More Evasions and Avoidance

Back to 1-42 of E and Ds
Advice from Solicitor, 26-Jan-16 :-

My view is that we need to raise a “new complaint” so that the Local Authority shall deal with it, and if not, the Local Government Ombudsman can deal with it. The new complaint being the misinformation and/or misrepresentation by the Local Authority in supplying information to the Local Government Ombudsman. Hopefully this can be dealt with as a “new” matter. If this complaint is not dealt with by South Tyneside Council, and it may well be that they say it relates to the old complaint, then I believe it justifies going straight to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Given after taking the email of 9/12/15 to him.

43 01/02/16
Phase 2, ST/0461/14/FUL, granted. The fact that the shed was too tall having been suppressed by the Planning office and Senior Management giving misinformation the Local Government Ombudsman
44 08/07/16


The main point made in a letter to CEO, Mr Swales :
I ask you to look again at this because there is a clear contradiction between what the Council were telling the LGO and what is known. Why your staff should misrepresent the facts to the LGO is for you to determine. That they have misinformed the LGO should be admitted and corrected and that is what this letter is about.
He instructed one of his staff to deny it; saying there was no evidence.
45 01/08/16

Width and

Corporate Lead Strategy and Performance ignores questions of height width i.e. non-compliance with condition 2 . Says: “There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman”. It is deliberate, it was said so the Ombudsman would not uphold the complaint.
6 02/09/16
Advise Corporate Lead about legal advice the Council stop using the Ombudsman’s findings from this date but she claims that there is no evidence that they have lied to the Ombudsman. Matches the duplicity of the Planning Manager two and a half years earlier.
The Council also stop using the the Ombudsman as an excuse for inaction an replace it with, “It remains the case that all complaints procedures relating to this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.
47 02/09/16
Back Pass
Response to Corporate Lead and copy to Customer Advocates with covering minute. Customer Advocates pass both of them back to the Corporate Lead.
That means she can repeat the basic lie: – that there was no evidence that misinformation was given to the Ombudsman and there was no check on her ill advised use of Section F Sanctions.
48 05/10/16
Denials repeated.
Virtual repetition of letter of 1st August on behalf of the Chief Executive. Her most preposterous claims have gone but the lie that STC has not given misinformation to the Ombudsman remained.
49 09/12/16
Notification that the Council have misinformed the Ombudsman redirected by instruction of Head of Development Services to Customer Advocacy – not answered.
50 18/12/16
Complaint about Sunday working.
Told we were making allegations
51 21/12/16
Response to reminder that it was the second Sunday in a few weeks and photograph sent Complaint about Sunday working with evidence that they were using the Shed. The 5th Condition refers to the use of the shed!
52 22/12/16
Criticism of email of 21st
Two issues: Noise and Sunday working.
* my complaint is about Sunday working;
* no feedback reference number has been provided – I need one for escalation;
It was the noise that alerted us to the fact that they were using the shed on a Sunday.
53 23/12/16
Told Sunday Working is not a new matter but Noise is.
They have ignored the fact that I had complained about neither until Sunday 18th December.
00 23/12/16
I remind Alison about 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 unless any written consent of variation is previously given by the Development Corporation as local planning authority.

They were floundering because the 5th condition was very specific about the use of the shelter and the Ombudsman was told that it could have been considered if there had been a retrospective planning application made.

Decision notice point 16 (LGO findings 15-Apr-15) advised: 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. It  was not the Authorities view, see condition 5, it was a Senior Planning Officer’s opinion.
End of 2016