A shed that is 3m too high. That is equivalent to four story block of flats where three stories were approved. Not only have a Principle Planning Officer of the South Tyneside Council* denied our claims that the shed is not built to plan but the Head of Development Services, MP and the Local Press are in denial as well.
Why this is so remains a mystery but it will no doubt come out in the wash. In the meantime the local residents are subjected to a level of noise and inconvenience etc. that is clearly not acceptable.
It has also come to light that the Port of Tyne offered Tyne Docks UK an alternative site as part of their plans to fill in Tyne Dock. This was turned down but explains why there were no objections Readheads Landing excepted.
* the Planning Manager has however conceded that the offending shed has not been built to plan.
This shows that local residents can put a stop to inappropriate plans. We need to come together and block UK Docks next phase.
From the Gazette:- CAMPAIGNERS have won the battle to prevent part of a former South Tyneside Army camp being converted into a luxury housing development.
Council planners had recommended the go-ahead to build almost 50 homes at Whitburn Army Camp in Mill Lane, Whitburn, despite strong objections from neighbours of the site.
The development, proposed by Sunderland-based Bett Homes, would have involved the demolition of the army camp buildings and construction of 48 homes, including 36 four and five-bedroom detached properties.
At a meeting of the council’s planning committee yesterday, members threw the application out, on the grounds that it was “inappropriate” and “detrimental to greenbelt land”.
Dear Mr Dawson
STAGE 2 COMPLAINT – Development at UK Docks Ltd, River Drive
I am writing in response to your letters of 2nd and 9th May regarding the above.
You have made it clear in your letter of 2nd May that you were not happy that I referred your email of 4th April 2014 on to my Planning Department. I apologise if you feel that was inappropriate, however, this is required under the Council’s complaints procedure and allows for the appropriate escalation of cases to Head of Service level should the operational department not provide a satisfactory response. I appreciate that this can come across as somewhat process driven however it is important for consistency and helps should you continue to be dissatisfied having exhausted the process and wish to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. For this reason I am treating this as a Stage 2 response.
In your letter of 2nd May you highlight that the slipway is operational yet the shelter is incomplete. You correctly refer to a letter I sent to one of your neighbours in which I highlighted my intention to instruct UK Docks Ltd to cease use of the shelter until works were compete. This is something I continue to feel strongly about. I have met with the owners and senior officers at UK Docks to make them aware of my views on this matter and have followed that up in writing. When I met with them, they made it clear that to stop using the slipway would have a significant detrimental impact on their business. The difficulty I have is that the established use of the slipway is for general industrial purposes and in effect they can quite lawfully undertake works to repair boats on the slipway and across the entire site.
Your letter of 9th May focuses on the dimensions of the shelter as being built and in particular your view that, as well as being wider than approved, the shelter is also 3m taller. You refer in particular to Drawing 8296/14. That would represent a significant deviation from the approved scheme.
I have investigated this and referred to the approved drawing cross-referenced with the dimensions taken on site by my planning staff. The height of the shelter does not significantly deviate from the approved scheme as you have suggested. The approved dimensions that I state are those which are annotated on drawing number 8296/1A which was submitted to the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation on 11 April 1996. That must be the plan which the Development Corporation was referring to when it granted planning permission in 1996. The height of the steelwork at River Drive is clearly marked as 12.5m+3m (total 15.5m). The difference in height of the slipway over the length of the shelter is marked as 96.1-93.444 (2.656m). 15.5m plus 2.656m gives the height at the riverside of 18.156m. I attach a A1 size copy of this plan.
The drawing you have referred to [8296/14] was submitted in discharge of condition 4 relating to the fixing details of the end panels. The engineer also chose to include a gable elevation of the structure on the same drawing but that was not drawn to scale. If it would help I would be more than happy to meet with you to show you the relevant plans and elevation as this may clear up this specific point.
I do hope that my letter adequately covers the various points in your letters of the 2nd May and 9th May. If you are dissatisfied with my response, you may wish to move to Stage 3 of the Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure by writing to the Chief Executive, South Tyneside Council, Town hall, Westoe Road, South Shields, NE33 2RL.
Yours sincerely
George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
