Invasion of Privacy

From: Marilyn  at hotmail.com
Date: 18 March 2014 18:18:55 GMT
To: “Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk” <Ian.Rutherford@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Cc: “Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk” <Gordon.Atkinson@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Subject: Slipway river drive

I would firstly like to respond to Mr Atkinson’s comment that the council cannot control the use of hoists on the slipway site. So I ask,  if the council can’t control this , then who do you suggest I speak to who can control it?
As for the term ” an established general industrial site”  is a load of tosh , yes there was occasional repairs to the nexus ferry which sometimes encroached on my privacy whilst I sat on my balcony but this was few and far between. What is happening now is a total different ball game. The noise , smoke ,dust and fumes is making my life a nightmare . I can no longer go out onto my balcony, I was looking forward to the summer to sit out and enjoy the quiet after moving into my apartment 20 months ago and spending a fortune making it into my retirement home, only to find I might as well have bought a dump in temple town area of Tyne Dock and had McNulty as my neighbours.
I have rang to complain to environmental health about dust, fumes ,noise and smoke  and not had any reply .
Never before have I complained to the council , only this past few months as I am totally enraged by what you are allowing to happen on mine and other residents doorstep
Regards Marilyn
Harbour View
South Shields

Noise from Work on First Vessel

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: David Routledge
To: Gordon.Atkinson at southtyneside.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 11:31
Subject:
Dear Mr. Atkinson,
It would appear that work unrelated to construction has begun on the Tyneslipway causing unacceptable noise. The matter is being raised with environmental health.
However I feel it is incumbent on the planning dept. to act immediately to have this work stopped as the structure in which the work is taking place does not comply with the grant of planning permission. Notwithstanding that there are serious concerns over the size of the structure which we await your further comments on there are issues in relation to cladding and to doors which wered meant to contain noise and pollution but which have not been fitted.
The company appear to be riding roughshod over their obligations and are making your dept. appear toothless.
Can you reply immediately with confirmation that you will be enforcing the planning condions forthwith and have this unaccepatable work stopped.
Yours
David Routledge

Noise from Work on First Vessel

—– Original Message —–
From: Melanie Todd
To:     Circulation 25 local Residents
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:54 AM
Subject: noise levels

Dear all,
The first vessel for repair arrived at the UK Docks site yesterday afternoon. As you will all be aware from the original planning consent the shed was given permission as an enclosed structure, and you will all see that this is not the case. The noise level this morning is not acceptable and the fact that the pollutants being produced from the work is not being contained is also unacceptable. I have emailed Ian Rutherford (Jan Bostocks boss) at Environmental Services this mooring to complain and ask that he sends officers to monitor things immediately. I would suggest that anyone else feeling the same as I do this morning emails Ian Rutherford at southtyneside.gov.uk. We have strength in numbers.
Regards,
Melanie

Invasion of Privacy – Reply from Council

From: Head of Planning
Date: 10 March 2014 17:06:52 GMT
To: Mrs Chapman
Subject: Corporate Feedback System-job number 250605 re site at River Drive
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mrs Chapman
I have your message submitted to the Council.
The Council has been investigating the erection of the slipway cover at the site next to Harbour View, off River Drive.  When those investigations are completed we will contact various local residents who have raised the matter with the Council.  If you wish, I can add your name to that list, but please let me know if you want to be contacted again.
However, with regards to the specific issue that you now raise, that is, the invasion of privacy caused by the use of a hoist at the site, I’m afraid that is not something the Council can control as the slipway site is an established general industrial use.
Regards

Noise Nuisance on Slipway

From: David Routledge
To: “concerns@HSE.gsi.gov.uk” <concerns@HSE.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: Monday, 10 March 2014, 15:27
Subject: Nuisance at Tyne slipway

. . . . . . . HSE representative.
I understand you spoke to my wife earlier today re nuisance at Tyne Slipway.

As well as unacceptable levels of noise from around 8.00 a.m at one point an operative began to dismantle a fibre glass speed boat in the open yard using what appeared to be an angle grinder. This added to the noise but also created fibre glass dust which was not contained. This activity took place less than 30 m from residential properties in Harbour View.
When I challenged the behaviour I was told (by somebody senior on the site) that it was an industrial site and I should expect this sort of thing. I stated that this was in fact a residential area and we intended to do everything in our power to protect our rights.
He told me to ‘ring the council’ in a tone that indicated that in his opinion the authorities were powerless and our rights were unimportant.
nuisanceattyneslipwayI attach a screen shot from some video footage of the aforesaid unacceptable activity (the file size means I can’t send the footage itself)
I’d be grateful if you could confirm receipt and indicate the action that you intend to take.
Kind regards
Dave Routledge

Noise Issues

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

Buck Passing

Hi Mrs Routledge – can I make a quick few comments on your response, just so that you are clear on the input of the Environmental Health service.
I do appreciate your views on how the situation appears to be changing, and what could be the possible impact upon your properties. I did not suggest in any way that we would not react to events and I did not suggest that we would not, or could not, challenge practices on this site (or any other for that matter).  We are happy to do so if it will resolve problems that residents experience, but it is not in essence a policy issue (whether political or otherwise), it is about the application of legislation that has existed in its present form for 23  years and in a similar form before that. That legislation seeks to achieve a reasonable balance between the competing requirements of parties.
The starting point is to understand that this river-related site will likely have an established industrial use (there are currently three significant sites nearby that are of that category ), and whilst I appreciate that it may have been relatively quiet in recent years, there will be certain activities on the site that will  not be challengeable in terms of any prior permissions. That leaves us with the task of ensuring that if the site restarts and substantial boat repair is undertaken then the operator ensures that it is adequately controlled to prevent nuisance to residents. I was attempting to explain previously that that task in an open environment is often difficult, and legislation provides a ‘best practicable means’ defence for industrial operators which we must take into consideration. Ironically working within the new shed may actually make noise levels easier to control, but we need to explore that with the operator.
Could I also repeat that the input of the Environmental Health service is primarily concerned with the application of nuisance or other environmental pollution legislation. Issues that may fall within planning law should be dealt with by the Planning service who can provide a specific response on any  question that you may have. I think it would be unhelpful for our officers to speculate on any planning-related matters.
Regards
Principal EHO Environmental Health

Environment | Nexus

For those that do not know: Nexus run the North/South Shields Ferries. The ferries are maintained on the slipway on River Drive and that appears to be, currently, the only use of the yard.

To Quote:-
“The Nexus Environment Policy sets the principles and values by which Nexus will operate. The environment strategy sets out the following core objectives:

  • To assess and reduce the environmental impact caused by Nexus operations and the operations of companies supplying us and working on our behalf
  • To engender an organisational culture of sustainability that supports and promotes environmentally ethical behaviours
  • To make a positive contribution to the cultural and economic development of Tyne and Wear in an environmentally sustainable way
  • To play a key role in partnership with local authorities and transport operators to develop and implement environmentally sustainable transport policies that will be efficient, effective and economic”

If you wish to see the whole page go to the Nexus Website.

Noise at UK Docks

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

Listed Buildings

From: Gerard New of South Shields:-

“I had thought, and I apologise if this is wrong, that the houses on Green Place were listed, possibly grade 2, if this is the case then I’m assuming that any developments that have a direct impact on them and their local environment would require a greater level of approval, i.e. Listed Building Consent.

If the buildings aren’t listed, an application to have them listed, with English Heritage, may help the cause.

Good luck with dealing with the Local Authority planning department who, as always, appear to have been asleep on the job!”