Category Archives: Complaint Type

Noise from UK Docks

Noise – View from Harbour View

Leave a comment

From: Harbour View
Sent: 02 February 2016 11:18
To: Kevin Burrell
Subject: Noise from UK Docks yard River Drive

Mr Burrell

I have sent an official complaint to STC re unacceptable noise from yard since 08:00 today, Tuesday 2 Feb.
Consisting of: sudden and reverberating loud bangs of what sounds like metal being dropped; constant grinding of metal; loud hammering; and rumbling of a forklift truck shifting stuff around the open yard.
Exactly the reasons we gave to – and were ignored by – the planning committee yesterday.
The noise issues need: a consistent (ie for 24/7 for the minimum of a month) to show the environmental impact on the residents. Not some statements from the interested party who is anything but impartial! – on what is happening now, and therefore how a site expansion would exponentially increase the noise.
Can we apply common sense to this please?

Mrs R~~~~~~
Sent from Samsung Mobile Continue reading Noise – View from Harbour View →

Noise from UK Docks

Pollution from UK Docks

1 Comment

Melanie Todd wrote in an email circulated to Local Residents:

At yesterdays Planning Committee meeting public assurances were given by Mr Ian Rutherford, Principal Environmental Health Officer, STC that complaints re noise, pollutants and any issues the public have re environmental and public safety from the work at UK Docks site would be thoroughly investigated and enforcements would be put in place wherever they were needed. Continue reading Pollution from UK Docks →

Noise from UK Docks, Uncategorized

Noise – View from Greens Place

Leave a comment

From: Greens Place
To: Circulation List
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:00 AM
Subject: Noise pollution from UK Docks

At yesterdays Planning Committee meeting public assurances were given by Mr Ian Rutherford, Principal Environmental Health Officer, STC that complaints re noise, pollutants and any issues the public have re environmental and public safety from the work at UK Docks site would be thoroughly investigated and enforcements would be put in place wherever they were needed.

This morning they have been emailed them regarding the continuing noise of steel being worked on in the open air, this has been reported since last Thursday. Everybody is urged to register their complaints by email or in writing (not by phone) as often as you have one.

environmentalhealth@southtyneside.gov.uk

the officer dealing with complaints is Kevin.Burrell@southtyneside.gov.uk

If we all work together we can make a bigger impact.

Second Phase

UK Docks River Drive – Phase II

Leave a comment

ST/0461/14/FUL

This application goes before the Planning Committee of South Tyneside Council which is meeting on February 1st 2016 in Jarrow Town Hall. The agent is Gary Craig Building Services Ltd.

The Council are laying themselves open to ridicule and worse in recommending this application principally because the one of the items is an extension to the existing boat shed. Continue reading UK Docks River Drive – Phase II →

Corruption, Misinforming the LGO

Caution from Customer Advocates

2 Comments

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

Condition 2

This is Interesting

Leave a comment

The Application for change of use of an Industrial Site – Clevedon West – North Somerset.

Permission is sought for the change the use of an attached pair of industrial units from class B1 (light industrial) to class B2 (general industrial).  Permission was granted for the buildings in 2002 under reference 02/P/1114/F.

Consultations

Third Parties:  Two letters of objection have been received.  The principal planning points made are as follows:

1.             Noise, pollution and disturbance.  Nuisance from loud noises, spray paint and fumes experienced in the past.
2.             B2 use would generate more noise.
3.             Proposed increase in working hours would be unacceptable.
4.             B1 use should be enforced.

Clevedon Town Council:             “No objections”.
Environment Agency:       Objects to the proposal on the grounds that the application fails to demonstrate that the risk of pollution to controlled waters has been addressed and that no Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted.

Planning Issues
The principal planning issues in this case are (1) The principle of the development, (2) The impact on the living conditions of neighbours, (3) Flood risk, (4) Contamination and (5) Highways and access.

RECOMMENDATION:  REFUSE for the following reasons:

1.      The siting of a general industrial use in close proximity to residential property is likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of noise nuisance for adjoining residents.  The proposal will therefore be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents and is contrary to policies GDP/2 and E/4 of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan and to advice contained in PPS24 (Planning and Noise).

2.      The site lies within a high-risk flood zone (zone 3) and the application fails to include a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment.  In the absence of a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment, the development is considered to be at an unacceptable risk of flooding and the proposal conflicts with policy GDP/2 of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan and advice contained in PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk).

3.      Given the history of the site, the site is considered to be at risk from pollution.  The application fails to include an assessment of the pollution risk at the site or any relevant mitigation measures.  In the absence of details to the contrary the development is considered to pose a risk of contamination to controlled waters and the proposal is therefore contrary to  policy GDP/2 of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan and to advice contained in PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control).

Reference: http://apps.n-somerset.gov.uk/cairo/docs/doc18584.htm

Condition 2

Only in South Shields

Leave a comment

can a structure as big a UK Dock’s shelter be built without planning permission.
There seem to be two camps:

The “It is ‘Legal’ Camp” The “Built without Planning Permission Camp”
Case Officer 2012-2014 You and I etc.
Chairman and Treasurer TGA  Petitioners
 Head of Development Services: gives Politician’s answers. Planning Manager: it took four weeks to sway him.
LG Ombudsman: it appears that the investigator was not told all the facts about the shelter by ‘A Senior Planning Officer’.  Customer Advocacy: it took 2 months to sway them.
MP for South Shields won’t say.
The CEO of South Tyneside Council has hidden behind the
Local Government Ombudsman.
If he comes down on this side he has to overrule his legal section.
 If he comes down on our side, does the shelter get pulled down?
New Case Officer (Now hiding behind Customer Advocacy and the LGO) You and I etc.
Condition 2

Work Continues on Shed built without Planning Permission

Leave a comment

The road end is 15.5m high. All indications from documents held by South Tyneside Council the planned height of that end is 12.5m. Despite objectors telling the Council that the shelter was not built to plan, it is now completed and in use (day 708).
Day 3 the height was being questioned- not answered-PC
Day 81 the height and width said to be compliant-PC
Day 106 the height and width said to be compliant-PC
Continue reading Work Continues on Shed built without Planning Permission →