Example 4
I write to Mr Mansbridge on April 4th 2014 about:
- the lack of action re email to the Planning Manager on 4th March
- the height question
- re-election of the Chairman of the Planning Committee.
I will just deal with the question of height where I say:
“To cap it all there was an artical in the local paper on Apr 1st showing most flattering photograph of the offending shed saying that it was only 36ft high. The author of the article may have got away with saying that in September but not now. You should know that it is over 50 ft high and that is what we have been saying for months now. It’s planned height is about 42ft.”
Mr Mansbridge avoids the height question along with the other queries and an update is made to Complaint 248789 and says it is for the Planning Manager who has already made it clear that it is no longer his problem.
I have repeated it here as an illustration of the way that the complaints system is manipulated by the staff and now, it appears, the senior management of South Tyneside Council to their advantage.
When the Shields Ferry is taken onto the slipway (it is too long fit into the cover and the doors closed on it) I write again to Mr Mansbridge about the continued use of the shelter which we now know to be built without planning permission. After the fate of my correspondence of the 4th April I deliver the letter of May 2nd by hand to the Town Hall because it also broaches the subject of the abuse of the complaints system by his staff to avoid answering uncomfortable questions. I conclude by saying:
If I had followed the suggestions by these officers there would have been no admission by the planning office that the slipway shed on River Drive had not been built to plan and it ill behoves you to refer my email to the formal complaints procedure as well.
Work continues in the slipway shed as I write this so if you have not written to the operator to stop, as you intended to, then please do so.
- there is no Stage 2, I have not written one, so he is out or order by pretending to respond to one ;
- what has happened to Complaint 248789?
- where is the answer to my email on behalf of the residents to the Planning Manager on March 3rd?
From: Michael Dawson
Sent: 04 March 2014 11:09
To: Gordon Atkinson
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Slipway Development, River Drive
Dear Mr Atkinson,
With this e-mail I have agreed to act as spokesperson for the local Riverside Residents.
A meeting was held with members of the local community and I can now answer your question as to ‘what kind of action we would like the Council to take’. Thank you also for confirming that the Slipway Shed is not built to the approved 1996 plans.
The immediate response from residents was to request the slipway construction be removed. However the universally agreed request of Council, is that there is immediate cessation of work on the Slipway Shed until such time as appropriate community consultation with the relevant council departments can be arranged.
The residents protesting about the shed were locked into the cycle of deceit started by the Principal Planning Manager in his response of the 13th January, 2014: “If you are still not satisfied with the Council’s response then you should use the Council’s complaints procedure which has 3 stages.
Where the Case Officer, Planning Manager and Head of Develop Services misuse the Complaints Procedure by evading the question and referring one on:
Example 1
On 5th September 2013, at 15:54, the Principal Planning Officer wrote to a resident of Greens Place:-
Hello – as promised during our conversation earlier I attach a copy of the planning permission and drawing of the aforementioned subject…the building foundations were signed off as being complete by the Council’s Building Control Section on 26 February 2001…and the details required under condition 4 have been submitted. This development was approved by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation.
Regards
Principal Planning Officer
South Tyneside Council, Development Management, Planning Group, the planning officer continued to be helpful and I was by now included in the list of respondents.
From: Principal Planning Officer
To: Resident of Greens Place
CC: 6 other local residents including myself and; cllr.john.anglin@southtyneside.gov.uk; cllr.audrey.mcmillan@southtyneside.gov.uk; Cllr.John.Wood@southtyneside.gov.uk; Mike.Telford@southtyneside.gov.uk; Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:08:28 +0100
Subject: RE: Approved boat repair shelter at Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Hello
I called on site last Friday (6/9/13) and following this visit the applicant provided me with 2no. Architect drawings (copies attached) which were agreed as part of the 1996 planning permission. The development shown on these plans is being constructed on site.
The same Architect that submitted these plans in 1996 is overseeing construction on site today and he has used these drawings under the Building Regulations submission.
My colleague Mike Telford (Snr. Building Control Surveyor tel: 4247435) is dealing with the Building Regulations application. You may be aware the Building Regulations system is there to ensure that development is constructed in accordance with modern day building standards[1b], they are not dealing with residential amenity issues such as outlook as this would be a planning issue.
The details relating to condition 4 were agreed by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation, whom were the planning authority for the area in 1996 not South Tyneside Council.
Unfortunately, only recent planning records are held on the Council’s Planning Portal website, but when residents call I am either emailing or posting the information regarding this development out to them. Give me a call if you require more information.
Best Regards
Principal Planning Officer
This all appeared to be extremely helpful but 3 hours later he had written in response to a request* to clarify the height question:
To: Resident of Greens Place
CC: 6 Residents and the 3 Ward Councillors
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:00:04 +0100
Subject: RE: Approved boat repair shelter at Tyne Slipway, River Drive, South Shields
This email has been classified as: PROTECT**
Hello – I stamped these drawings on the day they were handed to me in reception, as I explained these are copies of drawings passed in 1996 by the T&W Development Corporation the only difference is that these drawings do not have the approved stamps on them.
I attach a link to the Council’s website explaining the complaints procedure.
Regards
Principal Planning Officer
* Dear Peter,
From the stamp date on the revised plans, you have received plans on the 06.09.13 the day after construction commenced which show a increased height to the structure to that which was originally approved in 1996. Has the revised height of 15.5metres been approved or is it in breach of the 1996 Planning approval?
Please can you send me full details of the relevant complaints procedure.
Regards,
Resident, Greens Place
** This time the status of the email had been changed to PROTECT and from this point on (only four days after the start) any question about the height was avoided or the enquirer was referred to the Complaints System. I have dealt with the ‘Complaints System’ as operated by South Tyneside Council elsewhere on this Website. The Complaints System
Interesting side notes from the Gazette 09 & 10 September 2013
Example 2
The Principal Planning Officer had instructed Planning Enquiries to divert any complaint about UK Docks so that he could maintain the lie that the shed (still an unclad structure) had approval. On receit of the email below I wrote: If you are unable to supply me with answers to my questions could you please pass the issue to someone who can.
From: Peter.Cunningham
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:19:18
Subject: Slipway Development – Work Continues [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Mr Dawson,
I responded to you this morning as follows:
The queries that you raise are not new, indeed I have been repeating my response to them for some time now, and you will recall that I explained the planning aspect of the Council’s position to you regarding this development during our meeting. This meeting included the chair and representatives of your residents group, and Councillors Anglin and McMillan. This meeting was requested by the residents and it was arranged by the Councillors.
My understanding is that the responses that I had provided to you at this meeting enabled the matter to be closed.
May I therefore suggest that you speak with the Chair of the residents group in respect of the points that you have raised below, as these have already been discussed and explained. If you are still not satisfied with the Council’s response then you should use the Council’s complaints procedure which has 3 stages.
Peter Cunningham
Principal Planning Officer
Example 3
After the meeting between the Council and residents in November where I was told by the Case Officer that the cover was ‘legal’ I became concerned that the height issue was significant. I knew (see page 1 ) that he had already avoided the issue by deferral and it seemed to me that he was in denial when he said that the cover had neither been built too high nor too wide at this meeting. The list of avoidance goes on:
- Email 13th January 2014 by the Principal Planning Officer in response to my email to Planning Enquiries 10th Jan.
- “May I therefore suggest that you speak with the Chair of the residents group in respect of the points that you have raised below, as these have already been discussed and explained. If you are still not satisfied with the Council’s response then you should use the Council’s complaints procedure which has 3 stages.”
- Email 28th January 2014 by the Planning Manager in response to my email to Planning Enquiries 10th Jan.
- “I can only suggest that if you do wish to pursue this matter further you ask that my Head of Service, George Mansbridge, responds to any remaining points you may have formally under stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. You will have to write to him and say specifically what you remain unhappy about.”
This email is rather long but it does give the dimensions of the cover measured by the Council in September:
Length 22.254m
Width 13.1m
Height at end facing River Drive 15.5m
Height at end facing river 18m
Example 4
I write to Mr Mansbridge on April 4th 2014 about:
- the lack of action re email to the Planning Manager on 4th March
- the height question
- re-election of the Chairman of the Planning Committee.
I will just deal with the question of height where I say:
“To cap it all there was an artical in the local paper on Apr 1st showing most flattering photograph of the offending shed saying that it was only 36ft high. The author of the article may have got away with saying that in September but not now. You should know that it is over 50 ft high and that is what we have been saying for months now. It’s planned height is about 42ft.”
Mr Mansbridge avoids the height question along with the other queries and an update is made to Complaint 248789 and says it is for the Planning Manager who has already made it clear that it is no longer his problem.
I have repeated it here as an illustration of the way that the complaints system is manipulated by the staff and now, it appears, the senior management of South Tyneside Council to their advantage.
When the Shields Ferry is taken onto the slipway (it is too long fit into the cover and the doors closed on it) I write again to Mr Mansbridge about the continued use of the shelter which we now know to be built without planning permission. After the fate of my correspondence of the 4th April I deliver the letter of May 2nd by hand to the Town Hall because it also broaches the subject of the abuse of the complaints system by his staff to avoid answering uncomfortable questions. I conclude by saying:
If I had followed the suggestions by these officers there would have been no admission by the planning office that the slipway shed on River Drive had not been built to plan and it ill behoves you to refer my email to the formal complaints procedure as well.
Work continues in the slipway shed as I write this so if you have not written to the operator to stop, as you intended to, then please do so.
- there is no Stage 2, I have not written one, so he is out or order by pretending to respond to one ;
- what has happened to Complaint 248789?
- where is the answer to my email on behalf of the residents to the Planning Manager on March 3rd?
From: Michael Dawson
Sent: 04 March 2014 11:09
To: Gordon Atkinson
Cc: Residents
Subject: RE: Slipway Development, River Drive
Dear Mr Atkinson,
With this e-mail I have agreed to act as spokesperson for the local Riverside Residents.
A meeting was held with members of the local community and I can now answer your question as to ‘what kind of action we would like the Council to take’. Thank you also for confirming that the Slipway Shed is not built to the approved 1996 plans.
The immediate response from residents was to request the slipway construction be removed. However the universally agreed request of Council, is that there is immediate cessation of work on the Slipway Shed until such time as appropriate community consultation with the relevant council departments can be arranged.
The residents protesting about the shed were locked into the cycle of deceit started by the Principal Planning Manager in his response of the 13th January, 2014: “If you are still not satisfied with the Council’s response then you should use the Council’s complaints procedure which has 3 stages.
As you can see we were already within the complaints procedure and I was not happy with his response. He knew just as well as I did that the shed was 3m taller than planned and so did his Planning Manager and they both knew that their Manager was happy to rig the complaints procedure to use the Local Government Ombudsman to hide:
- the fact that the shed was nearly 3m too tall;
- they were all lying about it.
Mr Mansbridge wrote in response to our Petition that the shed had been built to the approved height.