Uncategorised

No Timetable of Resolution

1 Comment

Dear Council Representative

Thank you for the prompt response.
As it was the only one I have received can I assume there has at least been some discussions with the other Councillors and officers to whom I directed my original questions?
I would be interested to hear responses from the other members of the Planning Committee and  Council Officers.
Whilst I acknowledge receipt of what appears to be a standard response to any enquiries regarding the aforesaid development I must point out that my questions related mainly to its current use.
With the greatest of respect council officers have had over 6 months to understand the history of this site and analyse all the facts.
You personally felt confident enough on 14th October 2013 to approve discharge of clause 3 (external cladding) and clause 4 (fixing details of end panels).
Why then are you not acting as swiftly on behalf of local residents?
Can you explain why legitimate concerns and questions by a number of residents are deflected by what appear to be standard responses whilst in the back ground you appear to be approving applications for amendments from the developer?
The current development has increased significantly in size without consultation nor amended permissions – again I suspect that any domestic development would have been stopped well before now.
To allay possible allegations of favouritism in the future I would therefore have hoped for a bit more than what appears to be a “stock” answer and which could be interpreted as a delaying tactic – all of which which works to the advantage of the developer.
In the meantime we are living with the consequences of these actions (or inaction).
I therefore request that you perform your statutory mandatory obligation to enforce planning conditions and identify a timetable for resolution rather than continue to issue open ended meaningless statements which inspire little confidence that anything will actually be done.
Yours Faithfully
Michelle Martin Robinson
Uncategorised

To Council Officers and Planning Commitee

1 Comment

From: Michelle Martin-Robinson
Sent: 24 March 2014 10:40
To: Planning, Building Control and Environment
Cc: Cllr John Wood; Cllr Peter Boyack; Cllr Bill Brady; Cllr Fay Cunningham; Cllr Ian Harkus; Cllr Gladys Hobson; Cllr Alan Kerr; Cllr Tom Pigott; Cllr Lynne Proudlock; Cllr Sylvia Spraggon; Cllr Ken Stephenson; Cllr Mark Walsh; Cllr Anne Walsh; Cllr Allan West
Subject: UK Docks Development on River Drive

Dear Sirs

Please allow me to introduce myself.

I am a relatively new resident of Greens Place and one of a growing number of people in the area asking questions about the illegal construction and use of a development at the Tyne Slipway site.

As you may, or may not, be aware construction above ground commenced back in September 2013 utilising a 1996 approval by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation.

Despite frequent and numerous contacts to both Planning and Environmental Health (and the supposed involvement of the council legal team) no enforcement appears to have occurred.

Even with the admission that the structure is larger than originally approved no enforcement appears to have occurred – why not?

What we currently witness is a glorified oversized car port (open at both ends) and which, as of last Monday (17th March), appears to have been put to work.

If this were a domestic property a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion would be required before the property could be legally used.  

Has this been issued? If not, then how can you permit the shed to be in use?

A barge/boat from Port of Tyne arrived last Monday afternoon (17th March), since when the neighbourhood has echoed to the sound of generators, compressors and “chipping” as said vessel has been prepared for repainting.

Due to the open nature of the shed, and its position, the noise seems to “bounce” around the surrounding buildings especially as noisy equipment has been sited outside of the shed.

I assume the workers also have concerns about some particulates escaping the confines of the shed as a makeshift tarpaulin has been erected but, as you will see in the attached picture, it is wholly inadequate for that task.

My final point refers back to the original 1996 TWDC approval which prohibited work after 7pm Monday to Saturday and entirely on Sundays.

The structure has been permanently lit from dusk until dawn this past week in addition to several occasions during construction – is this allowable?

There were workers on site before 8am yesterday (Sunday 23rd March) and whilst there were comings and goings throughout the day until approximately 4pm one worker remained on site until at least 5.30am this morning.

As you can see in the attached picture (taken at the time) the shed is fully lit and his vehicle is parked next to the shed suggesting work is taking place outside of permitted hours.

  • The illegal nature of the actual structure has been established and documented by council officers (but it took 4 months).
  • Health and Safety violations were identified and documented during its construction by the HSE.
  • UK Docks appear to have been allowed to ignore or pay “lip service” to any local government intervention.

How can this be allowed to continue?

South Tyneside Council and it’s officers are supposed be to the guardians of our town for all of its residents but have so far seemed reluctant to enforce anything in this case.

If this were a private individual I suspect the full weight of planning law would be brought to bear, so again why not in this case?

I await your responses, and as this is matter of some urgency, well within the 20 working days as identified within the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations.

 Yours faithfully

Michelle Martin Robinson

Uncategorised

UK Docks Development on River Drive

From: Michelle Martin-Robinson
To STMBC :  Planning; Environmental Health
Cc: John Wood (Chairman of Planning Committee); Members of Planning Committee

Dear Sirs
Please allow me to introduce myself.
I am a relatively new resident of Greens Place and one of a growing number of people in the area asking questions about the illegal construction and use of a development at the Tyne Slipway site.
As you may, or may not, be aware construction above ground commenced back in September 2013 utilising a 1996 approval by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation.
Despite frequent and numerous contacts to both Planning and Environmental Health (and the supposed involvement of the council legal team) no enforcement appears to have occurred.Even with the admission that the structure is larger than originally approved no enforcement appears to have occurred – why not?
What we currently witness is a glorified oversized car port (open at both ends) and which, as of last Monday (17th March), appears to have been put to work.If this were a domestic property a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion would be required before the property could be legally used.  Has this been issued?
If not, then how can you permit the shed to be in use?
A barge/boat from Port of Tyne arrived last Monday afternoon (17th March), since when the neighbourhood has echoed to the sound of generators, compressors and “chipping” as said vessel has been prepared for repainting.Due to the open nature of the shed, and its position, the noise seems to “bounce” around the surrounding buildings especially as noisy equipment has been sited outside of the shed.I assume the workers also have concerns about some particulates escaping the confines of the shed as a makeshift tarpaulin has been erected but, as you will see in the attached picture, it is wholly inadequate for that task.
My final point refers back to the original 1996 TWDC approval which prohibited work after 7pm Monday to Saturday and entirely on Sundays.The structure has been permanently lit from dusk until dawn this past week in addition to several occasions during construction – is this allowable?
There were workers on site before 8am yesterday (Sunday 23rd March) and whilst there were comings and goings throughout the day until approximately 4pm one worker remained on site until at least 5.30am this morning.As you can see in the attached picture (taken at the time) the shed is fully lit and his vehicle is parked next to the shed suggesting work is taking place outside of permitted hours.

  • The illegal nature of the actual structure has been established and documented by council officers (but it took 4 months).
  • Health and Safety violations were identified and documented during its construction by the HSE.
  • UK Docks appear to have been allowed to ignore or pay “lip service” to any local government intervention.
How can this be allowed to continue?

South Tyneside Council and it’s officers are supposed be to the guardians of our town for all of its residents but have so far seemed reluctant to enforce anything in this case.
If this were a private individual I suspect the full weight of planning law would be brought to bear, so again why not in this case?I await your responses, and as this is matter of some urgency, well within the 20 working days as identified within the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations.

Yours faithfully
Michelle Martin Robinson

Uncategorized

Tyne Slipway Hoist

2 Comments

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

Uncategorized

Email to Planning – 20 Mar 2014 (reminder)

1 Comment

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

Uncategorised

With regard to ongoing issues with industrial site River Drive, adjacent to Harbour View

1 Comment
FAO:  The Planning Office
The Environmental dept advises they have no say over issues regarding the consistent breach in the 1996 planning permission.
Our concerns continue with our complaints not being adequately dealt with.
It appears the planning dept have little interest in applying their mandatory obligations to enforce compliance by the owners of the boat yard on River Drive, with the planning permissions given in 1996.
We would ask that council representatives desist from constantly pointing out that we reside adjacent to an industrial site. If this is dealt within a fair and reasonable way, then equally you should be acknowledging that they operate adjacent to a residential estate.  You constantly argue that they are an established industrial site. However, at the time of the original planning requests and permissions WE were an established residential estate, construction having commenced in 1991.
Unfortunately there is no magic industrial/residential wall separating us: it would be handy to have something to shut of the noise and general products of yard activity. Equally the yard operatives probably feel the same way.  However, there is no magic wall between us, and we find ourselves buttressed up together. So we are left to find something that will hopefully:
– stop any proposed expansion to the work in the yard (are you beginning to realise what the impact will be, based on the current experiences?!);
– step up to the footplate and do the right thing: act on your mandatory obligation to actually deal with our issues, rather than simply repeating ‘industrial site, industrial site’ like a hideous mantra;
– recognise that there is no magic wall between us, and that you now are responsible ( not those who originally approved the planning permission) in doing something positive about our concerns;
– and we want you to:
a) not agree to further planning expansion in the yard;
b) enforce the original planning permission agreements: shed height and size; limits on work – times, noise etc;
c) acknowledge that not only are they an industrial site but that we are a residential site, as of 1991, and therefore WERE established before the boatyard permissions;
d) recognise that if our complaints are not dealt with, we will escalate our issues to the Ombudsman, as per the complaint processes
We await your details as to how you intend to deal with our complaints.
Regards
Julie and David Routledge
Condition 2

Land Use

Leave a comment

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.

Uncategorised

No Progress by STC

Leave a comment
From:  Mick Dawson
Cc: various residents
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:01 PM
Subject: Slipway Development, River Drive

Dear Mr Atkinson,

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 hold up?

your sincerely

Michael Dawson

Uncategorized

UK Docks River Drive

Leave a comment

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