Friday, August 05, 2005
Redhead's Landing
Redhead's Landing, gate still locked!
The wheels of the machine go round and round.................in a very slow grinding fashion.
The Shields Gazette carries the story tonight describing in detail why the Council has decided to lock and secure Redhead's Landing in the interests of public safety. Most of the text in the report is taken verbatim from the series of emails between Neil Carter, Council Officers, Councillors, myself, and Scott Duffy (David Miliband's aide in Parliament). It's a shame that Angela Taggart, the Gazette reporter, had not seen my reply to Neil Carter (it's in a previous post Angela) where I question how flytippers could possibly be held responsible for the state of the landing, when it is almost permanently locked. That would have added a little more spice to her story, perhaps someone would like to work out how the flytippers managed to get a boat over the fence?
Indeed, it would be challenging to find out if there has been a tide high enough to deposit a boat so near to the pedestrian gate, I can't remember any small tsunamis on Tyneside in recent years, there were no reports of deaths or destruction down there, however, the lads at Tyne Slipway did tell me a couple of weeks ago that they had found the bodies of a fox and a sheep on the landing, and that is why it was locked.
Now where on earth, locally, did a sheep and a fox find access to the River Tyne? Sometimes you just don't have to question or probe too deeply to understand that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
I wonder how Council Officers are getting on with the job of finding the owners of the site? They were first authorised to do this about ten years ago. If they have found the owners, following the decision to lock the pedestrian access gate on health and safety grounds, I wonder if a Dangerous Conditions Notice is going to be issued?
I wonder, also, if anyone has set about discovering why planners originally insisted that this pedestrian gate be kept open at all times, and why, later, this Council found good enough reason to take enforcing action to ensure that this planning condition was adhered to? Why did they find it so important then, but not so "legitimate" now?
I have a feeling that if someone delves deep enough they will find out who the owners are, because on 8th. April 1999 Chris Bradley, the former head of the Legal Services Dept. wrote to a resident using these words;
"I would confirm that it was a condition of a planning permission issued by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation on 15th January 1991 that the pedestrian gate at this site should remain unlocked at all times. The Council’s Director of Development Services will be writing to the new occupiers of this site in the near future regarding the possible breach of planning control."
So the Council ought to have a record of this correspondence from the Director of Development Services, they just need to find it.
At the end of the day, there are hundreds of local residents (and a few Council Officers) who recognise that the public has always had access to the river at Redhead's Landing, and that's how it should remain, it was recognised in the 80's and 90's when planning permission was granted for the erection of the gates, and it ought to be recognised now.
I hope this post gives people something to chew over.
_________________________________________________________________
The wheels of the machine go round and round.................in a very slow grinding fashion.
The Shields Gazette carries the story tonight describing in detail why the Council has decided to lock and secure Redhead's Landing in the interests of public safety. Most of the text in the report is taken verbatim from the series of emails between Neil Carter, Council Officers, Councillors, myself, and Scott Duffy (David Miliband's aide in Parliament). It's a shame that Angela Taggart, the Gazette reporter, had not seen my reply to Neil Carter (it's in a previous post Angela) where I question how flytippers could possibly be held responsible for the state of the landing, when it is almost permanently locked. That would have added a little more spice to her story, perhaps someone would like to work out how the flytippers managed to get a boat over the fence?
Indeed, it would be challenging to find out if there has been a tide high enough to deposit a boat so near to the pedestrian gate, I can't remember any small tsunamis on Tyneside in recent years, there were no reports of deaths or destruction down there, however, the lads at Tyne Slipway did tell me a couple of weeks ago that they had found the bodies of a fox and a sheep on the landing, and that is why it was locked.
Now where on earth, locally, did a sheep and a fox find access to the River Tyne? Sometimes you just don't have to question or probe too deeply to understand that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
I wonder how Council Officers are getting on with the job of finding the owners of the site? They were first authorised to do this about ten years ago. If they have found the owners, following the decision to lock the pedestrian access gate on health and safety grounds, I wonder if a Dangerous Conditions Notice is going to be issued?
I wonder, also, if anyone has set about discovering why planners originally insisted that this pedestrian gate be kept open at all times, and why, later, this Council found good enough reason to take enforcing action to ensure that this planning condition was adhered to? Why did they find it so important then, but not so "legitimate" now?
I have a feeling that if someone delves deep enough they will find out who the owners are, because on 8th. April 1999 Chris Bradley, the former head of the Legal Services Dept. wrote to a resident using these words;
"I would confirm that it was a condition of a planning permission issued by the Tyne & Wear Development Corporation on 15th January 1991 that the pedestrian gate at this site should remain unlocked at all times. The Council’s Director of Development Services will be writing to the new occupiers of this site in the near future regarding the possible breach of planning control."
So the Council ought to have a record of this correspondence from the Director of Development Services, they just need to find it.
At the end of the day, there are hundreds of local residents (and a few Council Officers) who recognise that the public has always had access to the river at Redhead's Landing, and that's how it should remain, it was recognised in the 80's and 90's when planning permission was granted for the erection of the gates, and it ought to be recognised now.
I hope this post gives people something to chew over.
About Me
Curly Born in 1956
Sanddancer
Sunderland fan
Male
Retailer
Former Borough Councillor
View my Profile
Contact
Email Curly
south-shields AT
blueyonder DOT co DOT uk
Got a story?
Got a tip off?
Got some scandal?
Let me know!
07941386870
Search
Search this site
Comments
How do I make a comment on this blog?
Links
Curly's Corner Shop website
Curly's Photoshop
My Message Board
Shields photo gallery
RTG Message Board
Sunderland AFC Blog
Site Feed
Blogroll Me!
Past
December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007