Sent: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:10
Subject: Fwd: Planning application UK Docks – ST/0461/14/FUL
Dear Garry Simmonette,
Planning Application UK Docs Your reference: ST/0461/14/FUL
We were informed by Gordon Atkinson (see email attached) that you are dealing with this matter. Continue reading Comprehensive Protest
I received a copy of the complaint sent in to Panning Enquires from a couple who live in Greens Place and have used it as I cannot remember now if I have actually put a complaint in since the amendment went in, the agent had not specified the height of the second shed in the first submission. The planning department had been challenged about accepting plans to build another shed 3m too high. It appears that people who protested when these plans were first submitted will be ignored and only the objections of those who complained against the renewed application would be considered. This ruling appears to be in use again by the Planning Office in the application to demolish the Beacon Public House.
Continue reading To Planning Enquiries
UK Docks Tyne Slipway ST/0461/14/FUL [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
From: “Customer Advocates” <Customer.Advocates@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, December 9, 2015 2:13 pm
To: “mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk” <mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Dear Mr Dawson
I have been forwarded your emails to the Planning Team dated 4th and 7th December 2015, in order to clarify the Council’s position regarding your comments on issues relating to the existing boat repair shed at UK Docks Tyne Slipway and your earlier complaint to the Council regarding this matter.
Your email of 4th December refers to not being satisfied with the responses to the second part of your earlier contact to the team on 30 September. This was regarding the planning enforcement aspect of the existing boat repair shed. This matter has been investigated fully by the Council through its corporate complaints procedure. The complaint was not upheld and was also considered and decided by the Local Government Ombudsman who found no fault with the Council’s decision.
The Local Government Ombudsman’s final decision dated 15 April 2015 was that:
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.
We have also responded to a further enquiry made to the Council via your then local MP Anne-Marie Trevelyan, dated 1 June 2015, which claimed you had not been able to locate any details from the Council on why the shed had been approved despite the breach in planning conditions, even though at that time you had received complaint responses from both the Council and the Ombudsman.
You also submitted a further complaint to the Council on the same matter on 13 July 2015. I have attached my responses to your contact which confirmed the Council were not to consider the matter further.
As advised in my email of 22 July the Council do not intend to address this matter further. We ask that you refrain from referring to these historic issues in your further contacts with the Council.
Your comments on the revised planning application ST/0461/14/FUL are being dealt with through the legal planning procedure and any comments will be considered when a decision is made on the application in due course.
Yours sincerely
Alison Hoy
Performance and Information Support Officer
Customer Advocates
South Tyneside Council
To: Garry Simmonette
CC: George Mansbridge; THV Admin for Circulation;
Emma Lewell-Buck MP; Stephen Hepburn MP
Cllr John Anglin; Cllr Audrey McMillan; Cllr John Wood
Dear Mr Simmonette,
In my email to you on Friday 4th Dec I assumed, possibly wrongly, that you would be familiar with the planning application ST/1146/13 submitted to meet the conditions of the grant of permission ST/0242/96 in 1996. This email is to give you some background but I wish first to dispel a common assumption held about drawing 8296/1A.
It has been assumed, wrongly, in recent correspondence I have had, that the section of the shed on this drawing is the landward end. It is the river end and there is no note to say that it, against standard drawing convention, is otherwise.
In October 2013 Local Residents (20 or so) met in the Littlehaven Hotel, South Shields, to discuss the Shed or Slipway Cover being constructed by UK Docks, nearby, in River Drive. The meeting agreed that the shed was built much higher than planned but this was difficult to prove because the plans provided by the Council could be interpreted to indicate that the height was not materially different from that planned and anyway the Council would not say how high the framework was. The the meeting decided to enlist the help of the Tyne Gateway Association.
About 30 Residents attended meeting of the Tyne Gateway Assn meeting on 9th November 2013 to which the ward Councillors were invited (Councillors Anglin and MacMillan attended, apologies were given for Councillor Wood).
To the view that the Shed was too high and in the wrong place,* it was added that it was too wide as well. Councillor Anglin said the meeting appeared to be confused about which end of the shed was planned to be 15.5m and that he would try and arrange for a meeting with the Council to clear this up. There is a gradient of nearly 3m between the ends of the shed and the shed is, by all accounts 3 meters too high.
A meeting was arranged on the 25th Nov 2013 with the Council. Three TGA Committee Members, along with two Councillors, Anglin and MacMillan, apologies were again given for Councillor Wood, attended as well. We were told that the shed was built to plan and that there was nothing we could do about it until the application to add another shed, slipway, rebuild the office block etc. was received.
The width of the shed was measured shortly after as it could be quite easily done by very simple surveying and was found to be a meter wider than planned. It took three more months before the Council admitted that the shed was also too high. Please see email from Mr Atkinson, 13th February 2014, he was the Planning Manager at that time. We were using drawing 8296/14 in our discussion as it did not have misleading errors.
Mr Mansbridge in his letter to Residents, in May 2014, defending his wish not to take enforcement action used 8296/1A to justify his position. This is why I asked you in my email to take a fresh look both drawings and determine for yourself what you think the planned height should be.
It would appear that the shed should be dismantled or a retrospective planning application made for its continued use and that is what you should be addressing, not an application to extend it.
Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson
* it is believed that UK Docks were offered an alternative site by Port of Tyne: it is the extension of River Quay and the infill behind it that put an end to the slipway business in Tyne Dock after all.
PS who has taken over Mr Atkinson’s responsibility in respect of complaints about planning decisions?
To: Garry Simmonette
CC: George Mansbridge; THV Circulation
Emma Lewell-Buck MP; Stephen Hepburn MP
Cllr John Anglin; Cllr Audrey McMillan; Cllr John Wood
Amended Planning Application – ST/0461/14/FUL.
Dear Garry,
Please note that on the 3rd of November I moved back to Greens Place. Your
Council Tax Section has already been informed of this move.
I have included the Ward Councillors and our MPs because I think they
should be appraised of the goings on at UK Docks on River Drive. I’ve
copied in 2 Local Residents for circulation as they see fit.
Please thank Mr Mansbridge for the letter advising me of the amendment to the Application ST/0461/14/FUL.
I wrote to you directly on the 30th Sept because of some concerns of mine about the application (pdf copy attached). My concerns regarding the planning procedures appear to have been covered but you have not replied and the second part of my email has not been addressed. The shed, UK Docks, River Drive was built without planning permission.
Continue reading Amended Planning Application – ST/0461/14/FUL.
Dear Anne-Marie,
Thank you for taking up my case and copying me your letter to Martin Swales, CEO, South Tyneside Council.
I think you have to be very specific about which end of the shelter you refer to when talking about the height. The fall along the length of the shelter is about 3m and this coincidentally is the height of overbuild. If you have not said that the planned height (15.5m) is the river end of the shelter, Mr Swales, if he follows the arguments of Messrs Cunningham, Atkinson and Mansbridge before him, will say it refers to the road end.
I will send you a letter, as soon as possible, confirming this email. I will copy it to Mr Swales, carefully making this observation.
your sincerely
Michael Dawson
The MP for Berwick starts:
There are then two paragraphs which may be subject to litigation and she finishes:
This letter is copied to me.
15th May:
Stephen Hepburn MP for Jarrow acknowledges my recent correspondence relating to the slipway cover and forwarded it to Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP for Berwick.
South Shields MP Case Ref: ZA4803
From: “Emma Lewell-Buck”
To: Mr Dawson
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:54 PM
Subject: From the office of Emma Lewell-Buck (Case Ref: ZA4803)
Dear Mr Dawson,
It is disappointing that this response is not helpful to the situation. I want to be very clear: I will continue to act on behalf of people who live in the South Shields constituency regarding the Tyne Slipway if I am re-elected.
I have noted your comments regarding candidates’ addresses on the ballot paper but I would be grateful if you would take considerable care and refrain from further and wider disclosure of my address which may put my safety and security at risk.
I am disappointed to see political games being played. I sense some mischief-making at work. I know of no other reason why you would circulate details of my residence in this way.
There are occasions when candidates may have good reason not to want their address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper other than to state the constituency in which their home address is situated. Please take note that I have good cause not to wish my address to be made public as a reasonable security measure to ensure that my home and family remain safe during and after the General Election, and there is no obligation to do so.
I hope that this clarifies my position.
Yours sincerely,
Emma Lewell-Buck
Labour Party Parliamentary Candidate for South Shields
Ede House
143 Westoe Road
South Shields
NE33 3PD
Office: 0191 427 1240
From: Michael Dawson
Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2015
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Slipway Cover – South Shields
To: Candidates in South Shields and Jarrow constituencies;
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck, mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk*
Dear All,
I think my ex MP, although technically correct in her reply to me was actually ducking the issue. As one can see from the reply from Sir Alan Beith’s Office they are not really interested in buildings built without planning permission in South Tyneside.
see http://theharbourview.co.uk/cover/
The slipway cover in question, she resides in earshot**, is probably an embarrassment and it is possibly one of the reasons she has left her address off the ballot paper. I’m lead to believe her address is not on the ballot paper but I may be wrong.
I know this information is a bit late to help you in your election campaigns but it might help if we have a hung parliament and another election before long. I’ve copied the Jarrow PPCs into this email because they may know of issues arising from planning decisions made in the Town Hall in South Shields.
Regards
Mick Dawson
* changed mailbox from personal to theharbourview.co.uk
** the estate where she lives was named in original email