March-April 2014
| Date | Documents |
|---|---|
| 30-Apr | Another Resident was having similar problems with the Planning Manager. The correspondence began with the Port of Tyne Tug being taken onto the Slipway, 17-Mar. |
| 25-Apr | An apology for the delay. The first item from planning with a reference ID – No.248789. |
| 08-Apr | Job No.248789 recorded. Registration of Complaint 248789 see email to planning 14/1/14. Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive, South Shields. |
| 24-Mar | Inspection Summary for Erection of Enclosure 1-Jan-01 to 24-Mar-14 |
| 20-Mar | Reminder to STC that work still continues on the Shed and Response & Industrial Site next to Harbour View |
| 17-Mar | Port of Tyne tug taken onto the slipway. |
| 14-Mar | Misplaced summary? |
| 8-Mar | Comment from neighbour |
| 4-Mar | Thank you also for confirming that the Slipway Shed is not built to the approved 1996 plans (plans proving the shed is nearly 3m taller than approved). Local Residents Wish List |
| 3-Mar | M Dawson – to write to the Council Questions Raised at meeting held in the Little Haven yacht club South Shields Boat Club so vociferous in 2001 are noticeably silent. How and when did the ownership of the wasteland pass to the Wilsons. Councillor Woods – Notable for his silence on this. Port of Tyne in collusion with the Wilson’s. |
Jan-Feb 2014
| Date | Document |
|---|---|
| 13-Feb | A hidden admission that the Shed is not built to plan:- “3. the current structure is not built to approved plans – Any deviation from the approved plans, needs to be considered on a case by case basis.” Both the Planning Manager and I were referring to drawing number 8296/14. It shows the shed to have a section of 15.6m x 12.2 at the bottom end. |
| 3-Feb 28-Jan |
Dialogue leading to Concession:- The Principal Planning Officer had refused to admit that the cover had not been built to plan and it was beginning to look like the Planning Manager was going to try the same thing with the height alone. Planning Manager’s Response 2:- Note the use of PROTECT which is used when they are being economical with the truth. |
| 24-Jan | Questions Unanswered |
| 19-Jan | Clear view of Overhead Crane – a change of use. The enclosure was become a cover for a shipyard crane. The approved height is about same height as the crane. |
| 15-Jan | Planning Manager’s Response 1 – where the complaint is replaced by a fraudulent misrepresentation using 8296/1A: that the river end has an approved height of 18.2m. 8296/1A shows the hight at that end to be 15.5m |
| 14-Jan | Escalation to Planning Manager:- The issues I refer to are the date stamp on drawing no 8296/1A and drawing for application ST/1146/13/COND which is not a match for the current structure. Therefore until I have some satisfactory answers to my very reasonable questions I do not consider this matter closed. If you are unable to supply me with answers to my questions could you please pass the issue to someone who can. |
| 13-Jan | Interception by Case Officer. The complaint that the shed is too tall is removed from the normal complaints procedure. Work continues with Photograph, notice the lugs for fitting an overhead crane, they are not in the original plans |
| 10-Jan | Complaint Initiation, Photograph, A8296_1A, B8296_1B and D8296_14 |