Tag Archives: Mr G Simmonette

Planning Officer

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 →

Uncategorised

To Planning Enquiries

Leave a comment

I received a copy of the complaint sent in to Panning Enquires from a couple who live in Greens Place and have used it as I cannot remember now if I have actually put a complaint in since the amendment went in, the agent had not specified the  height of the second shed in the first submission. The planning department had been challenged about accepting plans to build another shed 3m too high. It appears that people who protested when these plans were first submitted will be ignored and only the objections of those who complained against the renewed application would be considered.  This ruling appears to be in use  again by the Planning Office in the application to demolish the Beacon Public House.
Continue reading To Planning Enquiries →

Uncategorised

Missing Stage II

Leave a comment

This is a copy of a letter to Mr Mansbridge, by another resident in Greens Place, which I would have used for a draft for my Stage 2 if I had been allowed to write one. I would have been able to add that Mr Mansbridge is giving answers that are not consistent and for me has circumvented the normal rules of the Complaints Procedure by reissuing complaint 248789 as 253539:

Stage 2 of STMBC Corporate Complaints Procedure
Continue reading Missing Stage II →

Uncategorised

Unbelievable III – STC have accepted an application for a bigger shed.

next to the unplanned one.

and when you ask them to ask for it to be withdrawn you will get something like that shown below. To see how this ends.

From: Performance and Information Support Officer
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:19 PM
Subject: RE FBR – 266782, Planning application ST/0461/14/FUL

Dear Mr Dawson
I am writing in regard to your recent feedback request 266782, and the planning application ST/0461/14/FUL.
I have spoken to our planning department and they have advised that past issues do not affect the validity of any new planning applications and as such it is going through the normal planning process. We would not ask that it be withdrawn.

If I can be of any further help please get in touch.

Kind Regards
Performance and Information Support Officer
Strategy and Performance

Uncategorised

Continual referral to the Complaints System.

It has become apparent over the last 18 months that whenever the Planning Office are questioned about the size of the slipway cover they become evasive and do not answer questions directly. They duck having to give a straight answer and refer you to the complaints system. If you have had anything to do with Planning and the way they operate the Complaints System you will know the implications.
The Principal Planning Officer was very helpful at the start but within a few days of the framework going up, 9th Sept 2014, he had referred one enquirer to the Complaints System.
When I questioned him on the width of the cover three months later, 20th Dec, he said he had measured it and that it conformed to approved plans. When pressed he referred me to the complaints system on the 13th Jan 2014 rather than admit I was correct.
When I went over his head to the Planning Manager a similar thing happened. I also introduced the height issue at this stage and he again referred me to the Complaints System 28th Jan. He finally conceded that the cover was not built to an approved plan on Friday 13th Feb.
The Head of Development Services did something similar when I wrote to him on the 4th April 2014. I say something similar because he handles middle stages of the Complaints System. What he did, instead of agreeing or countering my proposition that the cover was 3m too high, was to ask one of his staff to raise an official complaint (248789)  from my letter. He has never admitted to me, nor anyone else in public as far as I know, that the cover is built 3m higher than authorised plans allow.

Uncategorised

Letter to CEO South Tyneside Council

Dear Mr Swales,

I am not certain as to what your knowledge is of the ongoing (since September2013) concerns and complaints  from the residents of the area surrounding the River Drive site of UK Docks and visitors to the area. Living in Greens Place I am very aware of the tourist and visitor traffic through the Lawe Top area and the serious concerns they have raised in direct support to that of those who live in the area. I am more than happy to supply you with a timeline and overview and the website address for you to see the depth of upset and seriousness of the situation.
On 3rd April 2014, I along with other representatives handed in a petition of 238 signatures addressed to yourself(it has since been added to bringing the number of signatories to not far short of 300) Democratic services took away those signatories democratic rights by choosing to not give the petition to yourself the addressee but to Mr Mansbridge Head of Development Services instead. The petition was addressed to yourself as we had already been given inaccurate and conflicting information by Mr Cunningham, Mr Atkinson, Mr Bostock, Mr Rutherford and Mr Mansbridge, and were in agreement that we as Council Tax paying residents were being sidelined, fobbed off and lied to by those people whose jobs were paid for by us and whose role it was to listen to and consider our concerns and issues and to represent us fairly.
It is mine and many other residents opinion that from the treatment we have received which has at the least been appalling and highly distressing, we cannot trust STMBC Officers to carry out correct procedure with due respect to the residents and their opinions and rights, and that we have no faith in the Planning procedure.
You will see from the email stream below that, Mr Simmonette who is the designated officer has not replied to the first email, Mr Atkinson has fobbed me off and not answered my questions in the second email and Mr Mansbidge has not answered from nearly a week ago. Their behaviour is not professional or fair handed and is adding to the stress and upset we are facing with this situation, affecting personally my Health and Wellbeing quite significantly.
I would hope that you will treat this matter with urgency and address the matters which I have raised (briefly) in this email. We have previously asked that work be halted while consultation and reviews were carried out, and this has been ignored. We have in writing from Mr Mansbridge that the facts we have been stating since September 2013 are in fact ( after a long and complicated inquiry by STMBC) fact and that the ‘shed’ has not been built to plan, but STMBC are choosing not to enforce any measures on the developers. And now with that ‘shed’ still under construction (since 5th September 2013) we are given a brief period of time to object to further large scale inappropriate development of the site including an extension to the ‘shed’ that is not built to plan. Please halt all work and live planning applications to enable a complete review of the situation including consultations and reviews.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Melanie Todd(Miss)
Uncategorised

FAO – South Tyneside Council Planning Department

1 Comment

From: Melanie Todd
Sent: 24 June 2014 15:10
To: Planning applications
Subject:ST/0461/14/FUL

Dear Mr Simmonette,

With reference to the letter we have received this morning by post giving notice of the 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, 84,Greens Place, until Tuesday 24 June 2014. Therefore technically I do not believe you can enforce that we only have 21 days from the date on the letter to make representations. I await your advise on a new deadline in line with the receipt of the information.
Furthermore I would like you to advise on why this application will go straight to the Planning Committee, as outlined in your correspondence. And what consultations and appropriate impact surveys will be carried out regarding this planned development ahead of the Planning Committee? Will there be site visits and consultations with local residents by the Committee members and reviews of STMBC Local Strategic Plan with regard to the proposed development of this area?
With STMBC knowing the issues regarding the development of this site in close proximity to established residential housing, our own house has been here since 1843 and most likely built on the site of earlier dwellings, have any other more appropriate sites for this development been investigated ahead of this planning application by either the Owners of UK Docks or STMBC? I understand that Port of Tyne offered UK Docks a more appropriate site for their work immediately to the east of McNulty’s yard.
In your letter under the heading MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS  you state “Matters relating to rights to light, property values, or private covenants cannot be considered as a material planning consideration in the assessment of any planning application.” Please supply by return any documents or references to current legislation upon which STMBC has based this statement.
The existing shed still under construction at River Drive is not built to plan and should be removed. All the conditions attached to the 1996 planning permission have been breached and should be enforced. It is absurd for STMBC to argue that none of these conditions will be enforced because the developers have not built to plan. These kinds of arguments emanating from STMBC planning are clearly not even-handed between the interests of the developers and those of local residents who are left with little faith in the planning process, and which bring into disrepute the Planning Authority. A petition signed by over 200 people objecting to the development under construction at this site has been addressed and delivered to the Chief Executive of STMBC and re-directed by Democratic Services to George Mansbridge. Know that I object to theses un-democratic actions, and to the further development of the site as outlined in the planning application to which your letter refers. I have looked online and notice that the plans to which your letter refers are not to be found on the planning portal – in the same way that the plans for the shed under construction were also not publicised on the planning portal or indeed in any other way before construction began in September 2013. Taken together with the existing construction, these new plans represent a concerted effort to re-site heavy industrial works within a residential area, in very close proximity to residential and retirement housing. The work planned by the developer to be undertaken on this site is quite unacceptable for reasons of nuisance, noise, pollution, and a severely adverse affect upon the visual amenity of the area for residents and visitors.
Yours sincerely,
Melanie Todd, resident
Uncategorised

Industrial site next to Harbour View

From: David Routledge
Planning Manager; Cllr.John.Wood; Cllr.John.Anglin; Environmental Officer;
Sent: Monday, 31 March 2014, 10:50
Subject: Re: Industrial site next to Harbour View

Dear Planning Manager,

The ‘report’ that the structure has not been built in accordance with permissions seems to have come as a surprise to you but as you know local residents have been pointing this out for several months. Your department attempted to claim for some time that this was not the case and only persistence from local residents seems to have finally forced your department to admit that there are ‘difficulties’ with the structure. As you know we believe the structure to be significantly wider and taller than permitted.
Why has your department not imposed an immediate cessation of work in terms of construction of the structure pending your ‘investigation’?
I can report that construction was still being carried out on 31 March despite frequent requests for intervention by your department.
The situation has recently been further compounded by the commencement of work on a boat within the confines of the shed contrary to the conditions of the 1996 planning permission which expressly forbids work to commence without the conditions being fully met.
My view is that your department is guilty of series of serious errors (which could amount to gross incompetence).
The impression is that every attempt has been made to allow the structure to continue to be developed (despite your knowledge that planning conditions have not been met) and that your department has made insufficient effort to carry out your statutory duties in relation to the conditions contained in the aforesaid planning permission. These conditions were clearly designed to protect local residents and as I understand it were included after consultation with your colleagues in environmental protection. The implications of the conditions are clear. No work that is a nuisance to local residents should be being carried out outside the shed which should be a contained structure (in order to minimise impact).

Why did your department not impose an immediate cessation of work on the boat that until recently has been housed in the shed in terms of failure to meet the conditions of the 1996 planning permission pending your ‘investigation’?

I understand that you have a duty to intervene please explain why this was not been exercised.
As regards to your definition of the site as ‘general industrial’ please provide details of the statute from which you have sourced your quote and confirm that there are no definitions for planning purposes which allow some commercial activity but not full industrial use.
I note that you say that the matter is complex and time is needed to consider the matter. I would suggest that the issues above are not complex although I understand that the errors that have been made by your department may be embarrassing. I also think that you have had more than sufficient time to respond. As previously stated, I believe that you were under an obligation to suspend work until matters were resolved.

I note that further work is being carried out on the shed today (31 March). Given the circumstances and our request that the building be altered to conform with the planning permission your continuing failure to intervene seems to be adding to the potential costs that the developer will incur in order to comply.
The only conclusion that we can draw is that you have no intention of enforcing the conditions imposed by the planning permission and that the developer has been given tacit approval to carry on and told that a retrospective application will be viewed favourably.

Please can you provide copies of any relevant correspondence you have had with the owners or developers.

In the meantime I ask you to:
Set out the nature of the complexities as you see them.
Indicate precisely what you are doing to address these.
Set out a clear timetable for resolution.

Your previous delaying tactics are not acceptable.
We understand that you have an obligation to keep us fully informed and that this would be something the Planning Ombudsman would also consider if reference to them is required.

It gives me no pleasure to have to write in such terms. My privacy and ability to have quite enjoyment of my property have been compromised by your departments failure to adequately control this development or deal with legitimate queries.
You will note that I have copied this to John Anglin and John Wood and I’m aware that other residents are asking similar questions.
Please consider these issues immediately and supply a response to of the points raised by return.

Yours in frustration,
David Routledge