Dear Mr Dawson
Thank you for your email. Before the Council makes any decisions on the planning aspects of this case, we need to have a full understanding of the history of the site, and analyse all the facts. This is a complex matter and will take some time.
Regards
Planning Office
Dear . . . . . . . .(Council representative)
It is now over six months since the framework for the shed was erected, three months since the noise began and over two weeks since you said that the council would be able to provide a response to our request that work on or in the shed be stopped until the planning issues have been legally resolved.
I note that there has been a rising number of complaints about noise from the site to both Planning and Environmental Services and this is becoming a major concern to the residents affected.
Why has the council not used its powers of enforcement to stop the work?, you have admitted that the shed is not built to plan. If any resident had built a construction that breached their planning approval, they would surely have been asked to remedy it or at least to submit a retrospective planning application.
Why has the council not used their power of enforcement to control the continual noise issuing from this site? If this was an individual he or she would have, months ago, been served an ASBO.
It is becoming very evident from communication with other residents that the continued development and disturbance caused by the work on this site is threatening their health and wellbeing (ie stress, noise and particulate emission). Ironically the March 14 issue of the South Tyneside news magazine is full of advice about how to ‘look after your health and wellbeing’?
I would also like to bring Councils attention to the front page statement ‘A new view at Littlehaven’, should it not also read ‘a complete loss of Visual Amenity for for Harbour View and Greens Place residents’!
I will repeat the communities request that the work is stopped immediately and appropriate consultation is put in place. What is the holdup?
your sincerely
Michael Dawson
Dear Mr Atkinson,
It is now over six months since the framework for the shed was erected, three months since the noise began and over two weeks since you said that the council would be able to provide a response to our request that work on or in the shed be stopped until the planning issues have been legally resolved.
I note that there has been a rising number of complaints about noise from the site to both Planning and Environmental Services and this is becoming a major concern to the residents affected.
Why has the council not used its powers of enforcement to stop the work?, you have admitted that the shed is not built to plan. If any resident had built a construction that breached their planning approval, they would surely have been asked to remedy it or at least to submit a retrospective planning application.
Why has the council not used their power of enforcement to control the continual noise issuing from this site? If this was an individual he or she would have, months ago, been served an ASBO.
It is becoming very evident from communication with other residents that the continued development and disturbance caused by the work on this site is threatening their health and wellbeing (ie stress, noise and particulate emission). Ironically the March 14 issue of the South Tyneside news magazine is full of advice about how to ‘look after your health and wellbeing’?
I would also like to bring Councils attention to the front page statement ‘A new view at Littlehaven’, should it not also read ‘a complete loss of Visual Amenity for for Harbour View and Greens Place residents’!
I will repeat the communities request that the work is stopped immediately and appropriate consultation is put in place. What is the hold up?
your sincerely
Michael Dawson
I felt that the Planning Office were ‘Stone Walling’ again by trying to sideline me into the complaints system instead of replying to my enquiries. The Principal Planning Manager refused to admit that the cover had been built a meter wider than planned and it was beginning to look like the Planning Manager was going to try the same thing. With help from someone used to advising insurance cases I tried a new approach and wrote:
From: M Dawson
To: Planning Manager
Subject: Slipway Development, River Drive
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:10:35
From: Planning Manager
To: M Dawson
Subject: Slipway Development, River Drive
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:01 AM
Dear Mr . . . . . . . .,
Thank you for you reply and attached documents. I am writing to you again because there are still outstanding issues. I am also concerned that you and your colleague Mr . . . . . . . . (e-mail dated 13 January) appear to be in too much haste to direct me to the complaints procedure. I do not consider my questions concerning the slipway development constitute a complaint.
Dear Mr. Dawson
The Council was contacted by local residents in early September 2013 when the steelwork erection commenced. We weren’t able to immediately identify the archive case and the company provided from its own sources copies of drawings numbered 8296/1B and 8296/2, which is why those drawings are stamped received by us 6 Sep 2013. Following a search of our archived file the only drawings that we have that are stamped ‘Approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation’ are 8296/2 and 8296/4. 8296/1A and 8296/1B are consistent with these two stamped drawings in terms of overall dimensions. It is therefore reasonable to say that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996 (the only difference between 1A and 1B being to the foundation detail).
My understanding from Mr . . . . . . . . (meeting 25th November Council Offices) is that the Council had a meeting with the applicant or his representative on August 20th prior to the steelwork being erected. I am therefore curious as to why the Planning department did not have drawings to hand and had to consult their archive. You state it is ” reasonable to say” that drawings 8296/1A and 1B “are consistent with these two stamped drawings in terms of overall dimensions” however the stamped drawings you refer to, 8296/2 and 4, have no dimensions. The only similarity between the drawings is the overall tapered shape. I therefore propose that your assertion that 1A and 1B represent the 1996 approved development is not ‘reasonable’.
The dimensions measured by the Council in September are as follows:
Length 22.254m
Width 13.1m
Height at end facing River Drive 15.5m
Height at end facing river 18m
Thank you for confirmation that the current construction is a meter wider than the “approved plans” at 13.1m. I would like to direct your attention to the following communications between myself and your department: To Principal Planning Officer on 19th December 2013, “I have sufficient skills in surveying to be able to measure the width of the structure without access to the site and can say with confidence that it is 13.20m wide give or take 0.05m.” Response from him on 20th December: “I have measured the site and have copied the1996 plans across to you twice already … and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height are compliant.” E-mail received from yourself 15th January: ” The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings”. I hope this was not an attempt to evade the issue. I now feel confident to assert again, that the current structure is not built to “approved” plans.
8296/14 is the recent drawing and the only purpose of that is in regards to the condition dealing with the strip curtain door fixing details. You explain that you have measured the height from this drawing as 15.6m, and you seem to have assumed that is the riverside elevation, and have adjusted for the gradient of the slipway and concluded that the height at the River Drive side should be in the order of 3m less. In fact the 15.6m height is the height to River Drive and the height on the river side is some 3m greater.
With reference to the drawing 8296/14 I have made no assumptions regarding this drawing but have taken my information from the drawing. There are three indicators that the elevation is the north end of the structure:
The north elevation height is therefore 15.5m and subsequently the south elevation 12.5m. What made you determine that the elevation is the South end when there is no such detail on the drawing?
As I mentioned earlier, drawings of historic cases are not put on the Planning Explorer. Nevertheless, the files are publicly available for inspection and we have for several months shared all information that we have with the members of the public who are interested in this case. As requested, I attach the copies of 8296/2 and 8296/4.
There is no more I can add and I feel that we have answered all your questions. You say at the beginning of your message that you believe that the structure is not consistent with any of the drawings. We have looked at all the material available to us and measured the structural frame when it was erected. I have previously told you that the variation in angle of the pillars is not considered to be material. I can only suggest that if you do wish to pursue this matter further you ask that my Head of Service, George Mansbridge, responds to any remaining points you may have formally under stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. You will have to write to him and say specifically what you remain unhappy about.
Regards
As you can see there are questions to be answered. I still maintain particularly with your detailed measurements, that the structure is not consistent with any of the drawings. I would like to know why you consider the variation of the pillar angle is not material particularly as the Agent has had to provide a new drawing (Aug.’13) for the cladding and fixings.
I am very concerned, that considering the problems this planning application has caused in the past, that Council did not do more to consult local residents. I am aware that even the Councils own Environment Department made objection to the development in 1996.The current structure does not conform to any approved plans. How can the council justify allowing work to continue when condition 2, and I quote “The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications” has not been discharged.
regards
Michael Dawson
With regard to ongoing issues with industrial site River Drive, adjacent to Harbour View: FAO: Peter Cunningham; Gordon Atkinson
The Environmental dept advises they have no say over issues regarding the consistent breach in the 1996 planning permission.
Our concerns continue with our complaints not being adequately dealt with.
It appears the planning dept have little interest in applying their mandatory obligations to enforce compliance by the owners of the boat yard on River Drive, with the planning permissions given in 1996.
We would ask that council representatives desist from constantly pointing out that we reside adjacent to an indusrial site. If this is dealt within a fair and reasonable way, then equally you should be acknowledging that they operate adjacent to a residential estate. You constantly argue that they are an established industrial site. However, at the time of the original planning requests and permissions WE were an established residential estate, construction having commenced in 1991.
Unfortunately there is no magic industrial/residential wall separating us: it would be handy to have something to shut of the noise and general products of yard activity. Equally the yard operatives probably feel the same way. However, there is no magic wall between us, and we find ourselves buttressed up together. So we are left to find something that will hopefully:
– stop any proposed expansion to the work in the yard (are you beginning to realise what the impact will be, based on the current experiences?!);
– step up to the footplate and do the right thing: act on your mandatory obligation to actually deal with our issues, rather than simply repeating ‘industrial site, industrial site’ like a hideous mantra;
– recognise that there is no magic wall between us, and that you now are responsible ( not those who originally approved the planning permission) in doing something positive about our concerns;
– and we want you to:
a) not agree to further planning expansion in the yard;
b) enforce the original planning permission agreements: shed height and size; limits on work – times, noise etc;
c) acknowledge that not only are they an industrial site but that we are a residential site, as of 1991, and therefore WERE established before the boatyard permissions;
d) recognise that if our complaints are not dealt with, we will escalate our issues to the Ombudsman, as per the complaint processes
We await your details as to how you intend to deal with our complaints.
Regards
Julie and David Routledge
On the 21st of January this year the developer, Tyne Slipway and Engineering Co Ltd, relaunched with TSL Marine Services, Gosport, as UK Docks in 2010, was sentenced at Newcastle Crown Court for safety failings after a teenage apprentice, Jason Burden, 19, from South Shields was crushed and killed at UK Docks’ South Dock site in Sunderland.
Tyne Slipway and Engineering Co Ltd was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £47,936.57 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The court was told the company had no documented risk assessment and no documented safety management system for the work being carried out at the time, and that the incident
could have been prevented. (See HSE press release website: http://press.hse.gov.uk/2014/firm-sentenced-after-teenageapprentice-crushed-to-death/ )
In the context of cuts to the HSE’s budget of approximately £80m to 85m per year1 and drastic reductions in preventative inspections2, recent observations by local residents at the UK Docks construction site at River Drive, South Shields, have led to evidence being passed
to Health and Safety Executive officers who have taken appropriate action against the company involved for “unsafe working practice”.
1 http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/health-and-safety-executive/news/healthandsafetyhse.cfm
2 http://pacelegal.com.au/tag/low-life-how-the-government-has-put-a-low-price-on-your-life/
3 North East marine engineering firm sentenced for safety failings
To: Ian Rutherford <Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 18:15
Subject: Re: Noise at UK Docks, River Drive [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Dear Mr Rutherford
I have returned home from work (at 4:45pm), today, 18/03/14.
I have been informed the noise from a generator placed outside the shed (not inside the shed – the one with no doors, and currently looking as though it has a large skip in it….) on the land behind Harbour View, being used by John Wilson/UK Docks, has been running all day. It was quiet for approx half an hour when I got in, then started up again at 5:30pm.
The nosie level is unacceptable. Please see the attached link which states you (Environmental Dept) have a madatory obligation to deal with our complaints with regard to noise, Noise Act 1996:
http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/rights-under-noise-act.html
It states the perpetrators can be issued with a noise abatement notice.
Please do not resort to your previous arguments that the noise emanates from an industrial site. WE ARE NOT AN INDUSTRIAL SITE, even if they are! The fact that the estate is parallel to an industrial site means that there is a conflict, whether you think the council can deal with it or not.
The noise levels require measurement, and a legislative balance needs to be drawn up to recognise the fact that it is not a yard within an area of industry – it is a yard within an area of residential properties.
The conflict of an industrial site directly beside a residential site means you cannot simply keep stating that as an industrial site they have rights to their activities above the residents of Harbour View.
The council and Environment Dept MUST accept that actions need to be taken to:
1) Accept that the industrial site does not have precedence over the residential site, which was constructed in 1991 BEFORE the planning permission was given on the boatyard site, therefore the argument that it was established is nonsense;
2) Accept that this is becoming intolerable to the residents, as we do not have protection for our hearing,nor control when the noise will stop!
3) That the owners of the yard, having already breached the planning permission given in 1996, will most likely ignore any reasonable requests to consider their ‘neighbours’ in the work they complete;
4) There are considerable Health and Safety issues which have to be considered:
– the yard owners and workers have already caused potential polution by grinding and dismantling a fibreglass speedboat within a few feet of our houses (the workman being in full protective gear – unfortunatley we weren’t!);
– the nosie is equally a part of the H&S issues – again, we don’t have the luxury of ear protectors;
– they are not confining work to the so called protection on the shed, and it’s a nonsense anyway, as it is open ended;
5) And therefore, accept that legal action is the only step we can take as residents, if the council, and its relevant depts, don’t take the actions the legislation states has the mandatory obligation to take.
Please: walk in our shoes for a while – we doubt that if this was going on next to where you, or the owners of the business live, that you would put up with it.
Thank you
Julie
From: Marilyn at hotmail.com
Date: 18 March 2014 18:18:55 GMT
To: “Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk” <Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Cc: “Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk” <Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Subject: Slipway river drive
I would firstly like to respond to Mr Atkinson’s comment that the council cannot control the use of hoists on the slipway site. So I ask, if the council can’t control this , then who do you suggest I speak to who can control it?
As for the term ” an established general industrial site” is a load of tosh , yes there was occasional repairs to the nexus ferry which sometimes encroached on my privacy whilst I sat on my balcony but this was few and far between. What is happening now is a total different ball game. The noise , smoke ,dust and fumes is making my life a nightmare . I can no longer go out onto my balcony, I was looking forward to the summer to sit out and enjoy the quiet after moving into my apartment 20 months ago and spending a fortune making it into my retirement home, only to find I might as well have bought a dump in temple town area of Tyne Dock and had McNulty as my neighbours.
I have rang to complain to environmental health about dust, fumes ,noise and smoke and not had any reply .
Never before have I complained to the council , only this past few months as I am totally enraged by what you are allowing to happen on mine and other residents doorstep
Regards Marilyn
Harbour View
South Shields
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: David Routledge
To: Gordon.Atkinson at southtyneside.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 11:31
Subject:
Dear Mr. Atkinson,
It would appear that work unrelated to construction has begun on the Tyneslipway causing unacceptable noise. The matter is being raised with environmental health.
However I feel it is incumbent on the planning dept. to act immediately to have this work stopped as the structure in which the work is taking place does not comply with the grant of planning permission. Notwithstanding that there are serious concerns over the size of the structure which we await your further comments on there are issues in relation to cladding and to doors which wered meant to contain noise and pollution but which have not been fitted.
The company appear to be riding roughshod over their obligations and are making your dept. appear toothless.
Can you reply immediately with confirmation that you will be enforcing the planning condions forthwith and have this unaccepatable work stopped.
Yours
David Routledge