6 thoughts on “Application for Second Shed: ST/0461/14/FUL”

1. The first has not been built to an approved plan and is 3m too high and 1m too wide. South Tyneside Council have not enforced planning law on this and on current form unlikely too enforce any in the future on this site. Rumour has it that Tyne Docks UK wish to move large lifting gear from their Sunderland Dock to the River Drive site and this will require a larger shed. Get your objections in now and continue with complaints about the noise etc.

2. 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

3. I heard from a second source yesterday that the second shed is to house the 70 ton crane that will be moved from UK Docs Sunderland.

4. Mr Simmonette: with ref to 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 in Harbour View, until Tues 24 June).
   Therefore we have not been technically been fully made aware of the proposals as of 24 June.
   As you have advised we only have 21 days FROM THE DATE ON THE LETTER to make representations, please accept this e-mail as an initial declaration of objection against the proposals. As we have already lost 4 days due to your delay in posting the information, we will expect a difference of this delay in our having sight and first knowledge of these proposals from 24 June.

   Mr Atkinson is already well aware of our objections with regard to the original breach in the planning permission on this site, as well as the fact we have the clear intention of objecting to the further proposals under:

   – owner has already shown disregard of the original planning permissions granted in 1996;
   – council have consistently contradicted their own arguments and responses in the residents points about planning law and breaches;
   – the current proposals have already been noted in a seperate letter from Mr Wilson as not being feasible;
   -the residents rights continue to be ignored by the council: for some unknown reason they appear to believe an ‘industrial site’ takes precedence over a residential site – which was built and in use at least 3 years before UK Docks purchased the land
   As this is an initial set of objections, based on the fact you have limited our time for response by not posting the letter to us dated 20 June until 23 June, be awre that further, more detailed objections will be sent. As you may appreciate, there is a certain amount of distrust amassing with both the owners of the yard, and council’s ability to provide a fair and objective decision on this.

   I would appreciate if you would acknowledge the receipt of this e-mail and the initial objections.

   Routledge

5. Here’s a copy of my email to: planningapplications@southtyneside.gov.uk

   1. The River Drive development and its further planned development (Office block and additional slipway and shed) goes against the Local Development Framework. To quote “Capitalising on South Tyneside’s environmental assets is about taking measures to: • Protect and enhance the strategic Green Belt, coastal and wildlife corridors; • Ensure that development throughout the Borough reflects the character and distinctiveness of its surroundings; • Boost the town centres of South Shields and Jarrow by linking them to adjacent World Heritage Sites; • Revive major riverside sites by reducing noise, pollution and risk; and • Add value to existing and create new environmental assets, especially in the Great North Forest.2
   2. Noise – Since the first slipway shed was erected (although considered incomplete without doors) noise emission has substantially increased for local residents. Some of this noise may have been the result of construction but machinery noise such as compressors etc will increase with further development. Machinery noise was never noticeable from my residence, 70 Greens Place (120m west) until this year. Allegedly the applicants record in is unfavourable in other yards owned by UK Docks. STC no doubt have records of this fact.
   3. Airborne pollutants – Complaints from neighbouring properties about particulate emission should by now be well documented by STC’s Environment Department regarding the current development. UK Docks application to further develop the site and increase its capacity will inevitably increase the risk of particulate emission; particularly if there is no plan to enclose the sheds. This presents as a potential health hazard to the resident population.
   4. The current slipway shed is considered by residents to have been built 3m higher than plans provided show. However there is considerable ongoing argument with the Planning Department about which plans are those originally approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation. It seems incomprehensible that further work should be considered until such time as issues surrounding the current construction have been resolved.
   5. Visual Amenity – The current Slipway construction on River Drive has resulted in a loss of Visual Amenity. Further development will obviously compound the loss.
   Visual Amenity can be defined as ‘a measure of the visual quality of a site or area experienced by residents, workers or visitors. It is the collective impact of the visual components which make a site or an area pleasant to be in. It is a consideration of elements which contribute to the visual pleasantness and character of towns, localities and neighbourhoods’.
   I consider that visual amenity of this area is reduced even further by the addition of the future development of this site.

   6. My understanding is that in 1996 as part of their approval for the current development, Tyne and Wear Development Corporation wrote to the proprietor of UK Docks stating that they would not support further expansion of this site so close to a residential estate. Reference: DVD held by STC.

   MD

6. RE:UK Docks new Planning Application for River Drive.
   Please take 10 minutes to read this and take action by 24th July (three days time) Your objection does not need to be long or complicated, if you only have 5 minutes to spare simply write a line stating your objection.
   Firstly the status of our petition oversized shed being built on River Drive South Shields by UK Docks is that ST Council have admitted that the ’shed’ has not been built to plan, and the only course of action available to the Council to consider is to ask the developer to take the shed down, but they have decided not to enforce that action. That fight goes on.
   I realise people will be continuing with their own complaints and efforts but must emphasis that the more objections lodged the louder our voice. Its not one objection per household, so please if more than one adult resides at your property get everyone to lodge their own objection, even if its simply repeating the points. Also please forward this email to family friends and colleagues. We have been liaising with residents and officials on the North side of the river who had not been officially informed and are voicing their concerns.
   The new Planning Application submitted by UK Docks was discussed back in August 2013 with ST Planning Dept in a pre-planning meeting. This new application includes an extension to the “unauthorised” oversized shed, a second shed the size of the extended one, fabrication workshops, three storey office blocks, and adding a second slipway and large jetty extending out into the river. Approval of this plan would see the re-siting of an existing yard (no new jobs). This can be viewed on South Tyneside Planning Portal http://www.southtyneside.info/article/9015/Search-planning-applications reference number Ref ST/14/0461/FUL.
   I can’t emphasis enough the inappropriateness of the proposed development so close to the mouth of the river (effecting tourism, cultural, heritage and residential). There are numerous appropriate vacant sites which we have researched further up the river away from residential housing and tourism and heritage sites.
   Should this development gain approval we suspect pollutants (both noise and environmental) will substantially increase. This will affect the whole area, with a negative impact on the visual amenity, tourism facilities, residential housing, maritime heritage, the wildlife corridor, river, and beaches.
   Please review the attached information and the proposed planning application to South Tyneside Council (Ref ST/14/0461/FUL) on ST Planning Portal.
   Some of the grounds on which objections are being raised include:
   Inappropriate siting in close proximity to residential housing
   Negative impact on the visual amenity
   Negative impact on the wildlife corridor
   Negative impact on tourism and local business (especially with the increased number of cruise liners now coming into the Tyne)
   Inappropriate size of buildings in close proximity to Conservation areas, Local Heritage trails, and main areas of tourism
   Unacceptable increased noise nuisance

   Kind regards,
   Melanie Todd

Comments are closed.