Questions Not Answered

Denial No. 1*

Has the revised height of 15.5metres been approved or is it in breach of the 1996 Planning approval?
The question was not answered: The planning officer wrote: This email has been classified as: PROTECT** Hello – I stamped these drawings on the day they were handed to me in reception, as I explained these are copies of drawings passed in 1996 by the T&W Development Corporation the only difference is that these drawings do not have the approved stamps on them.
I attach a link to the Council’s website explaining the complaints procedure.

Denial No. 2

The misinformation that the shed had approval was given out at the meeting but couched so vaguely, but it would still be described in legal terms, as a denial – see correspondence 26-Nov to 20-Dec.The Executive representatives of the Group may have believed been made legally as per drawings seen but one should know  that to say a building was legal to mean it had been approved was fraudulant misrepresentation.
The residents were therefore told a lie – see 20-Dec-13 where it was confirmed in writing.

Denial No. 3

28-Nov: Dear Councillor, Thank you for arranging the meeting of Monday 25th, please could you send a copy of the minutes.
Regards,
Michael Dawson.
1-Dec-2013: Summary of meeting:- Michael, I took no minutes as is customary at these informal meetings. For your record I am sure all would agree: The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.

Confirmation of Denial No. 2

By the Principal Planning Officer: Mr Dawson – once again – I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996 plans across to you twice already and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant…this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.
The plans he copied across were not approved . Neither the base nor the height had been approved; and height was compliant with very suspect plans.
ST1AA3V00023_MFD-EZU14078-37788_3396_001.pdf
Notice, the height has been removed fron the left hand side of the upper drawing!

Denial No. 4

By the Planning Manager: The dimensions of the steelwork have been checked on site and he says they are in accordance with the measurements shown on the approved drawings. A lie. The dimension shown the approved drawing say the height should be 12.7 or 12.8m. The height at that point is 15.5m.

Denial No. 5

Following a search of our archived file the only drawings that we have that are stamped ‘Approved by Tyne and Wear Development Corporation’ are 8296/2 and 8296/4. 8296/1A and 8296/1B are consistent with these two stamped drawings in terms of overall dimensions. It is therefore reasonable to say that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996
They are not consistent: ../1A and ../1B give a height at the landward end of 15.5m and 8296/2 which has been approved shows it to be 12.7m.

Denial No. 6

The engineer chose to show a gable elevation of the structure (not drawn to scale) on the same drawing – the drawing is to scale and no-one in the last 9 years has questioned the dimensions noted, i.e. 12.2m x 15.5m on the river end gable.

4-Mar-2014: Thank you also for confirming that the Slipway Shed is not built to the approved 1996 plans: The approved plans from 1966 (8296/2) quite clearly gives a height of the landward end of the shed as 12.7m (roof 108.8m/ footing 96.1m).

Denial No. 10

Meeting at Town Hall to examine approved drawing 8296/14. The Planning Manager failed to produce it. He brought drawings 8296/1A and 8296/2 and the latter is authorised and shows the permitted height to be 12.7m which agrees with 8296/14.

8296/14 was withdrawn from the agenda, it was not examined because it was not bought to the meeting, see Denial No. 10. Drawing 8296/1A was brought to the meeting to maintain the lie that UK Docks had approval for their shed which has been signed off three weeks before. It was was not authorised and was used to fraudulently misrepresent the planned height of the shed as 15.5m

Denial No. 11

Dear Mr Dawson, Your email to Mr Atkinson has been forwarded to our team as your complaint on this matter has exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure and is now with the Local Government Ombudsman’s office.

Denial No. 12

Spreading the misinformation to the Ombudsman.
The Local Government Ombudsman: She says: The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be. The Council says it is not. There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height. She says: The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be. The Council says it is not. There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.
c.f. #23 – I have seen the 1996 plans and report written by the Development Corporation. The applicant has written the elevations on the plans. At the inland end this is 12.5 metres plus 3 metres.
Both ends of the shed are given a height of 15.5m which is an impossibility given that the gradient of nearly 3m exists between them and the shed has a level roof – see second explanation below.

Denial No. 13

Being confirmation of denial 10.
The Ombudsman says: The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be. The Council says it is not.
She goes on to say: There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height, but someone was giving misinformation to the Ombudsman #34: I have seen the 1996 plans. On plan 1/B the applicant has written the proposed elevations at the inland end as 12.5 metres plus 3 metres.

Denial No. 14

The misinformation about the shed’s height in a letter to the MP for Berwick, thus spreading the misinformation to a much wider area.
The Council’s Corporate Lead lied when she said:  “The matters and allegations raised by your constituent are well documented and have been subject to a number of enquiries from Mr Dawson and other local residents over a lengthy period of time.”
The approved or authorised drawings show that we were not making allegations.She went on to say: “The matter was ultimately referred by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, the outcome of which was delivered on 14 April 2015.

Denial No. 15:

Is a summary of 11 to 14 and it was this that led me to a solicitor in Sunderland, the ones I spoke to in South Shields being compromised.
Dear Mr Dawson
I have been forwarded your emails to the Planning Team dated 4th and 7th December 2015, in order to clarify the Council’s position regarding your comments on issues relating to the existing boat repair shed at UK Docks Tyne Slipway and your earlier complaint to the Council regarding this matter.