30th November 2020

Dear All,
procedures one needs examples and I have chosen the two that I have been dealing with over the last seven years.
For each case to which I refer and use as evidence, the original and some approved plans are available. Copies of them can be found on the public website ‘theharbourview.co.uk’ and to save on numerous attachments they can be viewed by searching on the drawing reference number.
There is another case in the borough where building control and planning enforcement appear to have gone with the wind and that is where a developer built a block of flats with an extra floor. This
will always be open to speculation until a copy of the original plan turn up. They are believed to show approval for a three stories and has 4.
In the two examples to which I refer, the approved plans still existed when the complaints first arose, and it was shown quite clearly that both developments were not built to the approved plan. It appears from both, that the Council first corrupted their own complaints procedure then misused the services of the Local Government Ombudsman (Ombudsman), to hide the lack of building control.
1. 71 and 72 Greens Place: Senior Building Inspector, Mr M Telford:

▪ 71 replaced a first floor patio fence with a wall and made a second floor patio space by raising the wall cappings enough to ensure the safety of people using the upper roof terrace;
▪ 72 merged the two roof windows permitted into one covering most of the roof.

2. UK Docks enclosure (shed): Senior Building Inspector, Mr M Telford and Principal Planning Officer, Mr P Cunningham:
The shed was built wider, taller and longer than permitted in two stages.

▪ the first stage was built wider and taller than the approved drawings allow and was passed by building control in June 2014;
▪ the second stage, to lengthen the shed, was also made in June 2014, under a new application was made to extend it a few days later such was their confidence in the ability of the Council to hide the variation of the shed ‘signed off’ a few days before.

Read on in the copy of the letter in  .pdf file format ->
In brief, all three schemes should have been stopped by the building inspector and the promoters/owners instructed to rebuild per plans. 

It would have been up to the promoter/owner to decide whether to approach the Council and apply for  retrospective planning permission otherwise and they obviously did not wish to do this as their plans would not have withstood scutiny.

The Council is in a sorry state when they allow a development to be permitted on the whim of a building inspector. What annoys me is that I and others have been charged with making false allegations etc. while he and his ilk survive to carry on with their corrupt practices.