All posts by moderator

Condition 2

Application for Second Shed: ST/0461/14/FUL

6 Comments

Closing date for representations was on July 25th

The proposal :-
Demolition of the existing single storey office block and workshop/winch house with additional office and storage accommodation on its roof. The existing buildings will be
replaced with a new 2 storey office block, workshop with winch house and mezzanine floor to provide a staff canteen, managers office, kitchen and sanitary facilities, an extension to the existing boat shed, an additional boat shed (to match existing) and a new jetty. The existing vehicular access is to be relocated.

The proposal: PDF copy of letter.
For more detail: Application Number is ST/0461/14/FUL

To make a comment on this application it’s probably best to email STC as the planning explorer has a limit of 2000 characters. Please include the planning application reference number and your postal address if using email (or post*) . They cannot consider comments that are anonymous or do not include your address.
Email: planningapplications@southtyneside.gov.uk
Post:  Planning Group, Town Hall and Civic Offices, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, NE33 2RL.

* for those living near the Town Hall remember: you can always deliver your mail by hand.

Condition 2

Warning Notice – 30 Jan

1 Comment

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:07:54 +0000
Subject: Re: FW: Slipway Development – Work Continues
From: davidroutledge@btinternet.com
To: daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk

I’d be very careful about being locked into the complaints route which has been my concern all along. The council are fudging the correct direction we can take which is about law.  Complaints are about procedures not legalities. We should be making a stance on the  adherence to the legally agreed plans. My worry throughout has been focusing too much on the complaint process, and not that the business owners are at fault, breaching the plans.

Julie Routledge

——– Original message ——–
From Michael Dawson
Date: 29/01/2014 13:53 (GMT+00:00)
To Melanie Todd
David and Julie,Michelle Martin,
Subject FW: Slipway Development – Work Continues

Hi Melanie,

Here are some details of Gordon Atkinson’s reply. He has admitted that the structure is a meter wider than any plans allow.

It looks like Tyne and Wear DC did approve a structure 15.5m high at the south end, see ST1AA3V000… but I’m not so sure, I’ll do some more digging and let you know. He has however glossed over my observations on the drawing ST114613CO… that the south end should only be 12.5m high.

Two main things to say.1) Is it wrong to assume that  the drawing of the doors  will be based on an authorised plan? 2) there are three pointers to the door being at the north end (making the elevation 15.5m high).  Look at the drawing on the portal as it is clearer than my annotated one. ST114613COND Details 300913.pdf

i) note on drawing “Strips to draw back to each side to allow access for boats …”.
ii) section at door jamb which shows the cladding on the downward ie north side.
iii) the apparent use of third angle projection would imply that the door is at the north end.

The last paragraph of his reply is steering me into the complaints procedure by implying that this is a complaint.  I still, however, have had no real answer to the issue which I raised at the beginning.

” I notice that work on this site has recommenced in the last day or so and I am surprised as  there is still an outstanding issue which I think has not been addressed. The issue relates to the second condition of planning permission granted under ST/0242/96/UD which has not been met. This condition states:- ‘The
development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.’ “.

I might try one more time because I know from bitter experience that once one gets into the various stages of complaint, the responses are designed to obfuscate the issue even more so that by the time it gets to the ombudsman he or she is not able to make a fair judgement on the issue you are really complaining about.

I’ve copied this to Julie and David so that they know I’m keeping up the fight and I’d like you please to forward it to anyone in Harbour View that has raised the issue that the slipway has not been built to authorised plans i.e. it is 3m too high.

I’m printing a copy of these mails and will deliver it to Michelle if her email is still troublesome. I know she will be interested. She was the first so say the structure was too wide and it was this that prompted me to estimate the width to be 13+m.

where’s the cranes – is it too windy?
cheers Mick

Condition 2

Slipway – Note from 7th Nov 2013

Melanie
Today I spent over two hours checking out the disks at the Town Hall.
There are many folders that contain many files.  It is difficult to pick out what is relevant to our complaint.  The first hour or so was spent in the company of a planning dept member looking at a CD that contained many letters mostly dated 1996.  As the disc contained very few drawings the planning member went off and found another disc that did have drawing files on along with many more files involving copies of letters or emails.  The drawing folder/files were not clearly listed so it was a matter of trying various ones to discover them.
The gist of what I read (in my opinion) seemed to suggest that Mr Wilson (Slipways) in his 1996 proposals would like a no restrictions regime and the planning permission appeared to allow this.  However The Council Environmental Service objected to the Slipways doing shot blasting after a strong complaint from the boatyard next to the Slipway.  Mr Wilson seemed to suggest that stopping shot blasting was one of the main jobs that he carried out and that if this was stopped the whole expansion of the Slipway would be pointless.
Also in 1996 The Tyne and Wear Development wrote to Harry Wilson indicating they would not support further expansion so close to a domestic estate.
Another thing I saw was an application (Dated Aug 2013 I think) for construction of a further slipway and office block that would be close to the boundary fence of the   domestic property,  When enquiring if this could be viewed the planning office member stated that it was a pre-application that was private and not for viewing.
Regards
Paul Hepburn
Uncategorized

UK Docks River Drive – Noise

An Email to the Council, MP and others with reference to :-

http://www.noisenet.org/Noise_Enviro_stat1.htm

Please be aware: continuing and exacerbated issues with the noise emanating from Mr Wilson’s UK Docks. It is a nuisance and unacceptable in an area surrounded by residential properties. Please see attached link with regard to noise pollution.
Residential rights state we do not have to endure the levels of noise we are experiencing.
We have rights equal to the owner of the business site. Therefore you must treat the residents of Greens Place, Harbour View, and others affected with the same level of law. Until the owner is able to provide accoustic sound- proofing, you should apply the laws which stop the work until adequate action is taken to reduce the noise.
I am unable to open windows and doors at the back of my house for ventilation due to the extreme levels of noise coming from the yard. This is an environmental and health issue that needs immediately addressing.
Council and representatives: I would appreciate if you could also answer why Mr Wilson’s yard and business seems to have precedence over residents rights, and the fact that this estate was built and owned in 1991 with the ensuing residential rights, above a business that has remained relatively dormant until 2013, and was only owned by the Wilson’s since 1994?

Council: Can you explain the anomaly of this situation please? I would hate to think that Mr Wilson has the priority due to other reasons we don’t fully have the knowledge of? Including verbal or documentary agreements we have not been made aware of.

Thank you
Julie Routledge

Uncategorized

Planning under Vested Interests

5 Comments

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.

 

Uncategorized

Example of a Normal Planning Process

Leave a comment
Sent in by Melanie
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”.

Condition 2

Same Old Deceits

Leave a comment

After two months of waiting for a response from the South Tyneside Council to our petition and promise of a meeting for them to explain their actions over this inappropriate development all they do is to send a letter to residents affected by the noise repeating the deceit that it is built to approved plans.

In the letter the Head of Development Services says:-

The approved dimensions of the steelwork are:
Proposed height 15.5m at the River Drive end. The gradient of the slipway is 2.66m over the length of the shelter. This would mean the height at the riverside end would be 18.16m above the slipway;
Proposed length 22m;
Proposed width 12.2m.

This is not true, there is no supporting documentation held by the Panning Office to support the  statement that the proposed height of 15.5m at the River Drive has been approved.

Condition 5

Breach of Planning Permission?

1 Comment

From: Melanie Todd
Subject: Re: Breach of Grant of Planning Permission and Conditions, UK Docks, River Drive
Date: 29 April 2014 20:18:31 BST
To: Head of Planning
Re: Breach of Grant of Planning Permission and Conditions, UK Docks, River Drive

Dear Head of Planning,

With regard to my last e-mail to you of the 7th April 2014, and your reply of the 9th April 2014, both of which are copied below, I am still awaiting answers to the questions I posed.
You stated you needed to talk to the Head of Development Services in order to reply. Have you had the opportunity to talk to the Head of Development Services yet, and are you able to give replies to any of the questions I raised? I believe your unwillingness to answer questions and the continuous lack of clarity over the situation, despite eight months of correspondence, to be unacceptable. I and other residents have a right to ask questions; voice concerns; be heard; and to receive comprehensive replies from local authority officers to reasonable questions and concerns.
In shared correspondence received by a neighbour in Harbour View from the Head of Development Services dated 04/04/14, the Head of Development Services states that the the planning permission requires that “the ends of the structure are fully enclosed when works are being undertaken”; “the approved plans require that mono-flex end panels are attached to the structure”; “The structure is however being used operationally by the applicant and these end panels have not been attached”; and, further, the Head of Development Services goes on to say that it is his intention “to write formally to the operator instructing them that all operational works within the shelter should cease with immediate effect until such a time that the end panels are installed”.
Today, 29th April 2014, we see another vessel being worked on inside the unfinished structure at the UK Docks, River Drive site. End panels to the structure have not been installed.
Strangely, you have stated that “The council in its role as planning authority cannot act to stop work which relates to the lawful use of the site for general industrial purposes. The status of the structure can have no bearing on the continuing use of the site”. I have asked you to explain this and you have not done so. Your statement appears to ignore your own admission that the structure is not built to plan and is in breach of a Grant of Planning Permission which you are charged with overseeing. Furthermore, your position of 18th March 2014 appears to be contradictory to the position of the Head of Development Services, as quoted above from 4/4/2014.
Could you please as a matter of urgency address this further breach of planning permission by UK Docks, and give some clarity to the position of STMBC with regard to the status of the development at UK Docks River Drive site and address the legitimate and serious concerns that have been raised by myself and fellow concerned residents over an 8 month period since the unannounced start of this development, and still not fully addressed.

Your sincerely,
Melanie Todd

Uncategorised

Industrial site next to Harbour View

From: David Routledge
Planning Manager; Cllr.John.Wood; Cllr.John.Anglin; Environmental Officer;
Sent: Monday, 31 March 2014, 10:50
Subject: Re: Industrial site next to Harbour View

Dear Planning Manager,

The ‘report’ that the structure has not been built in accordance with permissions seems to have come as a surprise to you but as you know local residents have been pointing this out for several months. Your department attempted to claim for some time that this was not the case and only persistence from local residents seems to have finally forced your department to admit that there are ‘difficulties’ with the structure. As you know we believe the structure to be significantly wider and taller than permitted.
Why has your department not imposed an immediate cessation of work in terms of construction of the structure pending your ‘investigation’?
I can report that construction was still being carried out on 31 March despite frequent requests for intervention by your department.
The situation has recently been further compounded by the commencement of work on a boat within the confines of the shed contrary to the conditions of the 1996 planning permission which expressly forbids work to commence without the conditions being fully met.
My view is that your department is guilty of series of serious errors (which could amount to gross incompetence).
The impression is that every attempt has been made to allow the structure to continue to be developed (despite your knowledge that planning conditions have not been met) and that your department has made insufficient effort to carry out your statutory duties in relation to the conditions contained in the aforesaid planning permission. These conditions were clearly designed to protect local residents and as I understand it were included after consultation with your colleagues in environmental protection. The implications of the conditions are clear. No work that is a nuisance to local residents should be being carried out outside the shed which should be a contained structure (in order to minimise impact).

Why did your department not impose an immediate cessation of work on the boat that until recently has been housed in the shed in terms of failure to meet the conditions of the 1996 planning permission pending your ‘investigation’?

I understand that you have a duty to intervene please explain why this was not been exercised.
As regards to your definition of the site as ‘general industrial’ please provide details of the statute from which you have sourced your quote and confirm that there are no definitions for planning purposes which allow some commercial activity but not full industrial use.
I note that you say that the matter is complex and time is needed to consider the matter. I would suggest that the issues above are not complex although I understand that the errors that have been made by your department may be embarrassing. I also think that you have had more than sufficient time to respond. As previously stated, I believe that you were under an obligation to suspend work until matters were resolved.

I note that further work is being carried out on the shed today (31 March). Given the circumstances and our request that the building be altered to conform with the planning permission your continuing failure to intervene seems to be adding to the potential costs that the developer will incur in order to comply.
The only conclusion that we can draw is that you have no intention of enforcing the conditions imposed by the planning permission and that the developer has been given tacit approval to carry on and told that a retrospective application will be viewed favourably.

Please can you provide copies of any relevant correspondence you have had with the owners or developers.

In the meantime I ask you to:
Set out the nature of the complexities as you see them.
Indicate precisely what you are doing to address these.
Set out a clear timetable for resolution.

Your previous delaying tactics are not acceptable.
We understand that you have an obligation to keep us fully informed and that this would be something the Planning Ombudsman would also consider if reference to them is required.

It gives me no pleasure to have to write in such terms. My privacy and ability to have quite enjoyment of my property have been compromised by your departments failure to adequately control this development or deal with legitimate queries.
You will note that I have copied this to John Anglin and John Wood and I’m aware that other residents are asking similar questions.
Please consider these issues immediately and supply a response to of the points raised by return.

Yours in frustration,
David Routledge