The second meeting at Town Hall 8-Jul-14 like the meeting arranged 7 months before it was rigged to hide the fact that the shed was 3m taller and give a provenance to drawing 8296/1A that it did not deserve. It was not authorised and contained a gross error.
| 24 | 08/07/14 Evasion Denial |
Meeting with Head of Development Services Council to discuss 8296/14 but 8296/1A & 2 brought along instead. Drawing in question not tabled. The Planning Manager’s excuse was that it was just an engineer’s sketch. It was the one he said in early 2014: • was of the wrong end; • was not to scale. |
| 25 | 12/08/14 Evasion |
To the Author of Stage 3: I would like to add that at no point all this correspondence has Mr Atkinson, and he heads the Planning Department, said that I am wrong in my assertion that the shed is built 3m too high. Mr Mansbridge in his letter says that the engineer did not draw the gable on drawing 8296/14 to scale. The fact that the dimensions of the portal column are given (an industry standard RSJ 686 x 254mm) and the projected width of 12.2m give lie to this. Response from the Author of Stage 3 : “Mr Mansbridge stated in his Stage 2 response that the engineer chose to include a gable elevation of the structure on the same drawing but told you this was not drawn to scale. You have disputed this. I have not considered this point further because it is clear that drawing 8296/14 was submitted in 2013 for a wholly different purpose (i.e. for the purposes of discharging a planning condition) and as such, could never supersede the previously approved plans in terms of defining the dimensions of the approved development. |
| 26 | 29/08/14 Evasion |
To the author of Stage 3: I had hoped at this meeting that we would discuss these plans and in particular my contention that the specification of the RSJ used for the portal column gives scale to drawing 8296/14 which leads to a planned height at the road end of the shed of 12.5m.. . . I would like it put on record that these plans were not shown or discussed in any detail at the meeting and only mentioned in passing. She says she will need to meet again with the Council’s Planning Manager and take further advice from the Council’s solicitor. The height was never mentioned in her pulished response. The one that woyld be sent to the LGO. |
| 27 | 25/09/14 Evasion |
I am told by the author of Stage 3: George Mansbridge’ Stage 2 response explained the reasons why the Council has decided to respond to you under its complaints procedure and also Mr Mansbridge discussed the case with the Council’s Solicitor and with the Chair of the Planning Committee. Note: she has carefully attributed it to Mr Mansbridge’ stage 2 response and to be safe she dropped the subject of the height altogether! |
| 28 | 21/11/14 Evasion |
Request for information of CA: “It would appear from the responses by the Council to queries by affected residents that there is no-one taking responsibility to ensure that developments are built to plan. Please say who is the signatory on the completion certificate as as they will have do until your office can find someone to take responsibility for this planning oversight.” The refused to say and referred me to the to the LGO. |
| 29 | 12/12/14 Evasion |
What the LGO was told: 20-Dec-2013 Mr P Cunningham said that the base and height of the structure are compliant. 13-Feb-2014 Mr G Atkinson, Planning Manager said that the the current structure is not built to “approved” plans. 02-May-2014 Mr Mansbridge, Head of Development Services, responded to the Petition and said; “Apart from the width these dimensions are either entirely in accordance with the approved plan, or subject to such minor deviation that they are properly categorised as non-material changes”. About 15 paragraphs of misrepresentations: The main ones being that 8296/1A or 1B are authorised and the gable on 8296/14 is not drawn to scale to say the height was approved and the width was not material but the main one is the rewriting the sequence of events to remove the denials of #8 and #9 from the record. |
| 30 | 05/02/15 Evasion or Denial |
FBR – 266782 EA says, “I have spoken to our planning department and they have advised that past issues do not affect the validity of any new planning applications and as such it is going through the normal planning process. An extension to a shed built without planning permission! |
| 31 | 04/03/15 Denial |
In your representations on the planning application you have made the point that the current slipway shed is considered by residents to have been built 3m higher than plans provided show. That observation will be reported when the application is considered by the Planning Committee. It was not reported to the planning Committee |
| 32 | 12/03/15 Denial |
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. This complaint is about the extension to the shed. The exhausted complaint is about is about the shed. |
Because I forgot to put FBR 266782 into the subject line, the Planning Manager was in there like a shot and instructs Alison to close it. He gives Alison two items of misinformation and done the equivalent of deleting my observations and replacing it with what ones can be taken to be a fraudulent misrepresentations, hence the use of PROTECT.
| 33 | 31/03/15 Misdirection |
Email MP for South Shields and it passed to MP for Northumberland, then Alan Beith, who naturally expresses little interest. |
| 34 | 15/04/15 Misinformation Misrepresentation |
Complaint not upheld by the Ombudsman owing to the misinformation given to them by the Senior Planning Officer. LGO misinformed on 4 counts. Height, width, sequence of events and the use of lawful to mean approved. While the Council were giving misinformation to the Ombudsman an email to Emma Lewell-Buck explaining that the shed was in fact 3m taller than planned was being passed round the houses and eventually ended up with Anne-Marie Trevelyan, MP for Berwick and it was her who wrote to the CEO for South Tyneside Council. |
| 35 | 09/06/15 Denial/ Evasion |
Letter to MP for Northumberland copied to CEO about the river end having a planned height of 15.5m and a request that he provides evidence to back any claims to the contrary. Non provided. |
| 36 | 25/06/15 Denial/ Evasion |
Appendix 6 in which we are accused of making allegations that the shed is 3m taller than planned. As it is taller than planned, it was the Corporate Lead that was in the wrong, not the good Citizens of South Shields. |
| 37 | 13/07/15 Denial by discarding |
CA confirm that 248789 has been closed and the LGO has not upheld the complaint 253539. The first was closed because it had been discarded. The latter was raised by the Council to eliminate variation in height and lessen the impact of variation in width. |
| 38 | 01/08/15 Denial/ Evasion |
The shed is 3m taller than permitted and the approved plans prove it. The Council say it is the residents are making allegations and that the shed is the correct height. using LGO summary #33-#38: “The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be. The Council says it is not.” |
| 39 | 30/09/15 Evasion |
Statement to Council “It does not appear to be good planning practice to consider an application to extend a structure when it has been built without planning permission.” Ignored – laid off to Customer Advocates to respond. |
| 40 | 04/12/15 Evasion |
To 2nd Case Officer “If you disagree with the proposition that the shed has been built 3 meters higher than planned please give your reasons to me and I will ensure that they are circulated widely. Ignored – laid off to Customer Advocates to respond. |
| 41 | 07/12/15 Evasion |
2nd Case Officer given more details about the first shed. Laid off to Customer Advocates with #36 and #37. |
| 42.1 | 09/12/15 Misinformation |
Unsolicited email from Council. Customer Advocacy did not reply to questions asked of the 2nd Planning Officer. Confirmation that they were misleading the Ombudsman and then use the unsound LGO decision to silence debate about the shed. First time the true purpose of giving misinformation and or misrepresentation to the Local Government Ombudsman (lying?) was written down. |
| 42.2 | 04/01/16 Information |
Dear Mr Dawson Please find attached a copy of the response sent to MP Trevelyan for your information(#36 refers). |
It appears that the Council have known since September 2013 that it is about 3m taller than planned because they would not answer any questions about the height.
The Planning Manager conceded in February 2014 that it was indeed too tall but his replies could be interpreted to mean that there was no breach in planning control and they then use a corrupted complaints procedure to drive the matter through to the Ombudsman where by misrepresentation and misinformation they ensure that the complaint was not upheld.
Sought advice from Solicitor re: email 09/12/15 in January 2016. It had become clear that the main reason for misleading the Local Government Ombudsman was to misdirect any enquirers, especially inquisitive reporters and MPs.
This overlooks the fact that the shed is nearly a meter wider and 3m taller than permitted!
Quite a few documents were left with Peter Dunn and Co. and these were retrieved in February 2020 with the intention of leaving them with The Journal/Chronicle.
Contact was made, but no documents left and no response.. MD 21-Mar-20
42 Evasions or Denials or Silences. There are More!