—– Original Message —–
From: “Mick Dawson” <mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
To: “Melanie Todd” + 26
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: UK Dock’s proposed plans

Hi Melanie,

Cycle shed pah! They are asking to extend a shed built without planning permission and STC Planning are complicit in this.

Look on the Second Page of the application. It now says: “If you have any questions about this matter please contact the case officer above.” Mr Mansbridge has removed himself from the initiation of a complaint. Anyone who has received a Stage 2 response from him will know what I mean.

Anyway I wrote to Mr Simmonette copied to Mr Mansbridge when I first got the re-application for the 2nd Shed pointing to him that Mr Mansbridge was using a dodgy interpretation of a drawing to do nothing about the first shed being built without planning permission:
The first shed is (also) 3 meters taller than the plans held by your office allow and the planning application ST/0461/14/FUL shows that UK Docks wish to extend it by 25% – drawing No 9 of the application. You appear to be accepting an application to extend a structure that does not have planning
permission.

Mr Mansbridge says that the shed is not 3 meters taller than planned in spite of evidence to the contrary, indeed he wrote to residents in May last year:- “Apart from the width these dimensions are either entirely in accordance with the approved plan, or subject to such minor deviation that they are properly categorised as non-material changes”.

Drawing 8296/1A is the one preferred by Mr Mansbridge when he says that the height of the shed is not materially different from that planned. He used this drawing (there is no other available unless you count 8296/1B and he cannot use 8296/14 for he claims wrongly that it is not to scale) when he wrote to residents in the same letter to say that although the shed was built without planning permission he was taking no action. He said that the drawing to say that the steelwork at the road end is clearly marked as 15.5m. It is significant that he does not attach the drawing to his letter because the river end is also clearly marked as 15.5m.

The gradient is 2.656m (there is no dispute about that) and both ends cannot be 15.5 meters. Even an untrained eye can see that the dimensions on the road end have been carelessly done. The 12.5m should be pointing to the top and not to the hip of the ‘mansard’. I suggest you look again at 8296/1A and I think that you cannot but agree with me that whoever advised Mr Mansbridge was not telling him the whole story.

I don’t think you have a copy of 8296/1A, I’ve attached a copy and you will see what I mean.

cheers Mick

PS I’m going to prompt Mr Simmonette for a response to my observations and would like to copy one or two of you in so that he can see that I am not alone in raising this issue. I’ll blind copy you all in, in the meantime and you can let me know for future reference.