From: Resident HV
Sent: 03 February 2016 09:44
To: Kevin Burrell
Subject: RE: Noise from UK Docks yard River Drive [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

Mr Burrell.
The diary sheets were inappropriate to the timings of UK Docks Christmas ‘knocking off’ periods! As with everything connected with our complaints no one appears to want to apply common sense in dealing with our issues.
As you can appreciate, this is an emotive set of issues and I apologise for moments when the emotions involved may get in the way of the more than robust facts.
We/I believe that UK Docks may get ‘wind’ of potential visits? As suggested  a more covert and 24/7 approach to monitoring the site activity and noise and polution assessment would seem to be a better option?
As you are probably more than aware, we were bitterly disappointed with the planning committees decisions. However, none of the residents are about to let our concerns and experience of the yards’ less than appropriate position to established residences go.
We all hope that the environmental dept will ensure that our rights as residents are applied at the same level (which appears to be quite high in the councils esteem!) as UK Docks’ ‘established sites’ rights?
The councillors are supposed to represent their constituents; you are expected to apply the law in a just and equitable manner as local government employees.  As a Civil Servant myself, I am more than aware of my duty to uphold the public servant codes of conduct…

Yours respectfully

(It has been unusually quiet in the yard this morning. Were they made aware you would be visiting?).

From: Harbour View
Sent: 02 February 2016 11:18
To: Kevin Burrell
Subject: Noise from UK Docks yard River Drive

Mr Burrell

I have sent an official complaint to STC re unacceptable noise from yard since 08:00 today, Tuesday 2 Feb.
Consisting of: sudden and reverberating loud bangs of what sounds like metal being dropped; constant grinding of metal; loud hammering; and rumbling of a forklift truck shifting stuff around the open yard.
Exactly the reasons we gave to – and were ignored by – the planning committee yesterday.
The noise issues need: a consistent (ie for 24/7 for the minimum of a month) to show the environmental impact on the residents. Not some statements from the interested party who is anything but impartial! – on what is happening now, and therefore how a site expansion would exponentially increase the noise.
Can we apply common sense to this please?

Mrs R~~~~~~
Sent from Samsung Mobile Continue reading Noise – View from Harbour View →

Melanie Todd wrote in an email circulated to Local Residents:

At yesterdays Planning Committee meeting public assurances were given by Mr Ian Rutherford, Principal Environmental Health Officer, STC that complaints re noise, pollutants and any issues the public have re environmental and public safety from the work at UK Docks site would be thoroughly investigated and enforcements would be put in place wherever they were needed. Continue reading Pollution from UK Docks →

Email to “The Environmental Health Service”

Thank you for taking my call the other day, and agreeing to investigate my issues with regard to the noise issues with the UK Docks/John Wilson site on River Drive.

My neighbour, Melanie Todd, had directed you to details of noise legislation and actions, which you disputed. I’ve attached the details of the information I’ve also sourced, and wish to put it to you that:

1) The council should acknowledged there is a definite conflict with the boundaries of a residential and industrial site, and although the council does not appear to fully recognise its responsibility to address this issue, it has to under the legislation;

2) The fact that the site adjacent to the residential area is an industrial site should not have precedence over the residential site – that fact is, the estate housing was there before the planning permission was given for the (now shown to be breached) planning permission for the construction in the boat yard;

3) I have spoken to HSE on 10 March 2014, and provided evidence that an employee in the yard was grinding and deconstructing a fibreglass speedboat only a few feet from our house. The employee was in full protective gear, and my husband took a video of the actions, where there was a large amount of dust being produced – as well as the noise. The employee was in full protective gear – we however, not being an industrial workplace – were not. The HSE accepted the investigation.

I would like you, and the councillors and council you represent, to consider the conflict of sites now taking place. I would suggest that you appear not to be taking this issue as seriously as you should – both in the interest of the residents of Harbour View and Green’s Place, and equally the owners of the yard.

As you are a paid employee of the council, who state that the council strategy/vision is ‘ an outstanding place to live and bring up families’. Our current situation does not reflect the strategy… I’d suggest you liaise with Mr Anglin, and Peter Cunningham and all look at the vision and strategy detailed in the (link) information on the South Tyneside Council website:

http://www.southtyneside.info/article/15711/shaping-our-future-south-tyneside-council-strategy

Thank you for your time

Julie and David Routledge

Mr and Mrs Routledge

Could I refer to a copy of your email to Councillor Anglin forwarded to us concerning the use of a mobile platform on the UK docks site next to your property on Monday morning. I understand that Mrs Routledge also spoke to one of our officers about the occurrence.

I acknowledge your concern about activities on this site and would assure you that we will investigate issues raised with us as we have already done. The objective is frequently to identify the cause or source of the noise and judge its reasonableness and measures used to control noise levels. I have explained to one of your neighbours that we cannot ignore the fact that this immediate area of industrial activity on Wapping Street/ River Drive lies close to housing and therefore there is a possibility that activity on this and neighbouring industrial sites may at times have an impact to a degree upon nearby properties. You have a legitimate expectation that the operators consider your proximity, and your reasonable expectations in terms of your local environment, but I need to explain that whilst we can limit the degree of that impact where appropriate, we would not be able to close any operation down and working in the open environment means that there are sometimes limited practical controls that can be applied. The complex situation that is often presented by mixed land uses can give us a problem in achieving a complete solution if residents expect the ideal to be no noise or odour or light (for instance).

Investigation of complaints normally results in a site visit, the determination of a cause and identification of possible solutions. We can measure noise levels where appropriate and they will be compared against a normal environment for the area and any appropriate guidance. In determining statutory nuisance we will consider the reasonableness of the activity, the noise level and its duration and times of day, and the frequency of occurrences. I am afraid it is not feasible to continuously monitor noise levels on an individual site, but this does not prevent us from taking action and we find that our methods are more than adequate to deal with most complaints.  Our task is mainly to assess if the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance and whether the operator is complying with a ‘best practicable means’ test, including hours of operation and available technical measures used to minimise noise.

If I use the event that you have recently complained about as an example, the operation of a lift or hoist platform on the dock during normal daytime hours, and for the twenty minute period that was originally mentioned by another resident, might not be formally actionable, though we would also look at the noise levels that were emitted and whether (if it was operated by an engine) it had a suitable exhaust silencer. We would however contact the site operator; which we have already done in this case and have previously stressed the need for him to manage site operations in ways that minimise noise.

I hope this helps to explain how such issues are approached. I am happy to advise on any matter that arises on the site, and so far the operator has been very cooperative when approached by us.

Finally could I please assure you that we are keen to ensure that residents fully understand what can be done, and what limitations exist by virtue of environmental legislation. In terms of any future planning issues (such as enforcement of conditions, requirements for planning permission etc) I would suggest you direct such enquiries to our Planning team, but of course I am happy to pass them on myself if you wish.

Finally the Council’s Customer Contact Centre is open for calls between 8am and 8pm each day; please feel free to ring 0191 427 7000 or use the online complaints enquiry service at any time. Calls are logged onto our complaints system and we will respond as soon as possible; officers are often in work outside standard office hours, and certainly before 9am

Trust this helps

Regards
Principal EHO Environmental Health