Alternative Council Complaints Procedure for 71-72 Greens Place

If they had wished to consider the complaint properly they would have followed  ‘How we will deal with your complaint’ but the initial responses appear to indicate that they had decided to allow the conversion of a pair of two story terraced houses into a three story ones under the pretence that they were allowing additions to their extensions or off-shots.

They say, “The assistance of the public is often crucial to the success of enforcement action by the Council. Due to the level of building activity being carried out in South Tyneside, it is not possible for the Council to identify all breaches of planning and building control, given the current staffing levels. The Council will encourage the public to provide any information that may assist in resolving an enforcement case. ”

When the planning officer ignores the guidelines it a fair guess that when you complain you will be entered into the Alternative Council Complaints Procedure (ACCP) where there are 4 not 3 stages:

1. Stage1: they say, “Our focus at Stage 1 is on putting things right;” but this will be difficult if they have made decisions that involve extensions that fill 100% of the available land or allow dormer windows that occupy nearer than not 100% of the width of the roof.
2. Stage 2; they say, “We’ll send you a letter to acknowledge that your complaint has moved to Stage 2 and then send you a full response.” but you will notice that the Planning Manager says things like the planning officer was only following guidelines and  it is a discretionary whether they allow an extension to occupy 100% of the available land and party wall decisions will have to be inplimented*
3. Stage 3; they say, “The Chief Executive will appoint a senior colleague to investigate your complaint on their behalf and that person will respond to you directly with their findings.” but you find that the senior colleague has removed plans so that other recent decisions that have gone the other way and has also prepared the way for the the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) to be misinformed.
4. Stage 4; the (LGO) has been told that the reduction in the level of overshadowing was not put before the Planning Committee but put in as a suggestion  by them. The fact that the amended plan presented to the Committee was not published gives credence to the fact that the LGO was misinformed by the Head of Development Services in this case.

It appears that the interests of the two owner/developers of 71/72 Greens Place were given unwarranted precedence over their neighbour’s otherwise, why would the Council misrepresent the scheme to the Ombudsman.