Alt-CP

Summary.

The second page alludes to the wilful neglect of the fact that the foundations had been laid in such a way  that any structure using them could not be built to the authorised plans.
It would be natural to believe that UK Dock had set the footings to the correct width but we were told they measured them September 2013 i.e. before the meeting in November 2013 and they were OK but they were wider and longer than permitted.
It is beyond belief that extra set were not spotted on completion of the first stage. The Building Inspector would have to have taken care that he did not trip over them when he completed is inspection in June 2014.
It appears that the people responsible for ensuring that buildings are built to plan were not aware that the footings were 5.5m too long and 1m too wide

The 3rd page is published to show how the UK Docks provided, and the Council accepted, plans that could be interpreted in two different ways, one of which ultimately lead to the Ombudsman being misinformed, whereas the one authorised by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation  shows that the shed was 2.7m too high, 8296/2. Similarly the drawing approved by the Council in October 2013, 8296/14, tells us the same thing.

Sunday and Bank Holidays – 5th Condition.

The 4th page is here to show how the Ombudsman is being misused in a much more subtle way than to cover up lack of enforcement and it should be noted that condition 5 was not mentioned in the complaint made in December 2014 and it appears that complaints of the shed being used on a Sunday were ignored or worse, said to be allegations.

Condition 5 says:– work on vessels was to take place between 7am and 7pm Mondays – Saturdays and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

The Ombudsman says:- #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 know how the business operated in 1996 and it is too long ago for the Ombudsman to investigate.

Please note:

  • the ‘Authority’s view’ is a Senior Planning Officer’s opinion;
  • she actually says “I cannot comment on this”.
Why is it in the Ombudsman’s findings at all?