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.
Category Archives: Complaint Type
Talks about 8296/14
From: George Mansbridge
Sent: 30 June 2014 08:19
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Cc: Leanne Bootes
Subject: RE: Inappropriate Development on River Drive. GM/LB 253539 or 248789 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Hello Michael
I will ask Leanne to make the arrangements for us to meet up and we can cover all the various issues. If it helps I can have the relevant planning and environmental health case officers sit in.
This, of course, won’t prejudice your right to go to Stage 3.
George
George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
South Tyneside Council
Request Talk on 8296/14
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk [mailto:mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk]
Sent: 28 June 2014 07:56
To: George Mansbridge
Subject: Inappropriate Development on River Drive. GM/LB 253539 or 248789
Dear Mr Mansbridge.
Thank you for your letter about the development at UK Docks. I apologise for not responding promptly. I was not sure whether to reply as a Stage 3 complaint or first to try and explain to you that you have been badly advised by the planning office about Drawing 8296/14 before proceeding.
With the work at the site resuming, the noise is apparently unbearable, I have decided on the latter course but before I can progress any further I will take you up on your offer to meet with me and show me the relevant plans. I can make any afternoon in the near future apart from Jul 9th and 18th.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson
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
In the beginning: The First Shed
Now I’ve left Greens Place for Amble, yes my house in Green’s Place is for sale, I have time to sit back and reappraise the Slipway Shed Situation. This was from the day the bright new steelwork arrived at H Wilson’s slipway on River Drive.
Subject: Tyne Gateway
From: Melanie
Date: Thu, 5 Sept 2013 22:55:06
To: Mick Dawson
Hi Mick,
Your rantings always welcome.
You are correct in your observations, I spoke at length with the Head Planning Officer this afternoon who kindly emailed the original planning permission from 1996. He gave me the background etc on what is happening, and what they intend to put plans in for next.
As Matthew put it…’They demolished Historic Shipyards to build new houses and now they are building Shipyards in front of Historic houses!
A close eye needs to be kept on how this develops and who takes responsibility.
Melanie
On 5 September 2013, at 22:37, Mick Dawson wrote:
Hi Melanie.
It looks to me to be steelwork to make a cover over the existing slipway. However this may be far from the facts as this council are notorious for doing things through the back door.
A good example of this the public landings which you know quite a bit about:- The one at the Alum went a few years ago by an elegant sleight of hand and now the one at Redheads is about to go. It doesn’t make much sense to me as this town exists because of the river and why are they,the council, now turning their back on it. Water fountains beside the Customs House just do not count.
One needs little creeks and backwaters for people to grow up, develop and feel part of a place and also people like me in my old age to sit by and ponder about life’s changes. I could go on a lot more but your Councillor will say “get to the point” and I will have to shut up.
enough of my ramblings,
cheers Mick
PS. it is a shame to have to say this but you are probably wasting your time, “pissing against the wind ” in common sailors parlance, trying to involve Graeme.
From: Melanie
To: Graeme Watson
Cc: Some residents in Greens Place
Sent:Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:56 PM
Subject:Tyne Gateway
To the Chair of Tyne Gateway
Dear Graeme,
Please convene an emergency general meeting of all members and or prospective members of the Tyne Gateway Association to discuss the development on River Drive of the new shipyard which commenced without notice either from the companies and construction firm involved or from the Local Authority.
Regards,
Melanie Todd, Member of Tyne Gateway Association.
Gazette Spoiler 1st Apr 2014
This article contains a lot of misinformation: the main one being the height of the shed.
| Reality | Gazette |
| Height of Shed 51ft | 36ft |
| Semi derelict boat yard | Booming Boatyard |
| Nearly 200 Petitioners | 130 Petitioners |
Letter from Head of Development Services
Dear Mr Dawson
STAGE 2 COMPLAINT – Development at UK Docks Ltd, River Drive
I am writing in response to your letters of 2nd and 9th May regarding the above.
You have made it clear in your letter of 2nd May that you were not happy that I referred your email of 4th April 2014 on to my Planning Department. I apologise if you feel that was inappropriate, however, this is required under the Council’s complaints procedure and allows for the appropriate escalation of cases to Head of Service level should the operational department not provide a satisfactory response. I appreciate that this can come across as somewhat process driven however it is important for consistency and helps should you continue to be dissatisfied having exhausted the process and wish to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. For this reason I am treating this as a Stage 2 response.
In your letter of 2nd May you highlight that the slipway is operational yet the shelter is incomplete. You correctly refer to a letter I sent to one of your neighbours in which I highlighted my intention to instruct UK Docks Ltd to cease use of the shelter until works were compete. This is something I continue to feel strongly about. I have met with the owners and senior officers at UK Docks to make them aware of my views on this matter and have followed that up in writing. When I met with them, they made it clear that to stop using the slipway would have a significant detrimental impact on their business. The difficulty I have is that the established use of the slipway is for general industrial purposes and in effect they can quite lawfully undertake works to repair boats on the slipway and across the entire site.
Your letter of 9th May focuses on the dimensions of the shelter as being built and in particular your view that, as well as being wider than approved, the shelter is also 3m taller. You refer in particular to Drawing 8296/14. That would represent a significant deviation from the approved scheme.
I have investigated this and referred to the approved drawing cross-referenced with the dimensions taken on site by my planning staff. The height of the shelter does not significantly deviate from the approved scheme as you have suggested. The approved dimensions that I state are those which are annotated on drawing number 8296/1A which was submitted to the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation on 11 April 1996. That must be the plan which the Development Corporation was referring to when it granted planning permission in 1996. The height of the steelwork at River Drive is clearly marked as 12.5m+3m (total 15.5m). The difference in height of the slipway over the length of the shelter is marked as 96.1-93.444 (2.656m). 15.5m plus 2.656m gives the height at the riverside of 18.156m. I attach a A1 size copy of this plan.
The drawing you have referred to [8296/14] was submitted in discharge of condition 4 relating to the fixing details of the end panels. The engineer also chose to include a gable elevation of the structure on the same drawing but that was not drawn to scale. If it would help I would be more than happy to meet with you to show you the relevant plans and elevation as this may clear up this specific point.
I do hope that my letter adequately covers the various points in your letters of the 2nd May and 9th May. If you are dissatisfied with my response, you may wish to move to Stage 3 of the Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure by writing to the Chief Executive, South Tyneside Council, Town hall, Westoe Road, South Shields, NE33 2RL.
Yours sincerely
George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
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