Condition 2

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
Complaint Type

In the beginning: The First Shed

1 Comment

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.

Uncategorised

FAO – South Tyneside Council Planning Department

1 Comment

From: Melanie Todd
Sent: 24 June 2014 15:10
To: Planning applications
Subject:ST/0461/14/FUL

Dear Mr Simmonette,

With reference to the letter we have received this morning by post giving notice of the application from UK Docks planning proposal dated 20 June 2014. This was not posted (as per the envelope date stamp until 23 June), and not received by our household, 84,Greens Place, until Tuesday 24 June 2014. Therefore technically I do not believe you can enforce that we only have 21 days from the date on the letter to make representations. I await your advise on a new deadline in line with the receipt of the information.
Furthermore I would like you to advise on why this application will go straight to the Planning Committee, as outlined in your correspondence. And what consultations and appropriate impact surveys will be carried out regarding this planned development ahead of the Planning Committee? Will there be site visits and consultations with local residents by the Committee members and reviews of STMBC Local Strategic Plan with regard to the proposed development of this area?
With STMBC knowing the issues regarding the development of this site in close proximity to established residential housing, our own house has been here since 1843 and most likely built on the site of earlier dwellings, have any other more appropriate sites for this development been investigated ahead of this planning application by either the Owners of UK Docks or STMBC? I understand that Port of Tyne offered UK Docks a more appropriate site for their work immediately to the east of McNulty’s yard.
In your letter under the heading MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS  you state “Matters relating to rights to light, property values, or private covenants cannot be considered as a material planning consideration in the assessment of any planning application.” Please supply by return any documents or references to current legislation upon which STMBC has based this statement.
The existing shed still under construction at River Drive is not built to plan and should be removed. All the conditions attached to the 1996 planning permission have been breached and should be enforced. It is absurd for STMBC to argue that none of these conditions will be enforced because the developers have not built to plan. These kinds of arguments emanating from STMBC planning are clearly not even-handed between the interests of the developers and those of local residents who are left with little faith in the planning process, and which bring into disrepute the Planning Authority. A petition signed by over 200 people objecting to the development under construction at this site has been addressed and delivered to the Chief Executive of STMBC and re-directed by Democratic Services to George Mansbridge. Know that I object to theses un-democratic actions, and to the further development of the site as outlined in the planning application to which your letter refers. I have looked online and notice that the plans to which your letter refers are not to be found on the planning portal – in the same way that the plans for the shed under construction were also not publicised on the planning portal or indeed in any other way before construction began in September 2013. Taken together with the existing construction, these new plans represent a concerted effort to re-site heavy industrial works within a residential area, in very close proximity to residential and retirement housing. The work planned by the developer to be undertaken on this site is quite unacceptable for reasons of nuisance, noise, pollution, and a severely adverse affect upon the visual amenity of the area for residents and visitors.
Yours sincerely,
Melanie Todd, resident
Uncategorized

UK Docks River Drive – Noise

An Email to the Council, MP and others with reference to :-

http://www.noisenet.org/Noise_Enviro_stat1.htm

Please be aware: continuing and exacerbated issues with the noise emanating from Mr Wilson’s UK Docks. It is a nuisance and unacceptable in an area surrounded by residential properties. Please see attached link with regard to noise pollution.
Residential rights state we do not have to endure the levels of noise we are experiencing.
We have rights equal to the owner of the business site. Therefore you must treat the residents of Greens Place, Harbour View, and others affected with the same level of law. Until the owner is able to provide accoustic sound- proofing, you should apply the laws which stop the work until adequate action is taken to reduce the noise.
I am unable to open windows and doors at the back of my house for ventilation due to the extreme levels of noise coming from the yard. This is an environmental and health issue that needs immediately addressing.
Council and representatives: I would appreciate if you could also answer why Mr Wilson’s yard and business seems to have precedence over residents rights, and the fact that this estate was built and owned in 1991 with the ensuing residential rights, above a business that has remained relatively dormant until 2013, and was only owned by the Wilson’s since 1994?

Council: Can you explain the anomaly of this situation please? I would hate to think that Mr Wilson has the priority due to other reasons we don’t fully have the knowledge of? Including verbal or documentary agreements we have not been made aware of.

Thank you
Julie Routledge

Uncategorized

Planning under Vested Interests

5 Comments

A shed that is 3m too high. That is equivalent to four story block of flats where three stories were approved. Not only have a Principle Planning Officer of the South Tyneside Council* denied our claims  that the shed is not built to plan but the Head of Development Services,  MP and the Local Press are in denial as well.

Why this is so remains a mystery but it will no doubt come out in the wash.  In the meantime the local residents are subjected to a level of noise and inconvenience etc. that is clearly not acceptable.

It has also come to light that the Port of Tyne offered Tyne Docks UK an alternative site as part of their plans to fill in Tyne Dock. This was turned down but explains why there were no objections Readheads Landing excepted.

* the Planning Manager has however conceded that the offending shed has not been built to plan.

 

Uncategorized

Example of a Normal Planning Process

Leave a comment
Sent in by Melanie
This shows that local residents can put a stop to inappropriate plans. We need to come together and block UK Docks next phase.

From the Gazette:- CAMPAIGNERS have won the battle to prevent part of a former South Tyneside Army camp being converted into a luxury housing development.

Council planners had recommended the go-ahead to build almost 50 homes at Whitburn Army Camp in Mill Lane, Whitburn, despite strong objections from neighbours of the site.

The development, proposed by Sunderland-based Bett Homes, would have involved the demolition of the army camp buildings and construction of 48 homes, including 36 four and five-bedroom detached properties.

At a meeting of the council’s planning committee yesterday, members threw the application out, on the grounds that it was “inappropriate” and “detrimental to greenbelt land”.

Complaint Type

Letter from Head of Development Services

Leave a comment

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

Uncategorized

UK Docks New Shed – Review: PH

1 Comment

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

Condition 2

Meeting – Thurs 22nd

Leave a comment

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,  Melanieststevensmap