Introduction.
When UK Docks applied to build an enclosure (shed) covering the slipway off River Drive the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (the Authority) laid down 2 conditions in such a manner as to have little impact on the business carried out at the time of the application, 1996 but to restrict any expansion of the business:-

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

5. No works, other than the launching or beaching of vessels, shall take place within the shelter between the hours of 7pm and 7am Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless any written consent of variation is previously given by the Development Corporation as local planning authority.

The fifth condition still applies regardless of whether the shed had been built with, or without permission,  and will do so until UK Docks ask for it to reconsidered retrospectively. It so happens that it has been built without planning permission. See THV/UK Docks.

In a complaint about the breach of the 2nd condition the Ombudsman included a commment about the 5th: #16. The Authority’s view is that condition 5 should not have been imposed because the site already had the benefit of unrestricted working hours. I cannot comment on this. I do not knowhow the business operated in 1996 and it is too long ago for the Ombudsman to investigate.

It appears the only concession to the truth in finding #16 was: “I cannot comment on this” and one can judge the validity of that, by comparing what she says with the 5th condition itself. The main criticism is that she has replaced the Authority, the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation, with a Senior Planner’s opinion and secondly she has replaced ‘take place within the shelter’ with ‘site’ both of which are misrepresentations of the 5th condition.

The Planning Officer, Gary Simmonette, had, by not registering the complaint that UK Docks were in breach of the 5th condition then misinforming Customer Advocacy (CA) about it, put them in the unworthy position of having to accuse the complainants, I was not the only one, of making allegations. When confronted with the evidence to show that we were not making allegations, CA chose to cover over their false accusation by coalescing the 5th with the 2nd condition and they did this with the help of the Council’s Corporate Lead .

The Councillor tasked with helping expose the fraud that the shed was being used without any boats being beached or launched walked away, saying: I obviously cannot be part of any actions whilst claims and allegations are being investigated.

The actions of the environmental health officer were simply aiding and abetting! 

E/L Date 2017	Contents (Date and Description) Document and URL
20-Feb	Customer Advocacy burying the corruption of the Complaints Procedure.  Officers at the Town Hall were correct in advising you that they could not help you further with complaints regarding Sunday working at UK Docks, as this had been dealt with as part of the historic complaint you made to the Council and to which current contact restrictions apply.- AH
17-Feb	Unsolicited letter from Corporate Lead Strategy and Performance. Mr Dawson, further letter re restrictions 17 01 17 Based on the fallacy that the Ombudsman was not misinformed and misuse of a procedure base on Section F. The Corporate Lead’s misapplication of the Staff code on behalf of the Chief Executive is dealt with elsewhere.
14-Feb	Informed that 272189 is not the correct time-sheet The reference number 272189 does not refer to a feedback logged on your behalf but to a 3rd party. This cannot therefore be sent to you. – AH
13-Feb	Dear Alison, Closure of incident 272189 and proof that one for the use of the shed on a Sunday did not exist. Let me stress that I have no complaint about either the Council’s Front Desk or Lynne and I only wanted to save you and I much bother (getting to the facts behind non-registration of the complaint about Sunday the 18th December) .

Visit to Town Hall 10th February 2017 which established that no incident was recorded for Sunday Working on 18-Dec-2016 and that the time sheet that issued for completion regarding noise, was another an earlier complaint that had been closed. Also discovered Planning Officer behind all the confusion is Gary Simmonette who has not recorded Sunday working 18-Dec-16.

E/L Date 2017	Contents (Date and Description) Document and URL
8-Feb	no record of noise or Sunday working No record of breach of Condition 5
10-Feb	Visit to Town Hall 10th February 2017 which established that no incident was recorded for Sunday Working on 18-Dec-2016 and that the time sheet that issued for completion regarding noise, was an earlier complaint that had been closed. It had not been raised by me  raised by some-one else.
8-Feb	no record of noise or Sunday working No record of breach of Condition 5
7-Feb	Kevin Burrell closes 272891 – Still no record of noise on Sunday 18-Dec no record of breach of Condition 5
6-Feb	Kevin Burrell and 300150 A time sheet for 272189 was issued.
23-Jan	Clampdown again. As advised in Hayley Johnson’s letter (17-Jan-17) to you we will not respond further to your further contacts regarding matters which have exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure.
21-Jan	Cllr Anglin ducks out Dear Mr Dawson, As you are are dealing with the Council directly and processing an official complaint, I obviously cannot be part of any actions whilst claims and allegations are being investigated
20-Jan	Email to Cllr Anglin re Condition 2 and 5 copied to Mr Burrell and Customer advocates: I will also take this opportunity to let you know that I have still not received a case/feedback number identification number for Sunday working. The photograph that I attached to my email to you on 9th January copied to Customer Advocates is dated 18-Dec-2016
17-Jan	Mr Dawson further letter re restrictions 17-Jan-17 1) You were advised that as there are no restrictions to the working hours on site etc. – the 5th condition refers to the shed. 2) You have emailed the Council on at least 15 occasions since 5 October 2016 and 12 of those emails contained references to your historic complaints with the UK Docks site. –  Mrs Johnson knew perfectly well that the historic complaint (singular) was about the height and width of the shed. It was exchanged for one that only dealt with the width in June 2014 by the Head of Development Services.
10-Jan	Mr Burrel says: Mr Dawson,Thank you for your email, for completeness, I have attached the initial documents that we send out at the beginning of an investigation: Noise Complaint – Initiation of 272189
9-Jan 16:05	Dear Mr Burrell, I have a copy of the NOISE COMPLAINT RECORD FORM and if it is OK, I will use that,sign it and return it to your section on the 16th January. Thank you for getting in touch.
9-Jan 15:50	Sundays Email Trail 20-Dec to 09-Jan Dear Alison, Thank you for raising the ‘Noise nuisance request re UK Docks’. My main concern however has been the non-compliance of Condition 5 of the grant in 1996. I realise this may be a planning matter and its enforcement may not be the Environmental Health Team’s responsibility.
9-Jan 14:58	Mr Burrell says: Dear Mr Dawson, I have been notified by Alison Hoy that you wish to make a complaint regarding noise fromthe UK Docks site. In order to investigate the matter, It is necessary for me to provide you with noise diarysheets for you to complete over 21 – 28 days. ?? the complaint was about an event on the 18th December!!
9-Jan 07:31	Dear Councillor Anglin, My recent correspondence with Customer Advocacy (please see trail below) throws up some questions regarding the handling of complaints by South Tyneside Council.
6-Jan	Sundays Email Trail 20-Dec to 09-Jan Dear Alison, Sorry to trouble you again but if you look down through the emails you will see that I wrote directly to complaints on the 20th Dec and should have at least had an acknowledgement from them.
4-Jan	Please see the introduction. Alison was repeating a planning officer’s opinion when she said: Mr Dawson, Condition 5 referring to Sunday working was investigated by the Ombudsman and referred to in their decision notice to you dated 15 April 2015.

Neither Environmental Control and Planning Control want responsibility for allowing UK Dock’s to flout the 5th condition and are deliberately misdirecting Customer Advovacy/Alison.

E/L Date 2016	Contents Description Document and URL
23-Dec 11:46	Dear Alison, Thank you for your reply. Please note the complaint is about Sunday working and I quote from the grant of 1996, condition 5: “No works, other than the launching or beaching of vessels, shall take place within the shelter between the hours of 7pm and 7am Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
23-Dec 09:40	Critique of AH response  It is beginning to look like there was a private  agreement.
22-Dec	Dear Alison,Thank you for replying to my complaint about about Sunday working. No feedback reference number has been provided: one needed for escalation etc. – no record of a retrospective request for change to condition 5 – 7am to 7pm but not Sundays or Bank holidays. Is there some private agreement between the Council and UK Docks?
21-Dec	No acknowledgement that the shed was in use on a Sunday – the last complaint in respect of the site was closed in February 2016!
20-Dec	Escalation – Dear Sir or Madam, This is the second time in a few weeks that they have been working on a Sunday.
18-Dec	Using the shed on a Sunday -Hi Melanie, The Council often say when one raises a complaint that you’re the only one complaining so I went along to take a photo for you this morning to give you some support but failed.

Earlier in 2016

Day-Month	Description/Dialogues
1-Feb	Permission to extend shed given, 1-Feb-16. ST/0461/14/FUL is given permission.
26-Jan	advice from Peter Dunn and Co
4-Jan	Attachment 6 – No letter
24-Dec	Request for Letter to MP
9-Dec	From Customer Advocates