Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:07:54 +0000
Subject: Re: FW: Slipway Development – Work Continues
From: davidroutledge@btinternet.com
To: daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk

I’d be very careful about being locked into the complaints route which has been my concern all along. The council are fudging the correct direction we can take which is about law.  Complaints are about procedures not legalities. We should be making a stance on the  adherence to the legally agreed plans. My worry throughout has been focusing too much on the complaint process, and not that the business owners are at fault, breaching the plans.

Julie Routledge

——– Original message ——–
From Michael Dawson
Date: 29/01/2014 13:53 (GMT+00:00)
To Melanie Todd
David and Julie,Michelle Martin,
Subject FW: Slipway Development – Work Continues

Hi Melanie,

Here are some details of Gordon Atkinson’s reply. He has admitted that the structure is a meter wider than any plans allow.

It looks like Tyne and Wear DC did approve a structure 15.5m high at the south end, see ST1AA3V000… but I’m not so sure, I’ll do some more digging and let you know. He has however glossed over my observations on the drawing ST114613CO… that the south end should only be 12.5m high.

Two main things to say.1) Is it wrong to assume that  the drawing of the doors  will be based on an authorised plan? 2) there are three pointers to the door being at the north end (making the elevation 15.5m high).  Look at the drawing on the portal as it is clearer than my annotated one. ST114613COND Details 300913.pdf

i) note on drawing “Strips to draw back to each side to allow access for boats …”.
ii) section at door jamb which shows the cladding on the downward ie north side.
iii) the apparent use of third angle projection would imply that the door is at the north end.

The last paragraph of his reply is steering me into the complaints procedure by implying that this is a complaint.  I still, however, have had no real answer to the issue which I raised at the beginning.

” I notice that work on this site has recommenced in the last day or so and I am surprised as  there is still an outstanding issue which I think has not been addressed. The issue relates to the second condition of planning permission granted under ST/0242/96/UD which has not been met. This condition states:- ‘The
development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.’ “.

I might try one more time because I know from bitter experience that once one gets into the various stages of complaint, the responses are designed to obfuscate the issue even more so that by the time it gets to the ombudsman he or she is not able to make a fair judgement on the issue you are really complaining about.

I’ve copied this to Julie and David so that they know I’m keeping up the fight and I’d like you please to forward it to anyone in Harbour View that has raised the issue that the slipway has not been built to authorised plans i.e. it is 3m too high.

I’m printing a copy of these mails and will deliver it to Michelle if her email is still troublesome. I know she will be interested. She was the first so say the structure was too wide and it was this that prompted me to estimate the width to be 13+m.

where’s the cranes – is it too windy?
cheers Mick