Port of Tyne, which recently announced record profits, has acquired 10 acres of land adjoining its Tyne Dock estate in South Shields from the administrators in charge of overseeing McNulty, for an undisclosed sum.

Port bosses said the deal will support their plans for future growth in both existing and new business sectors, including renewable industries such as offshore wind and biomass.

But GMB regional officer Mick Blench wanted the McNulty site sold as a going concern, and fears the deal spells the end of offshore construction at the yard.

He said: “I’m a little disappointed at this news, but there is still a little bit of hope.

“From what I can gather, there are a few ‘ifs’ and ‘maybes’ with this deal.

“We have a few members at the Port of Tyne, but we have a much bigger presence in offshore construction industry.

“Ideally, we would prefer it if the McNulty yard remained part of that industry, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.”

McNulty Offshore has been a world leader in its field for a quarter of a century, while the former Readhead’s shipyard site has been the base for ship-related activity for an estimated 200 years.

Andrew Moffat, chief executive of the Port of Tyne, said: “This is a strategically significant site with deep water and, like our existing operations, it is only three miles from the mouth of the river and the North Sea.

“It is a unique opportunity for the port, as the site is directly connected to our existing land at Tyne Dock.

Not quite! Readheads Landing is in the way.

full article

This letter was copied to the Chief Executive and it appears that he just dropped it in the bin. He did not pass it to Haley Johnson or if he did she ignored it when she wrote to the MP for Northumberland.

Amble
Morpeth
Northumberland
9th June 2015

Boat Repair Shelter, Tyne Slipway, River Drive

Dear Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP,

Thank you for taking up my case and copying me your letter to Martin Swales, CEO, South Tyneside Council.

I agree with your summary but I must say that one has to be very specific about which end of the shelter one refers to when talking about the height. The fall along the length of the shelter is about 3m and this coincidentally is the height of the apparent overbuild.

You have not specified that the stated height (15.5m) is of the river end of the shelter and it is likely that, Mr Swales, if he follows the arguments of the Planning Manager and the Head of Development Services before him, will say it refers to the road end. The drawing, 8296/1A which they have used for their argument also states the height of the river end as 15.5 meters. This is clearly not consistent given the slope of the slipway.

I maintain that that the dimension at the road end has been specified incorrectly and I think that anyone that has spent any time training in a drawing office will agree with me.

Knowing that both ends of the slipway cover were given heights of 15.5m on drawing 8296/1A  I used a different drawing to gain the admission of the Planning Department that the cover had not been built to an approved plan. They had said at first it was being built to approved plans.

This drawing, 8296/14, is available on the planning portal for all see (8296/1A is not readily available) and it shows the river end gable with door fittings. It has sufficient detail on it  to determine that the height is near enough 15.5m i.e. – nowhere near the 18m of the built height of the river end.

If Mr Swales provides any new plans to show you that I am wrong in my assessment of

the development on River Drive by UK Docks please let me know.

yours sincerely
Michael Dawson

cc Mr M Swales, CEO South Tyneside Council

The Council have allowed the UK Docks development on Riverside Drive to proceed despite multiple objections from residents and that in dealing with these objections they have neither been open or transparent. It has taken 15 months to gain the admission that the construction did not have planning permission:-
05-Sep-2013 Work began on erecting five steel frames of what was to become a large slipway cover to the surprise and dismay of residents nearby. They were understandably annoyed that they were not given any notice. When contacted a representative of the Council expressed equal surprise. The Principal Planning Officer, Mr Peter Cunningham sent out what were said to be approved plans to Ms M Todd, a neighbour.

• 25-Nov-2013. A meeting was arranged by Councillor John Anglin between Councillors, Mr Cunningham, and a local residents group including myself. Mr Cunningham again repeated that the shed was neither too wide nor too high and had been built to an approved plan. The slipway cover was said to be ‘legal’.
• 20-Dec-2013 Mr P Cunningham said in an email to me: “I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996 plans across to you twice already and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant…this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. He also said “Please do not email me again”
• 13-Feb-2014 Mr G Atkinson, Planning Manager said that the the current structure is not built to “approved” plans.
  03-Apr-2014 Petition presented to CEO South Tyneside Council. We protest at:-
  1. A lack of relevant information from STMBC
  2. A lack of public consultation on the unannounced construction
  3. Lack of research and impact surveys
  4. Apparent negligence by STMBC
  5. Apparent breach of planning law by the developers
• 02-May-2014 Mr Mansbridge, Head of Development Services, responded to the Petition and requests that work was stopped on the construction while the issues surrounding the plans were resolved by saying that “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”. He also says that “Enforcement action is at the discretion of the Council as Local Planning Authority.”

24-Nov-2014 Michaela Hamilton, Customer Advocacy wrote in an email to me that “I can confirm that as previously advised, the Council accepts that the structure in question does not have planning permission”.

Gary,
I understand you spoke to my wife earlier today re nuisance at Tyne Slipway.
As well as unacceptable levels of noise from around 8.00 a.m. at one point an operative began to dismantle a fibre glass speed boat in the open yard using what appeared to be an angle grinder. This added to the noise but also created fibre glass dust which was not contained. This activity took place less than 30m from residential properties in Harbour View.
When I challenged the behaviour I was told (by somebody senior on the site) that it was an industrial site and I should expect this sort of thing. I stated thata this was in fact a residential area and we intended to do everything in our power to protect our rights.
He told me to ‘ring the council’ in a tone that indicated that in his opinion the authorities were powerless and our rights were unimportant.
I attach a screen shot from some video footage of the aforesaid unacceptable activity (the file size means I can’t send the footage itself)

I’d be grateful if you could confirm receipt and indicate the action that you intend to take.

Kind regards
Dave

From: Evelyn
Subject: Re: A dailymail.co.uk article regarding breaking planning
Date: 8 March 2014 13:12:48 GMT

Dear M -in my conversation with Peter Cunningham recently he agreed that the structure is taller and wider than the one which had permission. However he said there  was not enough difference in which to enforce removal etc. He also stated that his department would ensure that all of the neighbours were informed if further planning permission was sought. He also informed me that the MOD contract was for small vessels i.e. Navy patrol boats and canoes etc from Army and that no steel work would be carried out.
However even though our conversation was pleasant enough  – my fears are not allayed   regards Evelyn
Continue reading →