Just history now, removed from the menu but there is copy of it in ‘Evidence’ if anyone is interested. South Tyneside Council ignored it but 300 people added their names including 38 from this website so it was important . Thank you everyone.
Category Archives: Condition 2
Breach of Condition 2
Shed Signed Off.
As the building work appeared to be completed on Monday(1st September) I emailed Head of Development Services to ask if the building had been signed off and read on for the interesting responses I have received.
Melanie
Shields Ferry sails through her underwater MoT
Published on the 21 August 2014 08:53 by Shields Gazette
THE Shields Ferry remains shipshape for passenger service – after sailing through a key inspection carried out by a remote control mini submarine.
A remotely operated vehicle (ROV) was sent underwater to check out the hull of the Spirit of the Tyne – after fears the vessel could have been left high and dry.
The Spirit of the Tyne, the newer of two ferries used by operators Nexus, was due to enter dry dock for the mandatory hull inspection.
But doubts over the availability of the dry dock facility on the Tyne left the ferry operators seeking an alternative. Continue reading Shields Ferry sails through her underwater MoT
UK Docks new Planning Application for River Drive
Please take 10 minutes to read this and take action by 24th July (three days time)
Your objection does not need to be long or complicated, if you only have 5 minutes to spare simply write a line stating your objection.
Firstly the status of our petition oversized shed being built on River Drive South Shields by UK Docks is that ST Council have admitted that the ’shed’ has not been built to plan, and the only course of action available to the Council to consider is to ask the developer to take the shed down, but they have decided not to enforce that action. That fight goes on. Continue reading UK Docks new Planning Application for River Drive
A Shed Too High?
Senior officers of STC do not accept the proposition that the shed is built 3m too high and that quite detailed drawings are not drawn to scale. At the same time they do accept that it is built 1 m too wide. Read more.
More interestingly the plans for the expansion of UK Docks business at River Drive where it is surrounded on two sides by residential properties have caught the attention of the Press outside South Shields.
Appeal by UK Docks
In early May a selected few in Harbour View have received a letter with their plans for the site from UK Dock. Make of it what you will but it has appeared 9 months too late and shows what is really planned in a most favourable light. Rumour has it that UK Docks really want to move the 70 ton crane from Sunderland to this Site.
Application for Second Shed: ST/0461/14/FUL
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.
Warning Notice – 30 Jan
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
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
Meeting – Thurs 22nd
Dear All,
Following the latest response from Mr Mansbridge at STMBC Development Services, and a letter received by some residents from UK Docks I have booked St Stephens Church Hall to allow us all to update ourselves on the latest developments concerning the slipway, and to discuss options.
The Petitioners meeting will be at 6.30pm this Thursday 22nd May. Why not come along after voting in the local elections, just around the corner from the polling station at Hadrian School. Vehicular access from Mile End Road opposite the Bee Hive Pub. Sorry for the shift in meeting venue but this was beyond our control and is now our most accessible option.
Politicians again are not invited.
Hope to see you all there, it has been suggested that we have to act swiftly.
Kind regards, Melanie