Subject: Complaint Ref: 101370770: Management of Marden Quarry

 

This note follows repeated requests for the complaint to proceed to Stage 3 of the Council's formal complaints procedure. In the interim period since I have produced a Complaint Summary that is password protected and encrypted and has now been posted online. The Complaint Summary includes my complaint first submitted in August 2015, the stage 1 and stage 2 officers' responses and my reasons for rejection of them. It also includes some relevant copies of correspondence with your office. It does not include any of the material received by me as a result of a FOI request.

 

This is a further request to proceed to Stage 3 of the complaints procedure. Given an agreed date for a Stage 3 meeting I will forward a few details of how to access the Complaint Summary that also contains links to publicly available documents previously uploaded to the internet. This will be done at least 7 days in advance of the meeting date and is for use by members of the "Regulation and Review committee" ahead of the meeting.

 

I expect your response with a firm date for a Stage 3 meeting by 31 October, 2016.  Failure to give a satisfactory response by 31 October, 2016 will be interpreted as a rejection of my request.

 

Regards,

 

Robin Smith

To:  Mrs. Yvette Monaghan, Customer, Member & Governor Services Manager (Complaints Manager)

 

7 November 2016

 

Complaint ref. 101370770

 

Dear Mrs. Monaghan,

 

This letter is in response to yours of 1 November 2016.

 

My compliant was submitted on 24 August 2015, over 14 months ago. Below I list the topics raised: -

 

1. Failure to maintain depth of lake by dredging and/or chemical
means leading to risks to wildfowl (in particular, swans) from anglers'
lines and hooks.

2. Failure to keep the lake outlet grille clear leading to flooding of the
north west edge and erosion of lakeside and island banks.

3. Failure to heed advice supplied on methods for clearance of blockages
of the outlet grille.

4. Failure to heed advice supplied on the frequency of clearance of
blockages of the outlet grille.

5. Failure to prosecute persons responsible for blockage of the lake
outlet grille leading to severe flooding of the surrounding area lasting
some months (late 2012/early 2013).

6. Failure to remove unauthorised external grille assemblies in a timely
manner.

7. Failure to remove litter from Marden Park leading to its accumulation
and risk of harm to park users and dogs due to broken glass.

8. Failure to remove traffic cone for several months after
the event that justified its placement in the park, leading to it being
deposited in the lake.

9. Failure to remove large pieces of wood/sleepers (after a specific
request to do so) from the lake after they had been dislodged by the high
water created by flooding of the banks.

10. Failure to cut back vegetation overhanging the lake water leading to
reduction of lake depth in addition to that from silt arising from
settlement of waterborne debris delivered by inlet flow over tens of
years.

11. Allowing a poorly designed and executed repair of the stone wall at
the north west edge of the lake.

12. Creation of a new poorly engineered "whinstone dust" path adjacent
to the foot of the bank from Studley Gardens.

13. Illicit use of section 106 funding of new path (see 12).

14. Failure to maintain the existing "whinstone dust" path at the north west of
the lake.

15. Blocking of lake outlet grille with sandbags leading to flooding of
the north west edge following recent rainfall and failure to remove
despite requests.

 

I would like a full response for all the topics within the complaint and
a clear statement of remedial action.

 

The term “No remedial action proposed” was used for topics 1, 2 (and 3), 4, 10, 12 and 14 in my response to the Stage 1 officer’s claims.

 

Topic 1

Email Message to Stage 2 Investigating Officer 7 May 2016

 

“Dear Mr. MacDonald,

Thank you for the update.

I am aware that no council officer has contacted VS Fisheries regarding the use of chemicals for de-silting the lake. I learned by emailing VS Fisheries that it does not have relevant experience, contrary to what I had been advised.  I subsequently contacted the operator of the northern fisheries who provided information on his experience with chemical de-silting to one of the BWAC bailiffs last year. I am currently awaiting the response of a fisheries officer working for the Environment Agency. When I have gathered all the information I will pass it on to whoever you can identify as relevant in North Tyneside Council (NTC).  Subsequently, I will leave the topic to the local anglers' representatives to pursue with NTC.

Please note again, that increasing the depth of the lake will reduce the amount of algae growth during late Spring and Summer and thus reduce the degree of vigilance needed to clear the outlet grille. The risk to swans is currently low due to there being only two left, whereas there were as many as eleven two years ago!

I do not wish you to send me another report that I would reject. Aspects that I wish to see acted upon are the recommendations in your February report and provision of a conviction on my part that constructive actions to improve the management of Marden Quarry park will actually happen within a reasonable time scale.

 

Regards,

 

Robin Smith”

No council officer was identified for sending the information to. I had obtained all the information from the operator of the northern fisheries and I subsequently had it confirmed by the Environment Agency fisheries officer that he had forwarded it to the Council as I had encouraged him to do.

 

All the information I had sought has been passed to BWAC anglers for them to pursue the issue.

“No complaints have been received from members of the public including anglers that fish at the lake about depth or silt build-up.”  - I know this statement to be untrue.

 

There is now only one swan in Marden Quarry as a result of the dominant male swallowing an angler’s hook.

 

Topic 2 (and 3)

 

Your letter states: -

 

“2nd Stage Letter - 1 June 2016

 

Additional Recommendation:  A series of unannounced independent spot checks of the grille to be carried out during Summer 2016.

 

Informal checks were undertaken during the summer however, this recommendation has not yet been fully addressed.  The independent spot checks

have now been formalised and will be undertaken by a Senior Manager starting in November 2016."

 

I have been informed that a spot check was carried out last Thursday. The lake level then was 4 cm above “normal”. Today I found the lake level 21 cm above the “normal” level and the NW edge flooded. This is illustrated in the 4 photographs submitted with this letter. Heavy flow through the 3 inlet pipes was continuing. As advised in temp4/MardenPark.htm 18cm is enough to flood the NW edge.

What was the point of this “independent” check? Just as the checks previously claimed to have been carried out by frontline park staff none resulted in any useful action to avoid the risk of flooding. This is also illustrated in the document, temp4/MardenPark3.htm uploaded on 21 February 2016.

The NW edge is NOT a flood plain. A flood plain was clearly NOT the intent of the Council’s planning application for the work carried out in 2003 resulting from the initiative of the “Friends of Marden Quarry”.

 

I want to see, in the first instance as a draft, a written procedure on what the check is for, how it is to be carried out, what other indicators of a risk of  flooding of the NW edge should be taken into account, and covering the method for clearing the outlet in accordance with that procedure. This procedure should be available to any council officer whose responsibility is to carry out checks and action appropriate to what is found.

 

I have asked for ‘Professional advice on clearance and maintenance of the outlet grille – procedure for same as of 2014/15 and any subsequent revision to same’ but got the response from the FOI office “No information held”. Added to this statement was the idea that Park Wardens were best placed to determine frequency of clean etc. The evidence does not support this idea.

 

Topic 4

 

My latest advice, when heeded, has resulted in flooding of the NW edge being avoided but the check and appropriate action if necessary needs to be daily, as is the collection of litter.

 

Topic 5 and 6

 

I have acknowledged that the severe flooding that lasted months due to rainfall from November 2012 onwards was caused by blockage due to tree roots, a blocked outlet grill and the chicken wire frame  all contributed to the flooding. Even without the chicken wire frame the flooding may well have been as damaging to the area surrounding the lake. The lack of maintenance of the ‘private pipe’ and the outlet grille, as well as the sluice gate is the responsibility of North Tyneside Council.  (See temp4/Photos/thumb.html for photographs submitted to aid the stage 2 officer’s enquiries)

 

The unauthorised grille assemblies that were placed in front of the old outlet grille were known about by the park warden and Mr. Lillie but were left in place for several weeks.

 

Topic 9

 

During a sustained dry period with the lake level “normal”, it is possible to walk out to the edge of the reed area on the east side where there are large pieces of wood and litter which have remained there for months.

 

Topic 10

 

Vegetation was cut back earlier this year from one of the islands to reveal a passage between two of them. This was done by BWAC anglers. One of them reported sinking about 1 foot into the accumulated silt near the edge of the island.

 

Topic 11

 

The repaired wall is not high enough and the backfill of crushed stone was insufficient. Over of third of the crushed stone delivered to the car park was spirited away in plastic bags. The amount of water flowing into the lake will increase with the addition of that from the Briar Vale area.

(See  temp4/MardenPark3.htm - bottom of page. It was the sandbagging of the outlet that was the “last straw” that led me to issue a formal complaint. In particular, this was the result of a statement in the project engineer’s email to me that they were introduced “to keep the water level in the Quarry at a constant depth” and his refusal to have them removed after a repeated request.)

 

Topic 12

 

The new path at the bottom of the Studley Gardens bank does not provide an alternative route via the repaired path on the west side when it is flooded beyond the small bridge.

 

Topic 15

 

Your letter states: -

 

“The Council has been working closely with Northumbrian Water as they have  undertaken their considerable investment in upgrading the sewerage system serving North Cullercoats. As part of our partnership working, consultants commissioned by Northumbrian Water have provided the Council with a repair solution. This involves replacement of the outfall structure. Construction of this is now in the process of being procured via the Council’s asset management team.”

 

I was very grateful to Northumbria Water Limited (NWL) for the information about their calculations relating to the level of the water in Marden Quarry following a storm with water flow from beyond Rake Lane. These calculations assumed the “normal” level for the lake before the storm and no blockage of the outlet. When I visited the Quarry Park in the company of two representatives of NWL and two engineers from their consultants, MWH the latter drew for me a sketch of a conventional sluice gate.

 

Later (to avoid embarrassment) I pointed out that the sluice gate was of the penstock weir type.

 

I would like to know more about the new outfall structure. I would like details of its design, how it will be operated/used and how it will be maintained and who will be responsible for its maintenance.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Robin Smith

Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your recent complaint.

We have allocated your complaint the above reference number and it will help us if you quote this number whenever you contact us.

We carry out an initial assessment of every complaint we receive, regardless of how it’s made or what it’s about, to assess whether it is one we should consider in more detail. This includes complaints passed to us by MPs, councillors, solicitors and advice centres.

We consider each complaint individually and assess it on its own merits. There are no simple rules, monetary limits, or blanket exclusions that determine the types of complaints we will investigate. We make our decisions based on the unique circumstances of each case and by applying a number of different criteria contained in an Assessment Code. You can view this document on our website at www.lgo.org.uk.

If we decide not to investigate your complaint we will tell you the reasons why. We will do this as soon as we can. We know that you may not be happy if we do not investigate your complaint, but the law allows us to make this decision as long as we explain our reasons.

We normally must let the council or care provider know we have received your complaint and we will usually send it a copy of what your complaint is.

We will contact you again within the next 20 working days.

Yours sincerely

Robert Morris
Complaints Adviser

Dear Mr. Smith,

Please find attached a letter about this complaint.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Gill
Investigator
0330 403 4647
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

Dear Ms Gill,

 

Thank you for extending the deadline for comments on your draft report - and best wishes for the NEW Year!

 

As advised in your letter of 22 December last I will make comments citing paragraph numbers in your draft report and then make a few general comments if I conclude there are any to make afterwards.

 

Paragraph 1

 

My complaint was about the (poor) Management of Marden Quarry Park. It was entered on 24 August, 2015 and had 15 topics listed. Some of these topics have had a satisfactory response and one, the issue of the depth of the lake that has been reduced due to silt and surrounding vegetation (leaves and twigs), has been handed to local anglers to pursue.

 

I continue to pursue the complaint on other topics because the Council has not proposed any remedial action.

 

Paragraph 2

 

There has been a service failure in respect of effective maintenance over the years since the Park was created in the early 1970s. This neglect continues.

 

Paragraph 3

 

My complaint has not been personal - it has been made in consideration of the enjoyment of the Park's facilities by all residents and visitors, bearing in mind the condition that the area be used "for recreation and leisure" placed on the Council by the Duke of Northumberland when it was transferred to control of NTC/Whitley Bay Borough Council over 40 years ago.

 

Paragraph 4

 

The only information from me that you have appeared to consider is that contained in my submission to the LGO. I do not know what you have considered in the Council's response other than the copy of the letter to me (dated 29 November last) advising why the Council would not allow me to proceed to stage 3 of its procedure.

 

Paragraph 6

 

As noted in my comment in Paragraph 1 there were 15 topics in my original complaint. Please advise on how you cited only 7 without further advice from NTC.

 

Paragraph 7

 

I know that anglers from the Big Waters Angling Club (BWAC) have raised the issue of the depth of the lake/risk to wildfowl and from the FOI documents received that a Park Warden raised the issue with the Project Engineer. This led to sandbags being loaded over the lake outlet and caused flooding of the North West (NW) area. Whereas there were 11 swans on the lake over two years this had been reduced to one dominant pair with the male being killed by ingestion of line and hook, only a few moths ago!

An alternative to dredging has been sought by me via enquiries for advice from operators of lakes for anglers - and from the Environment Agency (EA) - on behalf of local anglers. All advice was forwarded to NTC via the EA at my request. The alternative to dredging is the use of chalk based products as used by operators of fishing lakes from time to time.

 

Paragraph 8

 

I do not know what action is being referred to. It was to the Asset Manager alone that I referred the problem of flooding of the NW edge in the first instance. This was after the observation by myself and another regular visitor that was made AFTER the clearance of the lake outlet grille following the severe flooding that took place from late November 2012 until March 2013. The topic was taken up by me in April 2013 with the aid of photographs when it was noticed that the lake level was not falling as rapidly after rainfall had ceased as it had hitherto. Failure to clear the blocked grille, effectively and often as needed to avoid successive ramping up of the lake water level as shown in the photographic records published on the Internet for ease of reference.

 

Paragraph 9

 

As well as the anglers, I am one of the unofficial volunteers who have cleared the debris from the lake, unblocked the outlet grille and picked up litter to make up for the lack of timely and effective action by members of  the park warden team during the period before and during the complaint.

 

Paragraph 10

 

There are islands in the lake. The excess growth of the vegetation there and at the edge of the lake, aided by the erosion of their boundaries due to repeated and sustained high lake levels, means that the bushes on the boundaries lean over the water's edge and deposit leaves and twigs leading to blockages of the outlet, particularly in the Autumn.

 

One of the misconceptions of the Council's senior management is that the NW edge is a "flood plain". Evidence that it is not is included in my "Complaint Summary" prepared in advance of the Council's stage 3 procedure so that council members could be informed by myself rather than relying solely on briefing by council officers. They have been misinformed by a particular council officer about my character and the intent behind my complaint.

 

Paragraph 11

 

I ask you to look at the evidence in my record(s) within the "Complaint Summary" I feel this is important as information from NTC may be prejudiced in NTC's favour. I refer you to the third sentence in the paragraph in particular. (Please see my highlighted comment under Paragraph 10 above.)

 

Paragraphs 12 and 13

 

Both before making the complaint, and throughout the complaint, I have been patient and sought to be constructive. The Council's approach was not constructive in its response and did not seek to comply with my requests for constructive engagement with senior management officers responsible for the Park, for it is they who are responsible for the absence of effective management of the Park, rather than the frontline officers.

 

In addition to the link below to view my "Complaint Summary" I have attached copies of the letter from Mrs. Monaghan dated 1 November, 2016 and my response (dated 7 November, 2016).

 

Complaint Summary - complaint/enter.htm 

The document has been posted to the Internet It is password protected and encrypted. You can open the document with the password, SmithRobin. Were you to print the document in PDF or hard copy it would be about 22 pages long on A4 sheet size. There are links at the top of the document and at the bottom.

 

Regards,

 

Robin Smith