Receipt of application to build a even bigger shed than the one built without permission.
—– Original Message —–
From: Planning applications
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:14 PM
Subject: RE: Planning Application: ST/0461/14/FUL [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Mr M Dawson
Date: 29/07/2014
Our ref: ST/0461/14/FUL
This matter is being dealt with by:
Garry Simmonette on 0191 4247426
e-mail address:
planningapplications@southtyneside.gov.uk
Dear Sir
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing single storey office block and workshop/winch house with additional office and storage accommodation on its roof. The existing buildings will be replaced with a new 2 storey office block, workshop with winch house and mezzanine floor to provide a staff canteen, managers office, kitchen and sanitary facilities, an extension to the existing boat shed, an additional boat shed (to match existing) and a new jetty. The existing vehicular access is to be relocated.
Location:
UK Docks, Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co. Ltd., River Drive, South Shields, NE33 1LH
Thank you for submitting your observations on the above planning application.
The points have been noted and will be taken into consideration, together with any other representations, when the decision is taken on the application.
I will inform you of the decision in due course.
Yours faithfully
Gordon Atkinson
Planning Manager
—–Original Message—–
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Sent: 25 July 2014 11:19
To: Planning applications
Subject: RE: Planning Application: ST/0461/14/FUL [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
FAO: Garry Simmonette
Dear Garry,
Addition to point 6 “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”:-
The existing shed has been built oversize i.e. not to plan, and is not big enough to accommodate the current work by UK Docks. To apply to build a like shed alongside the existing one does not make sense.
regards
Mick Dawson
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Mr M Dawson
Date: 24/07/2014
Our ref: ST/0461/14/FUL
Your ref:
This matter is being dealt with by:
Garry Simmonette on 0191 4247426
e-mail address:
planningapplications@southtyneside.gov.uk
Dear Sir
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing single storey office block and
workshop/winch house with additional office and storage accommodation
on its roof. The existing buildings will be replaced with a new 2
storey office block, workshop with winch house and mezzanine floor to
provide a staff canteen, managers office, kitchen and sanitary
facilities, an extension to the existing boat shed, an additional boat
shed (to match existing) and a new jetty. The existing vehicular access is to be relocated.
Location:
UK Docks, Tyne Slipway & Engineering Co. Ltd., River Drive, South
Shields,
NE33 1LH
Thank you for submitting your observations on the above planning
application.
The points have been noted and will be taken into consideration,
together with any other representations, when the decision is taken on
the application.
I will inform you of the decision in due course.
Yours faithfully
Gordon Atkinson
Planning Manager
We aim to make letters easy to understand. If you found this letter
difficult to understand please let us know. Call 0845 145 0100 or email
feedback@southtyneside.gov.uk<mailto:feedback@southtyneside.gov.uk
From: Mick Dawson – at HV
Sent: 14 July 2014 07:14
To: Planning applications
Subject: Planning Application: ST/0461/14/FUL
Six points to take into account when considering Planning Application
ST/0461/14/FUL.
From: Michael Dawson of: Amble, Morpeth NE65 0EU.
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.
Mick Dawson