure as the two main posts, Chair and Treasurer were filled by Messrs Watson and Haig who had failed to declare their interest in UK Docks.

I knew them as a procurement manager and a director of HB Hydraulics in November 2013 and the firm is still based in Portsmouth and Mr Haig is one of the Directors.

It now appears that a scheme was hatched between UK Docks and the STC Planning Office to keep quiet about its extra height and the extra set of footings laid in 2001 so that UK Docks could slip a planning request to lengthen it, past the Planning Committee at a later date. The demise of the Tyne Gateway Assn (TGA) began following a meeting with the Council in November 2013 when I went and measured width of the shed for myself and told them of my results.

The TGA then split into the those with an interest in the shed’s survival, principally, Messrs Haig and Watson and those who wished for it to be removed. The TGA’s demise was complete when five of us resigned from the Committee by the end of January 2014 and by coincidence I was sent a copy of the authorised drawing 8296/2 on the 28th which settled the height question.

The remainder, some 20-30 local residents, were represented at the public meeting held in the sailing club in Littlehaven, South Shields on March 3rd 2014 and we requested the removal of the shed.

I was much encouraged because Mr Atkinson responded within the hour, saying:- Dear Mr Dawson, Thank you for your email. Now I have this the Council will be able to provide a response. At this stage I am not sure who that will be from.

After two weeks and no response, I sent him a reminder because UK Docks had not stopped work on the construction that was to become the shed and I asked:-

It is now over six months since the framework for the shed was erected, three months since the noise began and over two weeks since you said that the council would be able to provide a response to our request that work on or in the shed be stopped until the planning issues have been legally resolved.

My optimism was short lived. They did not stop work on their shed and UK Docks took a Port of Tyne tug onto the slipway, in mid March 2014, before the landward end was clad. We had also soon heard that local people were being told, over the phone, that while the structure was taller and wider than the one which had permission they were being told there was not enough difference to enforce removal etc. and Mr Atkinson started making excuses to other residents for taking no action against UK Docks.

4

Meanwhile our complaint that the shed was taller than planned had stalled, 21-Mar-14:- Dear Mr Dawson, Thank you for your email. Before the Council makes any decisions on the planning aspects of this case, we need to have a full understanding of the history of the site, and analyse all the facts. This is a complex matter and will take some time.

It was not complex at all. It was a very simple matter because the shed was 2.7m taller than the approved plans allowed. The complexity arose because the Executive of the TGA had gone against membership at the meeting where Cllr Anglin decleared, 1-Dec-2013:- The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.

As explained above, we all knew that the shed was taller than planned but I remembered from the TGA, meeting that some residents believed the building being constructed, was wider as well as being taller and I realised I could measure the width of the structure sufficiently accurately from Greens Place by sighting along the columns to work out it was a meter wider than planned.

What he and possibly UK Docks had not realised was that the gradient gave scale to any side elevation of the structure and one could determine fairly accurately what the planned height of the river end should be and that was 15.5m making the landward end some 2.7m less.

Shortly after the meeting of the TGA, the Group to which Cllr Anglin referred and STC, one of the TGA spotted that approval had been given to UK Docks to change the shape of their shed but not add to its height and they pointed me to drawing 8296/14. I always preferred its use, because not only it confirmed the height but it gave the width as well and confirmed that the foundations laid in 2001 were nearly a meter wider than planned.

Mr Cunningham persisted with his claim that the shed was compliant after I had advised him and the others at the meeting, that the shed was wider than planned. I offered to explain to Messrs Watson and Haig to explain how the width was measured but they did not wish to know preferring to claim it was not wider than planned; re unapproved drawing from 1996 – 8296/1A.