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
Yesterday (Monday 17 Mar) there was loud noise inside my house coming from UK Docks Slipway next to our property in Harbour View. I clocked it between about 11:00 to 13:00 but it may have extended outside this period. Though it sounded like a generator or a compressor when viewed from my property it looked like it was coming from mobile platform that that can be raised for high up work. The engine that drives the platform sounded like it was on full throttle. At the particular time I looked there was no persons to be seen.
Today Tuesday a disturbing constant humming noise could be heard inside my house. On investigating using sight and sound, the noise appeared to come from the Slipway mobile platform again but the platform engine was operating at a slower rate. I clocked the noise during the morning.
Please would you investigate this problem.
P Hepburn
Dear Mr . . . . . .(Council Officer for Environment)
I have returned home from work (at 4:45pm), today, 18/03/14.
I have been informed the noise from a generator placed outside the shed (not inside the shed – the one with no doors, and currently looking as though it has a large skip in it….) on the land behind Harbour View, being used by John Wilson/UK Docks, has been running all day. It was quiet for approx half an hour when I got in, then started up again at 5:30pm.
The nosie level is unacceptable. Please see the attached link which states you (Environmental Dept) have a madatory obligation to deal with our complaints with regard to noise, Noise Act 1996:
http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/rights-under-noise-act.html
It states the perpertrators can be issued with a noise abatement notice.
Please do not resort to your previous arguments that the noise eminates from an industrial site. WE ARE NOT AN INDUSTRIAL SITE, even if they are! The fact that the estate is parallel to an industrial site means that there is a conflict, whether you think the council can deal with it or not.
The noise levels require measurment, and a legislative balance needs to be drawn up to recognise the fact that it is not a yard within an area of industry – it is a yard within an area of residential properties.
The conflict of an industrial site directly beside a residential site means you cannot simply keep stating that as an industrial site they have rights to their activities above the residents of Harbour View.
The council and Environment Dept MUST accept that actions need to be taken to:
1) Accept that the industrial site does not have precedence over the residential site, which was constructed in 1991 BEFORE the planning permission was given on the boatyard site, therefore the argument that it was established is nonsense;
2) Accept that this is becoming intolerable to the residents, as we do not have protection for our hearing,nor control when the noise will stop!
3) That the owners of the yard, having already breached the planning permission given in 1996, will most likely ignore any reasonable requests to consider their ‘neighbours’ in the work they complete;
4) There are considerable Health and Safety issues which have to be considered:
– the yard owners and workers have already caused potential polution by grinding and dismantling a fibreglass speedboat within a few feet of our houses (the workman being in full protective gear – unfortunatley we weren’t!);
– the nosie is equally a part of the H&S issues – again, we don’t have the luxury of ear protectors;
– they are not confining work to the so called protection on the shed, and it’s a nonsense anyway, as it is open ended;
5) And therefore, accept that legal action is the only step we can take as residents, if the council, and its relevant depts, don’t take the actions the legislation states has the mandatory obligation to take.
Please: walk in our shoes for a while – we doubt that if this was going on next to where you, or the owners of the business live, that you would put up with it.
Thank you
Julie Routledge
From immediate neighbour.
I have returned home from work (at 4:45pm), today, 18/03/14.
I have been informed the noise from a generator placed outside the shed (not inside the shed – the one with no doors, and currently looking as though it has a large skip in it….) on the land behind Harbour View, being used by John Wilson/UK Docks, has been running all day. It was quiet for approx half an hour when I got in, then started up again at 5:30pm.
The nosie level is unacceptable. Please see the attached link which states you (Environmental Dept) have a madatory obligation to deal with our complaints with regard to noise, Noise Act 1996:
http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/rights-under-noise-act.html
It states the perpertrators can be issued with a noise abatement notice.
Please do not resort to your previous arguments that the noise eminates from an industrial site. WE ARE NOT AN INDUSTRIAL SITE, even if they are! The fact that the estate is parallel to an industrial site means that there is a conflict, whether you think the council can deal with it or not.
The noise levels require measurment, and a legislative balance needs to be drawn up to recognise the fact that it is not a yard within an area of industry – it is a yard within an area of residential properties.
The conflict of an industrial site directly beside a residential site means you cannot simply keep stating that as an industrial site they have rights to their activities above the residents of Harbour View.
The council and Environment Dept MUST accept that actions need to be taken to:
1) Accept that the industrial site does not have precedence over the residential site, which was constructed in 1991 BEFORE the planning permission was given on the boatyard site, therefore the argument that it was established is nonsense;
2) Accept that this is becoming intolerable to the residents, as we do not have protection for our hearing,nor control when the noise will stop!
3) That the owners of the yard, having already breached the planning permission given in 1996, will most likely ignore any reasonable requests to consider their ‘neighbours’ in the work they complete;
4) There are considerable Health and Safety issues which have to be considered:
– the yard owners and workers have already caused potential polution by grinding and dismantling a fibreglass speedboat within a few feet of our houses (the workman being in full protective gear – unfortunatley we weren’t!);
– the nosie is equally a part of the H&S issues – again, we don’t have the luxury of ear protectors;
– they are not confining work to the so called protection on the shed, and it’s a nonsense anyway, as it is open ended;
5) And therefore, accept that legal action is the only step we can take as residents, if the council, and its relevant depts, don’t take the actions the legislation states has the mandatory obligation to take.
Please: walk in our shoes for a while – we doubt that if this was going on next to where you, or the owners of the business live, that you would put up with it.
Thank you
Julie Routledge
Can I also add that you appear to have obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which require you to;
“assess the noise level from the premises that the complaint is about and decide whether it is “prejudicial to health or a nuisance”, in which case it is a “statutory nuisance” under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Even if the noise does not affect your health (for example, by disturbing your sleep), it can be regarded as a nuisance if the level of noise is unreasonable for your neighbourhood. The council can serve an “abatement notice” on the person making the noise. This could require the noisy activity to stop, demand steps to reduce the noise (such as insulation or volume control)”
The noise from the generator (situated just a few meters from our property) referred to below has recommenced today and is a nuiscance even when we are indoors behind high quality double glazing. Clearly the use/enjoyment of our gardens or other outdoor spaces (such as balconies) is impossible. If this does not constitute nuiscance ‘d like to know what does.
We await imminent action from you and your team.
Regards
David Routledge
From: Marilyn Chapman
Date: 18 March 2014 18:18:55 GMT
To: Environment
Cc: Planning
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 Mrs Marilyn Chapman
Harbour View
South Shields