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.

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

The dimensions of the shed measured by the Council in September are as follows:
Length 22.254m
Width 13.1m
Height at end facing River Drive 15.5m (over 50ft)
Height at end facing river 18m

The height of of structure as given by Paul Kelly in the Gazette in September and repeated 01-Apr-2014: 11m (36ft).

The authorised planned height at the road end is 12.5m(41ft)
This is taken from the elevation of river end of plans submitted by the agents for Tyne Docks at about the same time, September 2013, which give at the river end:
width 12.2m and height 15.5m

Press Release
For immediate release
Date of Release: 2.4.2014
Contact: Melanie Todd
From the concerned petitioners
Over 150 sign petition against riverside construction at South Shields.
Petition against “anti-social and environmentally hazardous” development at River Drive, South Shields.
A petition signed by over 150 residents and visitors to the area is to be delivered to the Chief Executive of South Tyneside Council at Town Hall offices this Thursday (3.4.2014).
The petition concerns the closure of an historic shipyard at Redheads Landing, Commercial Road, and its re-siting in new sheds downstream and amongst residential riverside properties at River Drive, South Shields.
Complaints to the Council have been made by numerous local residents over the last six months against the construction in close proximity to residential and retirement homes of a shipyard shed breaching size restrictions and environmental conditions for planning consent dating back to 1996. Complaints have also been formally registered against a pre-planning proposal from the developers, UK Docks, to build another two sheds and to install a 70 ton crane onto the site in order to carry out heavy lifting, shot-blasting, and ship repair commissions.
Local concern has focused on alleged failures by South Tyneside Council Planning and Environmental Services to enforce planning law under their mandatory statutory obligations.
The petitioners’ protest is against:
✦ A lack of relevant information from STMBC
✦ A lack of public consultation on the unannounced construction
✦ A lack of research and impact surveys
✦ Alleged failures by STMBC in its performance of mandatory statutory obligations to enforce planning law
✦ Alleged breach of planning law by the developers, UK Docks, in failing to abide by planning permission conditions and failing to build to approved plans.
The petitioners have asked that the Council observe its own Development Framework Core Strategy Objectives:
“To protect and enhance the boroughs coastline and water frontage; to ensure that the individual and cumulative effects of development do not breach noise, hazardous substances or pollution limits; to increase public involvement in decision making and civic activity”.
STMBC Planning Manager Gordon Atkinson recently wrote to residents conceding that: “the new structure is not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and that conditions of the 1996 permission have not been complied with” (20.3.2014).
Local resident Melanie Todd added: “The non-compliant practices of the developers appear to have fallen outside their own land usage covenants. Residents wish to live in peace and harmony with appropriate light industry as we have for many years, supporting the cultural heritage and natural environment of the area for the benefit of residents and visitors. We believe this new development and plans for heavy industrial use at Tyne Slipway, next to residential and retirement property, threaten to disrupt this”.
For further information, please see the petitioners’ website at:

Home

– ends –
For more information, contact Melanie Todd at:
melanietodd@me.com
2.4.2014

I have acquired a series of maps from the Ordnance Survey which detail the use of the land going back over a century together with an overlay trace showing the modern detail and allowing us to see how the riverside has developed over the years.
I’m guessing these will be of general interest to all as well as potentially helping us challenge the Councils contentions that the site has been designated  as ‘industrial’’. For example I think I’m able to prove that Velva Liquids occupied a site co-extensive with the Harbour View development and formed no part of the present Tyne slipway, contrary to those contentions.

I felt that the Planning Office were ‘Stone Walling’ again by trying to sideline me into the complaints system instead of replying to my enquiries. The Principal Planning Manager refused to admit that the cover had been built a meter wider than planned and it was beginning to look like the Planning Manager was going to try the same thing. With help from someone used to advising insurance cases I tried a new approach and wrote:

From: M Dawson
To:  Planning Manager
Subject: Slipway Development, River Drive
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:10:35

From: Planning Manager
To: M Dawson
Subject: Slipway Development, River Drive
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:01 AM

Dear Mr  . . . . . . . .,
Thank you for you reply and attached documents. I am writing to you again because there are still outstanding issues. I am also concerned that you and your colleague Mr . . . . . . . . (e-mail dated 13 January) appear to be in too much haste to direct me to the complaints procedure. I do not consider my questions concerning the slipway development constitute a complaint.

Dear Mr. Dawson
The Council was contacted by local residents in early September 2013 when the steelwork erection commenced. We weren’t able to immediately identify the archive case and the company provided from its own sources copies of drawings numbered 8296/1B and 8296/2, which is why those drawings are stamped received by us 6 Sep 2013. Following a search of our archived file the only drawings that we have that are stamped ‘Approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation’ are 8296/2 and 8296/4. 8296/1A and 8296/1B are consistent with these two stamped drawings in terms of overall dimensions. It is therefore reasonable to say that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996 (the only difference between 1A and 1B being to the foundation detail).

My understanding from Mr . . . . . . . . (meeting 25th November Council Offices) is that the Council had a meeting with the applicant or his representative on August 20th prior to the steelwork being erected. I am therefore curious as to why the Planning department did not have drawings to hand and had to consult their archive. You state it is ” reasonable to say” that drawings 8296/1A and 1B “are consistent with these two stamped drawings in terms of overall dimensions” however the stamped drawings you refer to, 8296/2 and 4, have no dimensions. The only similarity between the drawings is the overall tapered shape. I therefore propose that your assertion that 1A and 1B represent the 1996 approved development is not ‘reasonable’.
The dimensions measured by the Council in September are as follows:
Length 22.254m
Width 13.1m
Height at end facing River Drive 15.5m
Height at end facing river 18m

Thank you for confirmation that the current construction is a meter wider than the “approved plans” at 13.1m. I would like to direct your attention to the following communications between myself and your department: To Principal Planning Officer on 19th December 2013, “I have sufficient skills in surveying to be able to measure the width of the structure without access to the site and can say with confidence that it is 13.20m wide give or take 0.05m.” Response from him on 20th December: “I have measured the site and have copied the1996 plans across to you twice already … and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height are compliant.” E-mail received from yourself 15th January: ” The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings”. I hope this was not an attempt to evade the issue.  I now feel confident to assert again, that the current structure is not built to “approved” plans.

8296/14 is the recent drawing and the only purpose of that is in regards to the condition dealing with the strip curtain door fixing details. You explain that you have measured the height from this drawing as 15.6m, and you seem to have assumed that is the riverside elevation, and have adjusted for the gradient of the slipway and concluded that the height at the River Drive side should be in the order of 3m less. In fact the 15.6m height is the height to River Drive and the height on the river side is some 3m greater.

With reference to the drawing 8296/14 I have made no assumptions regarding this drawing but have taken my information from the drawing. There are three indicators that the elevation is the north end of the structure:

1. Detail notes on the drawing ” strips to draw back to each side to allow access for boats”.
2. The section at the door jam shows the cladding on the downward ie.North/river end. The alternative would have the cladding on the inside of the building.
3. The apparent use of third angle projection would imply that the door is at the north end.

The north elevation height is therefore 15.5m and subsequently the south elevation 12.5m. What made you determine that the elevation is the South end when there is no such detail on the drawing?

As I mentioned earlier, drawings of historic cases are not put on the Planning Explorer. Nevertheless, the files are publicly available for inspection and we have for several months shared all information that we have with the members of the public who are interested in this case. As requested, I attach the copies of 8296/2 and 8296/4.
There is no more I can add and I feel that we have answered all your questions. You say at the beginning of your message that you believe that the structure is not consistent with any of the drawings. We have looked at all the material available to us and measured the structural frame when it was erected. I have previously told you that the variation in angle of the pillars is not considered to be material. I can only suggest that if you do wish to pursue this matter further you ask that my Head of Service, George Mansbridge, responds to any remaining points you may have formally under stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. You will have to write to him and say specifically what you remain unhappy about.
Regards

As you can see there are questions to be answered. I still maintain particularly with your detailed measurements, that the structure is not consistent with any of the drawings. I would like to know why you consider the variation of the pillar angle is not material particularly as the Agent has had to provide a new drawing (Aug.’13) for the cladding and fixings.
I am very concerned, that considering the problems this planning application has caused in the past, that Council did not do more to consult local residents. I am aware that even the Councils own Environment Department made objection to the development in 1996.The current structure does not conform to any approved plans. How can the council justify allowing work to continue when condition 2, and I quote “The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications” has not been discharged.
regards
Michael Dawson

On the 21st of January this year the developer, Tyne Slipway and Engineering Co Ltd, relaunched with TSL Marine Services, Gosport, as UK Docks in 2010, was sentenced at Newcastle Crown Court for safety failings after a teenage apprentice, Jason Burden, 19, from South Shields was crushed and killed at UK Docks’ South Dock site in Sunderland.

Tyne Slipway and Engineering Co Ltd was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £47,936.57 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The court was told the company had no documented risk assessment and no documented safety management system for the work being carried out at the time, and that the incident
could have been prevented. (See HSE press release website: http://press.hse.gov.uk/2014/firm-sentenced-after-teenageapprentice-crushed-to-death/ )

In the context of cuts to the HSE’s budget of approximately £80m to 85m per year¹ and drastic reductions in preventative inspections², recent observations by local residents at the UK Docks construction site at River Drive, South Shields, have led to evidence being passed
to Health and Safety Executive officers who have taken appropriate action against the company involved for “unsafe working practice”.

1 http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/health-and-safety-executive/news/healthandsafetyhse.cfm
2 http://pacelegal.com.au/tag/low-life-how-the-government-has-put-a-low-price-on-your-life/
3 North East marine engineering firm sentenced for safety failings