Harbour View

UK Docks were allowed to build, without planning permission by South Tyneside Council (STC), a shelter on their slipway on the banks of the Tyne in South Shields. In spite of protests from the very beginning, that it was bigger than planned, South Tyneside Council did nothing to halt, apart from a temporary stoppage, the completion of the shed.

The Council must have been aware of the breach of the 2nd condition because they forced UK Docks to stop work on the structure on or before September 23rd 2013 (note; there was a site inspection in October to confirm that work had stopped and then none for a further 5 months).

Meanwhile the Principal Planning Officer continued to hide the fact that the approved plans indicated that enclosure (shed) was nearly 3m taller than permitted, 20-December 2013:

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.

They were not compliant, being nearly 3m taller than with any approved drawing allowed and nearly a meter wider than any plan or drawing had shown. The Council were then stuck with hiding the malfeasance of the Principal Planning Officer and allowing work on the shed to continue and as one can see UK Docks were allowed to complete the shed.

The Principal Planning Officer refused to answer direct questions about the size of the shed so the residents tried to involve the MP but were met with a poor response because they were feeding her or her agent with misinformation and refusing to answer questions as directed by the FoI.

The newly elected MP, Emma Lewell-Buck, was not to blame for she had only been in post for six months and South Tyneside Council were happy to give her the same misinformation that was being pumped out by their staff over the phone to the Local Residents.

The Residents then decided to resurrect the Tyne Gateway Assn (TGA) which turned out to be a mistake because, with the interference of Cllrs Anglin and Macmillan the two main posts of the TGA, the Chair and Treasurer, went to two people who had an interest in UK Docks. They were a former director and procurement officer of HB Hydraulics.

At a meeting in November 2013 to arranged to review the grant given to Tyne Slipway in 1996, no valid plans were produced because they would have shown that the Residents were correct and, to put it bluntly, the Principal Planning Officer was being economical with the truth when he allowed it to be reported that the shed was ‘legal’ to mean it had been approved. However, actions speak louder than words and it was he who passed the drawings to the author of this blog to maintain the fraud the UK Docks had permission for their shed.

The drawings, 8296/1A and 1B, contained a fundamental flaw and it was in the dimension indicating the landward height of the shed and that led to the denials mentioned above.

Two of the three Ward Councillors were clearly working with the Principal Planning Officer at the meeting to suppress the fact that the shed was too tall and I, not being an Executive Member of the TGA, decided to raise a complaint on behalf of the residents who had not been invited to the meeting at the Town Hall.

It got nowhere, because it was removed from Planning Enquiries by the combined actions of the Planning Manager, Mr G Atkinson and his Principal Planning Officer, Mr P Cunningham, and this act was condoned by the manager the Head of Development Services, Mr G Mansbridge when:-

1. he repeated the main misrepresentation made by his Planning Manager on  January 15, that the shed had an approved height of 15.5m at its landward end.
2. he rewrote of the second stage of the original complaint  saving:- “I have investigated this and referred to the approved drawing cross-referenced with the dimensions taken on site by my planning staff. The height of the shelter does not significantly deviate from the approved scheme as you have suggested.

The true second stage happened because the first case officer was unable to supply a reasonable response to the discrepancy between what had been permitted and the size of the structure on the slipway.

The faux Stage 2 went forward to the office of the Chief Executive, Mr M Swales, where the person appointed to respond a complaint that the shed was 3m taller than planned, got round the problem of the shed being nearly 3m taller than planned, by failing to mention the height of the shed in her Stage Three Response.