End of stage 1 of the complaints procedure:
Tue 14/01/2014 14:46
Dear Mr Cunningham,
Thank you for your message. As you no doubt observed my message was sent to the Planning Department in general and not to you specifically. However out of courtesy I will respond.
Firstly I was contacting planning not under the umbrella of the Tyne Gateway Association, but as an individual and resident of Greens Place.
Much as I appreciated your meeting with the above mentioned Association I am personally not satisfied with the outcome, particularly as new issues have come to light. The issues I refer to are the date stamp on drawing no 8296/1A and drawing for application ST/1146/13/COND which is not a match for the current structure.
Therefore until I have some satisfactory answers to my very reasonable questions I do not consider this matter closed.
If you are unable to supply me with answers to my questions could you please pass the issue to someone who can.
Sincerely
Mr M Dawson
His Manager infers that the approved height of landward end is 15.5m which is not true and only gives a description of 8296/14 omitting the fact that it shows the river end to be correct at 15.5m.
| 12 | 15/01/14 Denial Mis- representation Complaint re- written by Planning. |
The Planning Manager says there is no breach. A complaint is logged 248789 but it is not the complaint sent into Planning Enquiries on 10/1/14. It was replaced by “The see email to planning 14/1/14. Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive, South Shields.” |
| 13 | 28/01/14 Mis- representation Forward Pass |
1) The Planning Manager implies 8692/1A and 1B are approved. They are not. 2) He also says a drawing of the river end of the shed is road end. Completely wrong: the drawing has a note on it to the effect that it is to allow access for boats and boats come up the slipway from the river. |
| 00 | 03/02/14 Correction |
The gable end shown on 8296/14 is the river end which shows that it rather than the landward end has a permitted height of 15.5m. |
| 14 | 13/02/14 Misinformation |
Admission: the current structure is not built to approved plans.We were discussing approved drawing 8296/14 which gives a section 15.5m x 12.5m not 18.2 x 13.1m and it refers to the river end of the shed not the road end.He goes on to say to say of the drawing that the gable end detail was not to scale. |
The email of the 13th February was an admission that the shed was nearly 3m too tall as the question of width was not under discussion and it had to be read in conjunction with the email of the 3rd of February to be put into context.