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.

FAO: Garry Simmonette

You already have my views on the existing shed but I would like to add that in their grant of permission for the T&WDC expressly said that they did not wish to see further development of the site. Is this coupled with the covenants written into the sale of the land adjacent to the slipway in 1986 to the Wilsons? Drawing 11 shows that considerable excavation will be required for some distance into this land which is likely to destroy any archaeological remains hidden below. Elsewhere in the application to extend this development there is mention of the World Heritage Site of Arbeia and given the interest in Roman remains generally but especially in South Shields would it not be prudent to establish whether or not the Roman Port was formally on this site. In case I have not actually notified you of my objections before please see list below:

The first 12 items of the comprehensive objection are copied in.