On behalf of the CEO

Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP Date: 25th June 2015
House of Commons       Our ref: CX/HJ/AH/LB
London
SW1AOAA

Dear Ms Trevelyan
Mr Michael Dawson, Amble

Thank you for your letter dated 1 June 2015 to the Chief Executive, Martin Swales, regarding an enquiry from your constituent Mr Dawson regarding a boat repair shelter at Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields.
Mr Dawson has advised you that he believes the boat shed had been constructed outside the remits of the approved plans. There is nothing in this response that contests this view, and when you know that the Ombudsman has been misinformed by the Council you will realise that Hayley Johnson is being hypocritical. I also asked the Chief Executive to provide evidence to show that the boat shed had been built within the remits of the approved plans. She did not because there is none.   
I have made enquiries into this matter and have been advised as follows:
The matters and allegations raised by your constituent are well documented and have been subject to a number of enquiries from Mr Dawson and other local residents over a lengthy period of time. The Council have either refused to talk about the height of the cover or used a mistake on an unapproved drawing to make a false claim. Hayley Johnson is switching the cause  and effect by shifting the blame from the Council to the residents.   The matter was ultimately referred by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, the outcome of which was delivered on 14 April 2015. Hayley John has ignored the fact that the LGO has been misinformed.  The Council have been using unapproved drawings claiming they represent the approved plans. This deceit was exposed by drawings approved in 1996 and 2013.
The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that the Council had acted appropriately in our approach relating to the planning application and subsequent action, full details of which would have been sent by their office to Mr Dawson. If you require any further information in relation to this matter you may contact George Mansbridge, Head of Development Services on 0191 424 7566.   Mr G Mansbridge is one of those people saying that the drawings he is using are approved when they have neither been approved nor authorised.
I hope that this information is useful. Please do not hesitate to share this letter with your constituent.  The MPs office was asked three times over a period of 5 months if the Chief Executive had replied to her enquiry – Hayley Johnson has misinformed the MP about the height of the boat shed, accused the residents and I of making allegations and deliberately avoided letting me know that she was doing this.  It is not the sort of behaviour expected of someone who manages the Council’s complaints procedure.*
Yours sincerely
Hayley Johnson
Corporate Lead Officer, Strategy and Performance

* I only found out about this letter by accident and naturally wrote to the Chief Executive about the conduct of his Corporate Lead when I discovered its existence but my letter was just filed away and he asked Customer Advocacy to fob me off . They  will no longer respond to letters and emails about UK Docks because Hayley Johnson has used one of the devices used to close down green letter people and the like (a Section F action) to close down any conversation about the development on River Drive and that unreasonably includes the way that the Council have handled our complaints, the misrepresentations to the LGO and letters to our Councillors and MP.

2 thoughts on “On behalf of the CEO”

  1. 6 month delay is because the MP for Berwick did not forward the letter, from South Tyneside Council on behalf of their Chief Executive, despite 3 requests to see it. Customer Advocates responded within 1 working day if you allow that their office was closed over the Christmas.
    Both Customer Advocates and the Corporate Lead Officer would have been well advised to check with me first that I had not appealed to the Local Government Ombudsmen against their decision not to uphold my complaint. Let me just say that there there are many inconsistencies in what a Senior Planning Officer has been telling the Ombudsman. Misquoting the Planning Manager and using a dodgy drawing to make a case for the Council are two obvious ones for a start.

  2. This beggars the question that if the Senior Planning Officer has been saying things that do not accord with the facts where do we go now. It looks from here that he has brought the Council into disrepute and put the Local Government Ombudsman in a difficult position and all for a development that should not have been started until reviewed in a retrospective planning application.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.