Second Phase

UK Docks

Leave a comment

From: George Mansbridge
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Cc: Leanne Bootes
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:21 PM
Subject: UK Docks [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Michael

I know that Gordon has already responded to you following his further review of the file and in particular the report by TWDC to their Board.  I did however want to drop you a line just to thank you for your time yesterday.  I fully understand that there are issues associated with the UK Docks development that you remain unhappy with however I did appreciate the manner by which to conducted yourself when we met; so thank you for that.

We did not get an opportunity to talk about the letter you sent to my Chief Executive. My assumption is that you would still like his office to review this matter as a stage 3 complaint [in accord with our complaints process].  If that is not the case then please let me know and I will pass that information on.

Kind regards

George Mansbridge
Head of Development Services
South Tyneside Council
Economic Regeneration
Town Hall and Civic Offices

Second Phase

Both ends 15.5m

1 Comment

From: Gordon Atkinson
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Cc: George Mansbridge ; Ian Rutherford
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 12:34 PM
Subject: UK Docks [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Dawson

Further to our meeting yesterday, I have gone through the disc and found the TWDC report from 1996, and now attach a copy.  The only reference to the dimensions are in the paragraph I have highlighted on page 1.  The height is said to be ‘approximately 15.5 m high’-I accept that there is no reference to whether this is the inland end, or the riverside end, but when read in conjunction with the drawing (8296/1A) it must refer to the inland end.  There is no reference in the report to the height (or indeed any other dimension) of the proposal having been amended in the period between submission and approval by the TWDC.  There is a reference (highlighted) on p2 which refers to amended plans but I believe this can only be to 8296/4 which introduced the windows  as it is in the context of photomontages illustrating a solid structure.  I have also spoken to Jonathon Wilson who confirms that the dimensions of the proposal were not altered during the assessment of the proposal.

Regards

Gordon Atkinson

Planning Manager

Condition 2

Appeal by UK Docks

1 Comment

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.

Uncategorised

Letter to CEO South Tyneside Council

Dear Mr Swales,

I am not certain as to what your knowledge is of the ongoing (since September2013) concerns and complaints  from the residents of the area surrounding the River Drive site of UK Docks and visitors to the area. Living in Greens Place I am very aware of the tourist and visitor traffic through the Lawe Top area and the serious concerns they have raised in direct support to that of those who live in the area. I am more than happy to supply you with a timeline and overview and the website address for you to see the depth of upset and seriousness of the situation.
On 3rd April 2014, I along with other representatives handed in a petition of 238 signatures addressed to yourself(it has since been added to bringing the number of signatories to not far short of 300) Democratic services took away those signatories democratic rights by choosing to not give the petition to yourself the addressee but to Mr Mansbridge Head of Development Services instead. The petition was addressed to yourself as we had already been given inaccurate and conflicting information by Mr Cunningham, Mr Atkinson, Mr Bostock, Mr Rutherford and Mr Mansbridge, and were in agreement that we as Council Tax paying residents were being sidelined, fobbed off and lied to by those people whose jobs were paid for by us and whose role it was to listen to and consider our concerns and issues and to represent us fairly.
It is mine and many other residents opinion that from the treatment we have received which has at the least been appalling and highly distressing, we cannot trust STMBC Officers to carry out correct procedure with due respect to the residents and their opinions and rights, and that we have no faith in the Planning procedure.
You will see from the email stream below that, Mr Simmonette who is the designated officer has not replied to the first email, Mr Atkinson has fobbed me off and not answered my questions in the second email and Mr Mansbidge has not answered from nearly a week ago. Their behaviour is not professional or fair handed and is adding to the stress and upset we are facing with this situation, affecting personally my Health and Wellbeing quite significantly.
I would hope that you will treat this matter with urgency and address the matters which I have raised (briefly) in this email. We have previously asked that work be halted while consultation and reviews were carried out, and this has been ignored. We have in writing from Mr Mansbridge that the facts we have been stating since September 2013 are in fact ( after a long and complicated inquiry by STMBC) fact and that the ‘shed’ has not been built to plan, but STMBC are choosing not to enforce any measures on the developers. And now with that ‘shed’ still under construction (since 5th September 2013) we are given a brief period of time to object to further large scale inappropriate development of the site including an extension to the ‘shed’ that is not built to plan. Please halt all work and live planning applications to enable a complete review of the situation including consultations and reviews.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Melanie Todd(Miss)
Uncategorized

Boat shed development at River Drive, South Shields

2 Comments

Do we have a legal case?  Key facts/questions:-

  • Original planning permission 1996

  • Foundations begun before 5 year statutory period elapsed but not signed off until after the 5 year period had elapsed. (Is the planning permission still valid?)

  • There is doubt as to what has been approved as the plans provided in support are incomplete, contradictory and not appropriately stamped (by law what must the planning dept.be able to produce in support of planning approval?)

  • Development started in Sept 2013. The dept. initially claimed that the development was built to plan but after the shed was completed (and after intensive lobbying) they have admitted that it has not been built to plan being 0.9m wider than what is purported to be approved. They are saying that recent changes to national guidance gives them discretion in deciding whether to enforce planning permission and they have chosen not to do so. (Does this new guidance apply in retrospect?) Given that they made an error whilst measuring the structure at the start of construction and would therefore (presumably) be liable for the cost of removing the shed (should they choose to enforce the breach of planning permission) there appears to be a conflict of interest. (Has the planning dept. been negligent? How can we challenge their decision? Can we require an independent review? How do we challenge using the ‘public confidence in the process’ argument?)

  • There have been further breeches in relation to the pre commencement conditions attached to the planning permission, as outlined in letter dated 4 April. In that letter the planning dept. indicate that they do not consider that late compliance is an issue although they agree to attempt to enforce the condition about not allowing boat repair within the shed unless the ends are ‘fully enclosed’. The owners had previously ignored this and had commenced repair work without meeting this condition. In a subsequent letter (2nd May) to all local residents the planning dept. appear to retract this and take the stance that because the development has not been built to plan the conditions are not enforceable. However, as stated above, the dept. also indicated that they are not going to challenge the fact that the development has not been built to plan. This is counter-intuitive and illogical. (Can the planning dept. legally argue that the developers, who have not built to plan are, as a result, not subject to the conditions?) The planning dept. have said “The difficulty (we) 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.” This seems to say that the condition was never enforceable. (Are conditions attached to planning permissions intended to override any general principles relating to the use of land?)

  • The planning dept. have categorised the site as having general industrial status. (Does this industrial status have a legal definition and if so how does land acquire such a status?) The planning dept. seem to suggest that the granting of historic planning permissions (whether or not they were subsequently acted upon) are sufficient and there seems to be no discrimination between small scale boat repair and large scale intrusive industrial activity. (What rights do local residents have to challenge definitions, changes of use or scale of activity?)

Attachments: Letter 04 Apr 2014 and 02 May 2014

Second Phase

Talks about 8296/14

Leave a comment

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

Second Phase

Request Talk on 8296/14

Leave a comment

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

Uncategorized

A Complaint to Environmental Health

1 Comment

From: Marilyn Chapman
> Subject: Re: Official Notice re UK Docks Planning Application
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:48:52 +0100
> To: Mick Dawson and Others

Hi everyone , just to let you know I Again, logged a complaint to environmental health about constant noise and not being able to sit out on my balcony, or indeed open windows at the back of my property. The girl Lindsay I spoke to could hear the racket through the phone and I was in my apartment at the time of the call. Shortly after Ian Rutherford rang me and the usual mutters of he understands and yes it must be disruptive especially as we have not had a lot of activity from the site in the past. I asked him to come and view the scene and noise from my balcony , he said one of his team had been to a neighbour of mine this week so he knew what I was talking about.
> I tried to explain that I feel a prisoner in my own house and how would he like it if this was plonked on his doorstep ? He replied he has had neighbours building an extension and you have to just to be a bit patient . I was getting extremely frustrated and angry and responded that this monstrosity is a lot different to conservatory. He just kept saying the Wilson’s own the land and they had planning permission.
Felt it was a total waste of time!!!!
Regards Marilyn Chapman

Condition 2

Application for Second Shed: ST/0461/14/FUL

6 Comments

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.

Condition 2

Warning Notice – 30 Jan

1 Comment

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