There were out of office replies from, George Mansbridge and Gill Hayton
and a correction from Nicola Robason: 
Dear Mr Dawson, 
A typographic error on my behalf. Apologies – the sentence should have
read ‘now’ consider rather than ‘not’ consider. I hope my reference to
contacting you further in due course may have indicated this. 
Many thanks, Nicola

Fwd: Complaint: 248789 – Unplanned Development on River Drive
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 12/12/2019 (15:41:33 BST)
To: Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr Anglin, Cllr David Francis, Nicola Robason, Mike Harding, Gill Hayton (Solicitor), George Mansbridge, Hayley Johnson, Alison Hoy

Attachments: Dear Nicola 5-Dec-19
Forwards from September 2016

Dear All,
It looks like Nicola, or should I say the Executive of South Tyneside Council, does not wish to answer my request for under the Freedom of Information Act. She says will not consider the content of my email and attachments so it is fairly safe to say that the Council did not give UK Docks permission it retrospectively and that in turn beggars the question, why did UK Docks tell Cllr Hamilton and the MP for South Shields that it had been given by the Council.
The answer is simple. UK docks were unable to provide them with approved plans showing the shed to be the permitted section (being 3m taller and a meter wider than planned). The Council took a different path by telling us that the shed had been approved when the evidence showed that it had it had not and they maintained this fraud for six years by manipulating their own complaints procedure.
The low point in this charade was the former Head of Development Services writing a Stage 2 response to an imaginary escalation to Stage 2.
To give credibility to his Stage 2 response and compound the sin he organised a meeting to review an approved plan but produced an unauthorised drawing instead which I rather rudely chucked away saying that both ends showed the same height. He then pretended that we had seen an approved plan and the complaint wended it way though Stage 3 and onto the Ombudsman unnecessarily.
This was all because the breaches in planning control were not notified to the enforcement officer and the Council misrepresented the plans to the Ombudsman to cover this up. They then use the Ombudsman’s findings to mislead all enquirers after the truth, MPs for instance. This almost perfect plan was then spoilt by UK Docks claiming that the Council had given them permission for the shed we now see.
A breach of planning control is defined in section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as:
• the carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.
Talking to a retired planner I discovered that in most cases, development becomes immune from enforcement if no action is taken within 4 years. However, where there has been deliberate concealment of a breach of planning control, local planning authorities may apply for a planning enforcement order to allow them to take action after the time limits in section 171B have expired.
This puts South Tyneside Council in an impossible position because it is THEY that have been deliberately concealing the breach in planning control since the meeting in the Town Hall in November 2013 and I quote from the Local Government Ombudsman, 15-Apr-15:

//The Ombudsman’s final decision
Summary: This complaint is not upheld. In 2013 a developer
resumed building a boat shed for which he had planning permission and had started building in 2001. Local residents complained but the Council found the developer could still build the shed. However, the developer built it almost a metre wider than he should have done.
There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. It kept residents informed throughout the process. The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be The Council says it is not. There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.//

One only has to look at the approved or authorised drawings to see that there is no validity in that statement and UK Docks by telling us that the Council had given them permission retrospectively has exposed the Council’s complicity in the deception.
I shall contact the MPs next week. It will be interesting to hear what Nicola says if she does get in touch but I doubt if we will hear any more from her as it looks like my latest letter has joined my original complaint of 10-Jan-14 in the bin.

Regards,
Mr M Dawson

To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:53:11 +0000
From: monitoring officer <monitoring.officer@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Complaint: 248789 – Unplanned Development on River Drive

Dear Mr Dawson

Many thanks for your email.
I confirm safe receipt and that I will not consider the content of your email and attachments.
I will be in touch again further in due course.

Many thanks
Nicola

Nicola Robason
Head of Corporate & External Affairs and Monitoring Officer
South Tyneside Council

To Customer Advocates 02, September 16

From: Mick Dawson<mailto:mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
To: Michaela Hamilton<mailto:Michaela.Hamilton@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:56 PM
Subject:  Complaint: 248789 – Inappropriate Development on River Drive

Dear Michaela,

South Tyneside Council and the Local Government Ombudsman

Please excuse me for writing directly to you. I’ve copied you the letter I wrote to Haley Johnson today. I assume you have access to my letter to the Chief Executive 8-Jul and her reply to me 1-Aug.

She has done exactly as my solicitor predicted she would do, she said I had submitted repeated complaints, essentially regarding the same issue after the complaints process has been exhausted. There are only two complaints and I did not raise the one to which she has referred. That was 253539 and raised at Mr Mansbridge’ request and was about enforcement. I do not consider the first closed closed until the Council come clean on the planned height. As far as I am concerned Mr Atkinson conceded the argument about the planned height to me in February 2014.

I did ask her if she had reviewed the original complaint of the 10-Jan-2014 and the correspondence following it up to 13-February, as she would have realised that Mr Atkinson had effectively agreed that the shed was 2.7m too high. He and I were discussing the height of the shed and he could no longer maintain the pretence that 8296/14 referred to the road end. I even put a different spin on the ‘not to scale’ misrepresentation.

One only has to look at the drawing to see that it is: a) the river end (note about access for boats) and b) has a height to width ratio of about 5:4 which corresponds with 15:12 not 18:12 whatever the scale of the drawing. Why he went on to say that it was not to scale, was not only irrelevant but appears to be a piece of misinformation designed to get himself out of an embarrassing situation. He had already said that the gable was the road end.

My main gripe with her is that she said, “There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman.” in spite of me giving pages in great detail to the Chief Executive. Why has she used the word deliberate – surely giving misinformation is a deliberate act in itself?

This is just adding misinformation, and is perhaps intended for the LGO, and we will end up with “The Council have told you that there is no evidence of deliberate misinformation etc.” c.f. #35 where a piece of misinformation was repeated in spite of my protestations to Mr Mansbridge (a few times I think, including the time I advised him that the drawing he was using showed both ends to be 15.5m).

35. In January 2014 the Council wrote to Mr Dawson about this. It said the overall structure on the plans is 15.5 metres at the land end … Since then the Council has consistently told Mr Dawson the shed is the correct height.

Ms Johnson finished by saying she considers the matter closed and should I continue to repeat historic complaint issues in your contacts, the Council will consider imposing formal restrictions on your contact with the Council. The threat of a Section F Notice which you administer is why I have sent you this covering letter and a copy of my response. It is not clear with what authority she speaks. I consider the matter of the Council misinforming the LGO to be at least a complaint at Stage 3 level, which I believe is your department.

Has Ms Johnson replaced Mr Mansbridge at stage 2 of the Council’s Complaint Procedure?

Kind regards
Michael Dawson