1996 July The UK Docks received planning approval for a new Slipway Shed in its property next to Harbour View Estate. No attempt appeared to have been made to carry out any work related to the planning approval until:

2013 Mid Sept. Big trucks arrived at UK Docks with large girders.

2013 Mid Sept. Residents rang South Shields planning to determine what was going on at UK Docks. Planning said they were not aware of any work being carried out. A few days later residents were informed that original planning approval 1996 (that most existing residents were not aware of ) for a Slipway Shed was still valid. Residents were informed some work had been done on the footings before the original planning approval ran out (usually five years after the original approval) and because of that no further approval was required.

A few weeks later residents were informed that UK Docks had a meeting with the Council in Aug 2013 to discuss continuing with the proposed Shed. The minutes of this meeting do not appear to have been made public.

On learning of the proposed Shed residents objected and demanded more information that was slow on arriving and lacked detail.

In the meantime the construction of the Shed went ahead at great speed and calls for it to stop were ignored.

Attempts to obtain detailed information about the original planning approval were delayed with excuses such as, they could not be found as they had been dealt with by the South Shields Development Corporation but they may be in the archive which would involve time to search.

2013 Late Sept A diagram of the proposed Shed was made available to the residents. It showed what appeared to be a flat roof structure with certain external dimensions.

Paul Hepburn

C:0 S:1

I live in Harbour View , Littlehaven, South Shields.
For the past year or so I have put up with the ear bashing noise of workman with their wagons, cranes , welding gear, metal saws ,muck and thick black dust on my washing , I can not hang any out now;  It also invades inside my home.
Now, apart from the dirt and noise pollution , I have had workmen being hoisted about twenty feet past my window while I was getting my granddaughter ready for nursery , this feels to me a total invasion of my privacy. I strongly object to this being allowed next to a residential area.
My only conclusion that this has been allowed is someone having an invested interest .
Please pass this on to head of planning at south tyneside  town hall
Mrs Marilyn Chapman

Dear Mr Dawson

Thank you for your email.  Before the Council makes any decisions on the planning aspects of this case, we need to have a full understanding of the history of the site, and analyse all the facts.  This is a complex matter and will take some time.

Regards
Planning Office

Dear . . . . . . . .(Council representative)

It is now over six months since the framework for the shed was erected, three months since the noise began and over two weeks since you said that the council would be able to provide a response to our request that work on or in the shed be stopped until the planning issues have been legally resolved.

I note that there has been a rising number of complaints about noise from the site to both  Planning and Environmental Services and this is becoming a major concern to the residents affected.

Why has the council not used its powers of enforcement to stop the work?, you have admitted that the shed is not built to plan. If any resident had built a construction that breached their planning approval, they would surely have been asked to remedy it or at least to submit a retrospective planning application.

Why has the council not used their power of enforcement to control the continual noise issuing from this site? If this was an individual he or she would have, months ago, been served an ASBO.

It is becoming very evident from communication with other residents that the continued development and disturbance caused by the work on this site is threatening their health and wellbeing (ie stress, noise and particulate emission). Ironically the March 14 issue of the South Tyneside news magazine is full of advice about how to ‘look after your health and wellbeing’?
I would also like to bring Councils attention to the front page statement ‘A new view at Littlehaven’, should it not also read ‘a  complete loss of Visual Amenity for for Harbour View and Greens Place residents’!

I will repeat the communities request that the work is stopped immediately and appropriate consultation is put in place. What is the holdup?

your sincerely

Michael Dawson

To Environment
Dear Mr …. ,
The email below was sent to you yesterday, to which I have received neither a reply or an acknowledgement.
Today is the second day of continuous unacceptable noise pollution. I believe that STMBC has obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which require STMBC to “assess the noise level from the premises that the complaint is about and decide whether it is “prejudicial to health or a nuisance”, in which case it is a “statutory nuisance” under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I would like to invite you to Greens Place the site of my home which is a Grade II Listed Building with single glazed wooden sash windows, situated directly up the bank from the UK Docks River Drive site. I previously extended this invitation to one of your officers in relation to the light pollution caused by UK Docks floodlights (which was never resolved) but heard no more. The lights continue to cause light pollution problems as they are now reflecting off the cladding of the structure.
This morning the shot blasting generator has been moved from the open ground adjacent to the open shed structure (one of the conditions of planning permission was that it would be an enclosed structure), to the slipway next to the open structure, and has actually increased the noise pollution level.
Please advise on the imminent action your department will take concerning the serious noise pollution from UK Docks River Drive site.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Regards,
Melanie Todd,
Greens Place

Begin forwarded message:

From: Melanie Todd
Date: 18 March 2014 10:48:20 GMT
To: Environment

Dear Mr     ,

 Thank you for your detailed response. Construction work has continued at the site and we understand from Planning that a pre planning meeting was held with the developers to discuss further large scale construction adjacent to residential housing.

In 1996 when plans were submitted STMBC Environmental Services made objections to the nature of the proposed work and it’s potential impact upon the local environment and residential areas, namely shot blasting of paint poisons and airborne polluting dust particles. Environmental Services were so involved in the planning process at that time that they participated in the design of planning conditions e.g. cladding of the structure to reduce noise, and to contain and collect pollution, these conditions (along with all others) have not been met by the developer and STMBC Planning have so far taken no action. This morning noisy work has begun on a vessel in the open shed, can I ask that Environmental Services act in the best intersests of the surrounding environment and residents by monitoring these activities rather than by reacting once complaints have been received? With reference to your comment: “…and so far the operator has been very cooperative when approached by us”, I am sure you would agree that Environmental Services at Fukushima are not now congratulating the developers of the plant for their cooperation.

 

The participation of Environmental Services in the planning process was clearly a sensible policy and action to explore constructive environmental solutions and to prevent environmental mistakes and disasters The content of your response to me appears to suggest that consultative and preventative actions in the planning process no longer fall within your remit. You appear to suggest that your role is entirely retrospective in responsive to developers actions upon the environment, is it the case that you see the role of Environmental Services in this way? Do you see Environmental Services as having no role in the planning process? If this is not the case could you explain to me what responsibilities you do have within the planning process?
Can I ask that you send Environmental Officers to the site immediately to witness and monitor the work that is now taking place in this open shed, and then inform the residents what the role of Environmental Services will be in enforcing environmental standards in the interests of everyone, including the unborn. The noise we are experiencing now is not acceptable.

Melanie Todd,
Greens Place

Several of us have been having ongoing email correspondence with both STMBC Environmental Health and Planning depts. I would ask that everybody adds their voice as we have more strength in greater numbers and it also spreads the burden.
Mick Dawson is working long hours building and updating the dedicated website http://theharbourview.co.uk Please pay it a visit, add your comments and sign the petition online if you haven’t already signed the paper copy (they are the same petition) Ask friends, family and colleagues to visit the website and sign the petition, we need all the support we can get, this fight is a big one and is going to take a while.
If you ate on Facebook, join Greens Place, South Shields, thats been dedicated to our fight and the more people who use it the more notice we get.
Watch out for the publicity for the first ‘FightingFund’ fundraiser, which we hope to have details of soon. Any ideas for fund raising please speak up, we are going to need money to get our legal fight on track and it is looking like that option is very close.
And please nobody is precious about things if you have an idea share it. We all have busy lives and most of us are working so spreading the load and sharing stuff is appreciated.
As we have now witnessed the level of noise we can expect as a minimum during the permitted working hours of 7.30am – 7.30pm Monday to Saturday, I am busy researching noise pollution and its effects on health and wellbeing, please if anybody has any expertise or has some time to do some research it would be helpful.
Below is a website link and page contents from Public Health England regarding noise pollution.
Melanie

http://www.lho.org.uk/LHO_Topics/Health_Topics/Determinants_of_Health/Environment/NoisePollution.aspx

PS The only reason the noise has ceased is because the machine has broken!

To: Ian Rutherford <Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 18:15
Subject: Re: Noise at UK Docks, River Drive [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

Dear Mr Rutherford

I have returned home from work (at 4:45pm), today, 18/03/14.

I have been informed the noise from a generator placed outside the shed (not inside the shed – the one with no doors, and currently looking as though it has a large skip in it….) on the land behind Harbour View, being used by John Wilson/UK Docks, has been running all day.  It was quiet for approx half an hour when I got in, then started up again at 5:30pm.

The nosie level is unacceptable.  Please see the attached link which states you (Environmental Dept) have a madatory obligation to deal with our complaints with regard to noise, Noise Act 1996:

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/rights-under-noise-act.html

It states the perpetrators can be issued with a noise abatement notice.

Please do not resort to your previous arguments that the noise emanates from an industrial site.  WE ARE NOT AN INDUSTRIAL SITE, even if they are!  The fact that the estate is parallel to an industrial site means that there is a conflict, whether you think the council can deal with it or not.

The noise levels require measurement, and a legislative balance needs to be drawn up to recognise the fact that it is not a yard within an area of industry – it is a yard within an area of residential properties.

The conflict of an industrial site directly beside a residential site means you cannot simply keep stating that as an industrial site they have rights to their activities above the residents of Harbour View.

The council and Environment Dept MUST accept that actions need to be taken to:

1) Accept that the industrial site does not have precedence over the residential site, which was constructed in 1991 BEFORE the planning permission was given on the boatyard site, therefore the argument that it was established is nonsense;

2) Accept that this is becoming intolerable to the residents, as we do not have protection for our hearing,nor control when the noise will stop!

3) That the owners of the yard, having already breached the planning permission given in 1996, will most likely ignore any reasonable requests to consider their ‘neighbours’ in the work they complete;

4) There are considerable Health and Safety issues which have to be considered:
– the yard owners and workers have already caused potential polution by grinding and dismantling a fibreglass speedboat within a few feet of our houses (the workman being in full protective gear – unfortunatley we weren’t!);
– the nosie is equally a part of the H&S issues – again, we don’t have the luxury of ear protectors;
– they are not confining work to the so called protection on the shed, and it’s a nonsense anyway, as it is open ended;

5) And therefore, accept that legal action is the only step we can take as residents, if the council, and its relevant depts, don’t take the actions the legislation states has the mandatory obligation to take.

Please: walk in our shoes for a while – we doubt that if this was going on next to where you, or the owners of the business live, that you would put up with it.

Thank you
Julie

From: Marilyn  at hotmail.com
Date: 18 March 2014 18:18:55 GMT
To: “Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk” <Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Cc: “Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk” <Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Subject: Slipway river drive

I would firstly like to respond to Mr Atkinson’s comment that the council cannot control the use of hoists on the slipway site. So I ask,  if the council can’t control this , then who do you suggest I speak to who can control it?
As for the term ” an established general industrial site”  is a load of tosh , yes there was occasional repairs to the nexus ferry which sometimes encroached on my privacy whilst I sat on my balcony but this was few and far between. What is happening now is a total different ball game. The noise , smoke ,dust and fumes is making my life a nightmare . I can no longer go out onto my balcony, I was looking forward to the summer to sit out and enjoy the quiet after moving into my apartment 20 months ago and spending a fortune making it into my retirement home, only to find I might as well have bought a dump in temple town area of Tyne Dock and had McNulty as my neighbours.
I have rang to complain to environmental health about dust, fumes ,noise and smoke  and not had any reply .
Never before have I complained to the council , only this past few months as I am totally enraged by what you are allowing to happen on mine and other residents doorstep
Regards Marilyn
Harbour View
South Shields

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: David Routledge
To: Gordon.Atkinson at southtyneside.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 11:31
Subject:
Dear Mr. Atkinson,
It would appear that work unrelated to construction has begun on the Tyneslipway causing unacceptable noise. The matter is being raised with environmental health.
However I feel it is incumbent on the planning dept. to act immediately to have this work stopped as the structure in which the work is taking place does not comply with the grant of planning permission. Notwithstanding that there are serious concerns over the size of the structure which we await your further comments on there are issues in relation to cladding and to doors which wered meant to contain noise and pollution but which have not been fitted.
The company appear to be riding roughshod over their obligations and are making your dept. appear toothless.
Can you reply immediately with confirmation that you will be enforcing the planning condions forthwith and have this unaccepatable work stopped.
Yours
David Routledge