Nothing apart from ‘We are looking into it’ response for nearly four weeks. See posts below:-

Dear Council Representative

From: Michelle Martin-Robinson
To STMBC :  Planning; Environmental Health
Cc: John Wood (Chairman of Planning Committee); Members of Planning Committee

Dear Sirs
Please allow me to introduce myself.
I am a relatively new resident of Greens Place and one of a growing number of people in the area asking questions about the illegal construction and use of a development at the Tyne Slipway site.
As you may, or may not, be aware construction above ground commenced back in September 2013 utilising a 1996 approval by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation.
Despite frequent and numerous contacts to both Planning and Environmental Health (and the supposed involvement of the council legal team) no enforcement appears to have occurred.Even with the admission that the structure is larger than originally approved no enforcement appears to have occurred – why not?
What we currently witness is a glorified oversized car port (open at both ends) and which, as of last Monday (17th March), appears to have been put to work.If this were a domestic property a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion would be required before the property could be legally used.  Has this been issued?
If not, then how can you permit the shed to be in use?
A barge/boat from Port of Tyne arrived last Monday afternoon (17th March), since when the neighbourhood has echoed to the sound of generators, compressors and “chipping” as said vessel has been prepared for repainting.Due to the open nature of the shed, and its position, the noise seems to “bounce” around the surrounding buildings especially as noisy equipment has been sited outside of the shed.I assume the workers also have concerns about some particulates escaping the confines of the shed as a makeshift tarpaulin has been erected but, as you will see in the attached picture, it is wholly inadequate for that task.
My final point refers back to the original 1996 TWDC approval which prohibited work after 7pm Monday to Saturday and entirely on Sundays.The structure has been permanently lit from dusk until dawn this past week in addition to several occasions during construction – is this allowable?
There were workers on site before 8am yesterday (Sunday 23rd March) and whilst there were comings and goings throughout the day until approximately 4pm one worker remained on site until at least 5.30am this morning.As you can see in the attached picture (taken at the time) the shed is fully lit and his vehicle is parked next to the shed suggesting work is taking place outside of permitted hours.

• The illegal nature of the actual structure has been established and documented by council officers (but it took 4 months).
• Health and Safety violations were identified and documented during its construction by the HSE.
• UK Docks appear to have been allowed to ignore or pay “lip service” to any local government intervention.

South Tyneside Council and it’s officers are supposed be to the guardians of our town for all of its residents but have so far seemed reluctant to enforce anything in this case.
If this were a private individual I suspect the full weight of planning law would be brought to bear, so again why not in this case?I await your responses, and as this is matter of some urgency, well within the 20 working days as identified within the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations.

Yours faithfully
Michelle Martin Robinson

With regard to ongoing issues with industrial site River Drive, adjacent to Harbour View: FAO: Peter Cunningham; Gordon Atkinson

The Environmental dept advises they have no say over issues regarding the consistent breach in the 1996 planning permission.

Our concerns continue with our complaints not being adequately dealt with.

It appears the planning dept have little interest in applying their mandatory obligations to enforce compliance by the owners of the boat yard on River Drive, with the planning permissions given in 1996.

We would ask that council representatives desist from constantly pointing out that we reside adjacent to an indusrial site. If this is dealt within a fair and reasonable way, then equally you should be acknowledging that they operate adjacent to a residential estate.  You constantly argue that they are an established industrial site. However, at the time of the original planning requests and permissions WE were an established residential estate, construction having commenced in 1991.

Unfortunately there is no magic industrial/residential wall separating us: it would be handy to have something to shut of the noise and general products of yard activity. Equally the yard operatives probably feel the same way.  However, there is no magic wall between us, and we find ourselves buttressed up together. So we are left to find something that will hopefully:

– stop any proposed expansion to the work in the yard (are you beginning to realise what the impact will be, based on the current experiences?!);
– step up to the footplate and do the right thing: act on your mandatory obligation to actually deal with our issues, rather than simply repeating ‘industrial site, industrial site’ like a hideous mantra;
– recognise that there is no magic wall between us, and that you now are responsible ( not those who originally approved the planning permission) in doing something positive about our concerns;
– and we want you to:
a) not agree to further planning expansion in the yard;
b) enforce the original planning permission agreements: shed height and size; limits on work – times, noise etc;
c) acknowledge that not only are they an industrial site but that we are a residential site, as of 1991, and therefore WERE established before the boatyard permissions;
d) recognise that if our complaints are not dealt with, we will escalate our issues to the Ombudsman, as per the complaint processes

We await your details as to how you intend to deal with our complaints.

Regards
Julie and David Routledge

From: Head of Planning
Date: 10 March 2014 17:06:52 GMT
To: Mrs Chapman
Subject: Corporate Feedback System-job number 250605 re site at River Drive

This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mrs Chapman

I have your message submitted to the Council.

The Council has been investigating the erection of the slipway cover at the site next to Harbour View, off River Drive.  When those investigations are completed we will contact various local residents who have raised the matter with the Council.  If you wish, I can add your name to that list, but please let me know if you want to be contacted again.

However, with regards to the specific issue that you now raise, that is, the invasion of privacy caused by the use of a hoist at the site, I’m afraid that is not something the Council can control as the slipway site is an established general industrial use.

Regards