ST/1146/13

Posted on March 6, 2019 by moderator

Details Page for Planning Application – ST/1146/13/COND

Site Address Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co Ltd And Harry Wilson Associates River Drive South Shields NE33 1LH

Application Progress Summary

  • Application Registered 08-10-2013
  • Comments Until 07-10-2013
  • Date of Committee
  • Decision Approve Details of Condition 14-10-2013
  • Appeal Lodged
  • Appeal Decision

Application Details

  • Application Number ST/1146/13/COND
  • Site Address Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co Ltd And Harry Wilson Associates River Drive South Shields NE33 1LH
  • Application Type Discharge of Conditions
  • Development Type Unknown
  • Proposal Discharge of Condition 3 – External Cladding, and Condition 4 – Fixing details of the mono-flex end panels – relating to previously approved Planning Application ST/0242/96UD
  • Current Status FINAL DECISION
  • Applicant Tyne Slipway & Engineering Ltd
  • Agent Maughan, Reynolds Partnership ltd
  • Wards Rekendyke
  • Location Co ordinates Easting 1 Northing1
  • Case Officer / Tel Peter Cunningham 0191 4247415
Post Views: 1,736
This entry was posted in Misconduct, Planning, UK Docks. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to ST/1146/13

  1. Mick Dawson says:
    March 6, 2019 at 07:38
    • The Case Officer is Mr Cunningham.
    • He is said to have measured the frames in September 2013 and they are wider and taller than permitted.
    • The reason that the Tyne Gateway Assn was reformed on 9-Nov-13 was because Mr Cunningham kept repeating to anyone who inquired that the shed was approved. It was apparent to most observers that it was taller than planned.
    • We have no records of anything in writing till after a meeting arranged to consider whether the shed had been to plan:
      “Please see below the reply from Peter (Cunningham).
      ” Hello – I confirmed at our meeting with Mr Dawson and others on 25th Sept 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.”       Councillor Anglin, 19-Dec-13
    Reply
  2. Mick Dawson says:
    March 6, 2019 at 07:31

    Condition 2 is missing.
    The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

    • The footings were laid in 2001 and set nearly meter wider than permitted which, the Council admit, is a material consideration.
    • The frames are 2.7m taller than planned according to the only authorised plan from 1996 with dimensions.
    Reply

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.