The Council normally drive complaints such as these through to the Ombudsman where by being economical with the truth they can persuade the Inspector to not uphold the complaint. The complaint was escalated from the first to second stage because the Case Officer said the shed was compliant. As the Planning Manager had grudgingly conceded that it was not compliant there was no requirement for further escalation and none was made. The Council had to invent one to which they could give a response and they did this by repeating the lies of the Planning Manager. This actually was his response to our Petition but it was a near repeat of a second stage response another complainant made 3 days before and copied again to me on the 2nd of June even after I had told him that he was repeating lies.
| 22 | 02/06/14 Denial Forward Pass Back Pass |
He simply repeated the misrepresentations made in his response to the Petition, see #15-21. Complaint Job No. 253539 raised – effectively deleting the original (Job No. 248789) which was about non-compliance and there is no Stage 2 escalation from me.. |
| 23 | 07/07/14 Evasion and Denial |
Letter to CEO about height and width of shed: On the 5th Sept 2013 work started at UK Docks premises on River Drive to build a slipway shed length 22.3m, width 13.1m and height at end facing River Drive 15.5m. On 27th Sept an application was received in the planning office from the agents for UK Docks, Messrs Maughan, Reynolds Partnership Ltd to meet conditions of a previously granted application ST/0242/96 for a slipway shed length 22.3m, width 12.2m and height at end facing River Drive 12.5m. This was ignored by the author of the their Stage 3 (Stage 4 in reality). |