Review of the Shed and Corruption Series

When I thanked Mr Atkinson for confirming that the Slipway Shed was not built to the approved 1996 plans after the meeting at the SSSC on the 3rd March 2014, I it did not think it necessary to say that the only approved plan with dimensions was 8296/2. It turns out that it was of no consequence because at every stage and that includes the ones added by Mr Mansbridge and the Ombudsman there was a reversion to the drawings 1A or 1B when the question of the height the shed was considered.

I repeat, when 8296/2 had been retrieved from the archive, the truth about the shed’s height was out and why work on its construction halted. It was clearly not long enough to take the Shields Ferries and it looks like a decision was taken to help UK Docks hide the fact that it was taller by gradient of 2.7m and lengthen it under a new application after the row about the height had been quelled and the first step was taken in December 2013 by 8296/1A being passed to the TGA by Mr Cunningham.

The Petition

In March 2014 the Council must have got wind of the fact that we raising a Petition and a front page spread was produced in the local paper, the Gazette under the title “Shed Load of Grief” claiming it was only 36ft (11m) high with much of the misinformation repeated from the 9th September inside.

The Port of Tyne Tug had been taken was taken onto the slipway on the 17th March and the noise of sand blasting etc. was amplified because the shed acted like an echo chamber because the shed was open ended – see picture on page 4. As I was aware that the Planning Manager had done nothing to stop further work on the oversize shed so I wrote to the Head of Development Services, 4-Apr-14:-

“Until we as a group get an answer to the bulk of the questions caused by STC in allowing the shed, not only to be built to unauthorised plans (by their own admission on 13th Feb) but also allowing it to be put into use i.e. slipping of Port of Tyne vessel on 17th March, they must expect a continuous stream of complaints.

7

A very reasonable complaint which was never registered but he noted it against complaint 248789 to which I took exception and the main point was never answered because he passed it back to his Planning Manager. To emphasise the point we (the Petitioners) were trying to make, I had added:-

“To cap it all there was an article in the local paper on Apr 1st showing most flattering photograph of the offending shed saying that it was only 36ft high. The author of the article may have got away with saying that in September but not now. You should know that it is over 50 ft high and that is what we have been saying for months now. It’s planned height is about 42ft.

On the 24th April I get confirmation that events up to 14th January 2014, including the original complaint of the 10th January had been removed from the records by Mr Atkinson and it was done to save UK Dock’s shed. It also put Mr Cunningham beyond the reach of the law from having repeated the fraud that the shed had approval:- See email to planning. Mr Dawson etc.

On the 25th April 2014, I get confirmation by email that Mr Atkinson was not taking any action against UK Docks re complaint 248789:- Dear Mr Dawson, I’m sorry for the delay. Mr Mansbridge is hoping to get a comprehensive response off to residents by the end of next week.

He was referring to the Petition, the original complaint having ended at its second stage when I wrote to him on the 4th March asking for the shed to be removed following the meeting at the SSSC on March 3rd 2014. We had decided to raise a Petition at that meeting.

Mr Mansbridge, in his response to another Petitioner on the 29th April he had repeated a variation on the lie told by the Planning Manager on the 15th January:-

“The approved dimensions of the steelwork, taken from drawing number 8396/1A show: The proposed height as 15.5m at the River Drive end. The gradient of the slipway is 2.66m over the length of the shelter. This would mean the height at the riverside end would be 18.16m above the slipway.

In his response to our Petition 2nd May, he again repeats the lie:-

The approved dimensions of the steelwork are:- Proposed height 15.5m at the River Drive end. The gradient of the slipway is 2.66m over the length of the shelter. This would mean the height at the riverside end would be 18.16m above the slipway.

The implication that the shed was built to the approved height was made by UK Docks to Mr Cunningham and repeated to the TGA but it was Mr Atkinson who first said the approved height of 15.5m was at the landward end.

I had complained about the repetition of this in the response to our Petition on 9th May where Mr Mansbridge had repeated the lie about the approved height of the shed being 15.5m at its landward end and said:- “This is not true, there is no supporting documentation which says that the approved height is 15.5m at the River Drive end.

I also asked him look at the plans held by his office and explain that the:- “elevation in the drawing 8296/14 is the north end and that scaling gives the elevation height to be 15.5m and subsequently the south elevation 12.5m
Followed by:- “In the light of this please consider a correction to the letters sent to the households 32 to 99 Greens Place and all the households in Harbour View.

8

And finally:- “I notice that work on the slipway continues apace – did you write as intended in your letter to Mr Routledge, dated 4th April, to the operators instructing them that all operational works should cease with immediate effect until such a time that the end panels are installed?

It looks from here that UK Docks told him and his planning department to get lost because they were now beyond the reach of the law because of Mr Cunningham’s action in supporting their fraudulent misrepresentation of the sheds height and Mr Atkinson backing him a week later.

I had not requested my original complaint to be investigated any further because I was awaiting a response to our request that the shed be removed but on 12th May Mr Mansbridge raised new Stage 2 Complaint, 253539Thank you for your complaint, which we received on 8th May 2014.

I did not raise a complaint on May the 8th. I advised him that the shed was taller than planned and added:- “there is no supporting documentation which says that the approved height is 15.5m at the River Drive end. All indications are that the approved height is 12.5m which one can get from scaling the portal details in the Drawing 8296/14.

Like Messrs Cunningham and Atkinson before him he had no answer to that question and chose to follow in their footsteps by rewriting the history of the complaint for the second time. On 2nd June I got confirmation that the Council were not going to do anything about UK Docks when Mr Mansbridge repeated the lie about about the height of the shed, 15.5m being approved and added one of his own, one about 8296/14 not being to scale:-

The drawing you have referred to [8296/14] was submitted in discharge of condition 4 relating to the fixing details of the end panels. The engineer also chose to include a gable elevation of the structure on the same drawing but that was not drawn to scale. If it would help I would be more than happy to meet with you to show you the relevant plans and elevation as this may clear up this specific point.

I did arrange a meeting to view 8296/14, 8-Jul-14 but I had anticipated that nothing would come of it because Mr Mansbridge had invited Mr Atkinson and I wrote directly to Chief Executive the day before:-

“On the 5th Sept 2013 work started at UK Docks premises on River Drive to build a slipway shed length 22.3m, width 13.1m and height at end facing River Drive 15.5m.
On 27th Sept an application was received in the planning office from the agents for UK Docks, Messrs Maughan, Reynolds Partnership Ltd to meet conditions of a previously granted application ST/0242/96 for a slipway shed length 22.3m, width 12.2m and height at end facing River Drive 12.5m.

This discrepancy is still not acknowledged by your Council after 9 months of work on this site.