Uncategorized

Litter from UK Docks

1 Comment
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Noise pollution from UK Docks [RESTRICTED]

Hi Mick
Using info that I gleaned from emails circulating among our group, about two weeks ago I emailed Kevin Burrell to make a complaint. The complaint involved plastic sheeting from UK Docks that had (possibly due to wind) become entangled with the barbed wire on the top of their fence that borders my property.  The tatters that remain are an eyesore. I told Mr Burrell that the original complaint about this  matter was submitted to the Council shortly after the problem was discovered. Continue reading Litter from UK Docks →

STC

Too wide or not?

The LGO says in paragraph 21 (23 of her final draft) of her first draft:
The Council considered this and decided not to enforce. Enforcement is discretionary and the Council explained to residents in great detail how it reached its decision. It explained the law and policy it considered. There is no need for me to repeat this. It decided the degree of departure from the plans – less than one metre – was “non-material.”

Mr Mansbridge in his letter to residents in response to our Petition:
The measurements which the Council took on 17th September 2014 are:
•    Height at the River Drive end 15.5m and at the riverside end 18m.
•    Length 22.254m;
•    Width 13.1m;
Apart from the width these dimensions are either entirely in accordance with the approved plan, or subject to such minor deviation that they are properly categorised as non-material changes.

Not only is there some confusion about whether the increase in width is material, Mr Mansbridge does not tell the residents what drawing he is using, it could be either 1A or 1B, and he does not send a copy of it with the letter but I can tell you which ever it is, it also shows the height of the riverside end as 15.5m. Three meters extra height is a material difference.

Noise from UK Docks

Noise UK Docks

1 Comment

From: Resident HV
Sent: 03 February 2016 09:44
To: Kevin Burrell
Subject: RE: Noise from UK Docks yard River Drive [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

Mr Burrell.
The diary sheets were inappropriate to the timings of UK Docks Christmas ‘knocking off’ periods! As with everything connected with our complaints no one appears to want to apply common sense in dealing with our issues.
As you can appreciate, this is an emotive set of issues and I apologise for moments when the emotions involved may get in the way of the more than robust facts.
We/I believe that UK Docks may get ‘wind’ of potential visits? As suggested  a more covert and 24/7 approach to monitoring the site activity and noise and polution assessment would seem to be a better option?
As you are probably more than aware, we were bitterly disappointed with the planning committees decisions. However, none of the residents are about to let our concerns and experience of the yards’ less than appropriate position to established residences go.
We all hope that the environmental dept will ensure that our rights as residents are applied at the same level (which appears to be quite high in the councils esteem!) as UK Docks’ ‘established sites’ rights?
The councillors are supposed to represent their constituents; you are expected to apply the law in a just and equitable manner as local government employees.  As a Civil Servant myself, I am more than aware of my duty to uphold the public servant codes of conduct…

Yours respectfully

(It has been unusually quiet in the yard this morning. Were they made aware you would be visiting?).

Noise from UK Docks

Noise – View from Harbour View

Leave a comment

From: Harbour View
Sent: 02 February 2016 11:18
To: Kevin Burrell
Subject: Noise from UK Docks yard River Drive

Mr Burrell

I have sent an official complaint to STC re unacceptable noise from yard since 08:00 today, Tuesday 2 Feb.
Consisting of: sudden and reverberating loud bangs of what sounds like metal being dropped; constant grinding of metal; loud hammering; and rumbling of a forklift truck shifting stuff around the open yard.
Exactly the reasons we gave to – and were ignored by – the planning committee yesterday.
The noise issues need: a consistent (ie for 24/7 for the minimum of a month) to show the environmental impact on the residents. Not some statements from the interested party who is anything but impartial! – on what is happening now, and therefore how a site expansion would exponentially increase the noise.
Can we apply common sense to this please?

Mrs R~~~~~~
Sent from Samsung Mobile Continue reading Noise – View from Harbour View →

Noise from UK Docks

Pollution from UK Docks

1 Comment

Melanie Todd wrote in an email circulated to Local Residents:

At yesterdays Planning Committee meeting public assurances were given by Mr Ian Rutherford, Principal Environmental Health Officer, STC that complaints re noise, pollutants and any issues the public have re environmental and public safety from the work at UK Docks site would be thoroughly investigated and enforcements would be put in place wherever they were needed. Continue reading Pollution from UK Docks →

Noise from UK Docks, Uncategorized

Noise – View from Greens Place

Leave a comment

From: Greens Place
To: Circulation List
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:00 AM
Subject: Noise pollution from UK Docks

At yesterdays Planning Committee meeting public assurances were given by Mr Ian Rutherford, Principal Environmental Health Officer, STC that complaints re noise, pollutants and any issues the public have re environmental and public safety from the work at UK Docks site would be thoroughly investigated and enforcements would be put in place wherever they were needed.

This morning they have been emailed them regarding the continuing noise of steel being worked on in the open air, this has been reported since last Thursday. Everybody is urged to register their complaints by email or in writing (not by phone) as often as you have one.

environmentalhealth@southtyneside.gov.uk

the officer dealing with complaints is Kevin.Burrell@southtyneside.gov.uk

If we all work together we can make a bigger impact.

Second Phase

UK Docks River Drive – Phase II

Leave a comment

ST/0461/14/FUL

This application goes before the Planning Committee of South Tyneside Council which is meeting on February 1st 2016 in Jarrow Town Hall. The agent is Gary Craig Building Services Ltd.

The Council are laying themselves open to ridicule and worse in recommending this application principally because the one of the items is an extension to the existing boat shed. Continue reading UK Docks River Drive – Phase II →

MPs

On behalf of the CEO

2 Comments

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.    Continue reading On behalf of the CEO →

Uncategorized

Shed Section. 8296/1A or 1B

1 Comment

There has been an email from Paul saying that he assumed the section drawing of the frames is road end. It looks like a lot of people make that mistake and I’ve always made the assumption that people knew that it was the river end, it is becoming clear to me now that the may be staff in the Council who think it refers to road end. It is not surprising that people have ignored my early explanation of why the shed has been built 3m higher than planned. Take a look right half of 8296/1A again.
Continue reading Shed Section. 8296/1A or 1B →