Spurn Liaison Group Update

I thought I would provide an update on the Spurn Liaison Group (SLG) as there has been some news this week.

Firstly though, the things that haven't happened. I wrote to the CEO of East Riding Of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) asking for a summary of her discussions with Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (YWT) regarding the SLG. I am awaiting her response.

I wrote to the Chair of the SLG advising of my concerns over the leadership and lack of impetus from ERYC and lack of action from YWT and re emphasised my concerns highlighted in my previous blog post.I am awaiting his response.

I wrote to the National Lottery asking for an explanation on how coastal communities money works and if they would share the details of the £1.1 million reportedly allocated to YWT for spending at Spurn. I am awaiting their response.

I was also in email dialogue with the Planning Officer who manages the Visitor Centre planning conditions.

She advised me that Planning Condition 21 has been discharged.I wrote back expressing my disappointment at this news. That planning condition was set up specifically to keep the local community informed of matters relating to the construction of the VC and had the wider objective of repairing and maintaining relations with the local community.

HOW CAN THAT CONDITION POSSIBLY BE DISCHARGED?

ERYC have now conceded their position of power and can no longer use the planning process to hold YWT to account.If I was running the process I would have made it absolutely clear that all reasonable questions had to be answered in full and there was a demonstrable improvement in relations with the local community.Only then could the condition have been discharged. It appears to me that constantly ignoring requests for information , kicking matters down the football pitch in the hope they go away and no evidence of an improvement in relations, constitutes compliance.

I was also informed in writing from the Planning Officer that ERYC and YWT have decided that the next SLG meeting will be the last.That decision has been made with no consultation with the SLG! -sorry people, despite the fact that you may want this group to continue, despite the fact that you care passionately about Spurn, despite the fact that we promised to make things better when we gave planning permission for the VC, it's just got a little bit too hard and we , not you have decided that we are calling it a day. You can draw your own conclusions on that one.

This for me has highlighted beyond doubt how hollow and quite frankly worthless Planning Condition 21 actually is and seriously questions my faith in the whole planning process. Despite what was written in the protocols document YWT and ERYC have clearly not fulfilled what they promised, even though they must have known it would be a sensitive process ( that itself is acknowledged in the protocols document).the minute it has got a little bit tricky (which it was bound to do)they have binned it off.

The minutes of the previous meeting have now been issued precisely 4 weeks after the meeting was held.

On the subject of minutes, I have checked the last set of minutes from the May meeting against those posted on the YWT website.As of today 19th August those posted on YWT website are not the same set issued to the SLG.  I have written to ERYC voicing my concern.

The minutes go into detail regarding the introduction of the local community police officer to the group. This was not an item on the agenda and took me somewhat by surprise. Apparently there had been some minor incident of trespass ( what building site nowadays doesn't have issues of this to deal with?) some damage to a notice board and a suggestion of intimidation to the contractors. It made me feel uncomfortable and there was almost a suggestion that the members of the SLG might be implicated. so much so that 2 of the members met with the officer separately to voice their concerns. Personally I thought it was quite a cynical move by YWT. Read the minutes for yourself.

It was minuted after discussion that 'YWT is keen to work with a wide group of people to deliver an inclusive vision for Spurn' - these are just hollow, meaningless words-you have already informed us that the next SLG meeting will be the last? Don't forget the minutes will be posted on the YWT website and they create an illusion of sincerity and paint a completely different picture to reality to anyone reading the minutes who wasn't actually there.

An actions tracker was sent out with the last minutes. This is a document that has never been issued before (maybe it would have been a good communication tool to issue after each meeting?)

Having read it in detail it is nothing more than a flimsy collection of points raised, actions arising and a note stating whether it has been closed or not. This document has no doubt been put together by YWT and submitted as evidence to close out planning condition 21. Some extracts are below.

'XX advised that YWT would look at the suggestions regarding opening hours of the car park. Habitat Regulations Assessment highlighted that the use of car parks could introduce disturbance to bats and SPA bird species. In addition potential disturbance to residents to lights and from overnight parking.HRA states that the car park will be open from after dawn until dusk. Opening other times only for occasional special events and visitors carefully supervised. We therefore plan to close the car park during the night'. 

After dawn until dusk? Is someone trying to wind me up? No mention of access on to Spurn, will it be gated? No specific time after dawn. How about access to the public footpath? Tells us absolutely nothing.Access has been a major discussion point since February and it has taken since then for this response.Pathetic.

'XX advised that would endeavour to send out minutes earlier.Done. Complete'....meaningless words.

2 notice boards and update in village hall.Done. Complete,.....not done, meaningless words.

(June) Spurn masterplan meeting to be arranged next meeting.' ....not done, meaningless words.

Crucially there was no mention of the proposed visit by the highways officer to advise on detail of traffic management and double yellow lines.

No clarification of disabled access despite being asked for in March.

No mention of the request for an archaeology report that gave the green light for building works to start despite concerns at the start.

No mention of the request for a letter to be sent out to residents advising that the works were due to start.

No mention of aspiration for gold award for Considerate Constructors.

No mention of the considerate constructors report to be issued to the SLG.

All reasonable requests in the name of keeping people informed all conveniently overlooked.

There was a note in the minutes regarding the cost of the visitor centre I quote; ' XX advised that there will be a financial/budgetary review and will be reported back at the next meeting but the initial budget is 1.3 million and that is approximately £400,000 over budget'

An extract from the Coastal Communities Fund website is here the Coastal Communities Fund is designed to support the economic development of coastal communities by promoting sustainable economic growth and jobs

The breakdown of the coastal communities money has been released, please see below.

Spurn

Contribution to Spurn discovery centre £383k

Interpretation, equipment & connectivity £78k

Access improvements across site £25k

Volunteer accommodation £15k

Kilnsea wetlands

Land acquisition, habitat and access £140k

Hornsea South Promenade

Wildlife viewing and enhancement £9k

Flambro South Landing

Fit out and interpretation £13k

Flambro North Landing

Wildlife viewing and enhancement £50k

Business support and monitoring

Equipment, materials, events and monitoring £103k

Nature Tourism Project Staff £170k

Contingency £115k

Total £1,101,000.

Well now we know. When we have discussed the possibility of adding hides, scrapes,footpaths flower meadows, access for sea-anglers etc (all in the name of improving the visitor experience) we have been told there is no money or there is a 'funding gap'-its minuted check it out for yourselves.

I can see quite clearly how this will benefit YWT but Coastal Community? How will,practically speaking the Coastal Communities of Kilnsea and Easington benefit proportionally from the money being spent? £170 Grand on wages? You would think that projects such as the Visitor Centre would be self funding and sustainable (see quote above from CC website) would not have to be propped up by public money?

How many jobs outside of those being funded by the £170k wages pot do you think will be created in Easington and Kilnsea to justify the spend of nearly half a million quid?

Don't even get me started on the Lighthouse...

Factual information within this blog post is correct to the best of my knowledge. Opinions are my own and not of the Spurn Liaison group. Thank you for reading.

A Leopard Never Changes Its Spots

As some of you may be aware I was asked a while ago to sit on the Spurn Liaison Group. This is a group of people selected to represent various interest groups (mine being wildlife photography) and the local community at Spurn in light of Planning Permission being granted for the New Visitor centre currently under construction at Kilnsea.

It was recognised by the East riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) that relations between the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (YWT) and visitor groups/local community had become frayed over a period of time and that something should be done to repair relations. It was widely acknowledged that some form of liaison group should have been set up years ago so that everybody with an interest at Spurn could at least have a say and be kept informed of what was planned.

So much so that ERYC imposed a planning condition (planning Condition 21) calling for the submission and approval of a protocols document with some objectives.  An extract from the document is below. It can be viewed in full on the ERYC Planning website.

‘The purpose of the liaison group is to repair and maintain good relations between YWT and the local community, businesses and key partners keeping them informed as the approved development of the Spurn Visitor Centre progresses.

The trust recognises that it is a major landowner in the community, and has a long term responsibility to manage Spurn National Nature Reserve, and other land effectively with the involvement of its tenants and the community.

The liaison group has the full support of the executive and Trustees of the YWT and ERYC. The group is expected to produce ideas, challenges recommendations and proposals that will contribute directly to the management and successful development of the Spurn NNR.

‘..the views of the group will carry a significant weight based upon the breadth and experience of its members’

‘.. we are much more likely to achieve this through open and honest discussion’

ERYC Ward councillors may attend each meeting their support has been instrumental in getting the group off the ground , and their leadership, contacts and influence within the community will be of great help in the future.

It is intended that the group will have a long term existence, in helping the Trust to manage such an important site and helping to resolve many of the perceptions and issues that have emerged over recent years, in particular in relation to formal public consultation on the visitor centre planning application.

YWT WILL

Draw up notes of each meeting and circulate in reasonable time

Consider the views of others via the liaison group, and take reasonable steps to answer or address concerns which may arise.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS AN OPEN ADMISSION THAT RELATIONS NEED TO BE REPAIRED AND WAS SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITION 21 IN MY VIEW THEREFORE ALL OF THE ABOVE NEEDS TO BE REASONABLY COMPLIED WITH TO ALLOW PLANNING CONDITION 21 TO BE DISCHARGED.

Up until now and out of respect for the Spurn Liaison Group (SLG) I have chosen not to comment publicly on what has been discussed The meetings have been generally benign with a lot of talk, lots of questions being asked, lots of suggestions but very little in the way of positive action and crucially no significant actions worthy of me communicating to the wider world.

Meeting minutes were taken (albeit inaccurately) and posted on YWT website, despite many members protesting that the minutes were inaccurate, YWT still posted them anyway. To anyone reading the minutes without actually being there they paint a different picture to what was actually discussed.

As you can imagine with such a sensitive site, there were lots of concerns over the sequence of works at the start of the site. YWT informed the group after works had started on the site strip and erection of water vole and newt fences. There were concerns that the contractors were not working within strict accordance (planning condition 7) with the Construction & Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) we were told they were working within acceptable tolerances (not sure how strict and tolerance go together?)

Was the archaeology being properly protected? (planning condition 20). I asked for the report from the Archaeologists to be circulated within the group to ally any concerns but it was never forthcoming. In my opinion if a report had been submitted giving the building work the all clear, it would not have been unreasonable to share that with the group (why wouldn’t you want to share it if you have made such a commitment to keep people informed?).

There was some early concerns over car parking arrangements and the extent of double yellow lines down Spurn Road. We were informed that double yellow lines would not be placed immediately but the area would be checked periodically to assess the impact of traffic on the verges and a decision made at a later date. I asked in February if a member of the team from ERYC Highways department could attend and explain the detail to the group. I was informed and it was minuted that the engineer would attend a later meeting. Its now August and that engineer has not addressed the group as promised.

It was suggested that the Contractor carrying out the works registered with The Considerate Constructors scheme https://www.ccscheme.org.uk/

with an aspiration to achieving a gold award. We were informed that they would and the contractor was asked to attend a future meeting which he did. The group asked about the aspiration for attaining a Gold Standard and he knew nothing of that aspiration (that should have been passed on by YWT). I asked if they would besending out a letter informing residents of start dates, major vehicle movements contact details etc (which is standard practice for Considerate Constructors) I was told by the contractor ‘we only do that on big jobs’ my response ‘to everybody sat around this table, this is a big job’.

The works commenced an no letter was sent out. There are only 37 residents in Kilnsea for goodness sake! Discussing this at a subsequent meeting I pressed YWT on the point of the letter, Would they send out a retrospective letter to local residents apologising for not sending one informing them of the commencement of the work but still providing key dates and contact information? YWT response-I’ll go away and think about it…

I asked how the contractors were doing regarding Considerate Constructors and if they looked like gaining an award. I was told and it was minuted that ‘it was difficult and only an aspiration anyway’. How patronising is that? I asked if the audit from the CC inspector could be shared with the group. I was told it could but as yet it has not been circulated.

Access to Spurn peninsula was discussed. Will the car park be locked? What will be the opening times (can it be 24 hours similar to Bempton [after all a public footpath runs through the site]). What will access arrangements be for disabled sea anglers- all reasonable questions that all remain unanswered.

Discussions took place (YWT invited suggestions) on wider enhancements for the Spurn visitor experience. A map was drawn up by group members with suggestions for extra hides, footpaths water level management and access for sea anglers and presented at one of the meetings. The first thing YWT wanted to do was rationalise the list, then they offered any number of excuses as to why some of the things couldn’t happen (one being cost and I’ll come to that later).

At the last meeting I asked YWT if they could share their own vision for Spurn with the SLG (keep us informed) to provide a copy of the Spurn master plan and share it with the SLG. It would not be unreasonable to think that YWT as owners and custodians of the site had a master plan and some if not all of the suggestions were already taken into account. I was assured at the last meeting (after some debate and clarification of the meaning of master plan!) that this plan would be shared with the SLG ( a good way of keeping people informed you might think?). As yet the master plan has not been issued and it is my personal belief that such a master plan does not exist and that YWT have no intention of ‘off setting’ or mitigating against the loss of habitat by the erection of the visitor centre and certainly have no coherent plan of improving the visitor experience because if they did surely they would have kept us all informed by sharing it by now?

It became apparent earlier this year that YWT had been awarded a £1.1 million grant from the Coastal Communities fund  https://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/ccf

(this announcement was made on Look North and it was not divulged by YWT at the SLG meetings. Look North suggested that the money had been allocated to Spurn).

One important thing in these discussions kept arising. Money. It was always suggested that YWT had no fund to pay for the suggested enhancements. I thought that was puzzling-here is a long list of possibilities to enhance the visitor experience (and so attract and retain more visitors?) YWT have been awarded a £1.1 million pound Coastal Communities grant (with the purpose of attracting and retaining visitors?) yet the default response is there’s no money. Strange.

This prompted me to ask for a breakdown of how the £1.1 million would be spent-a line by line itemised account of the split. Surely it would be in the interests of the community members of the SLG to be made aware of how £1.1 million of what is effectively public money would be spent on their doorstep? That was 3 meetings ago and we have not seen anything yet.

What we were told by YWT however is that part of the £1.1 million Coastal Communities money will be spent at North Cave. Last time I checked North Cave was about 35 miles inland so how that constitutes coastal communities I will never know.

The other thing YWT advised is that the visitor centre is way over budget. The final cost will be nearer £1.4 million against the widely and continued reported cost of £900k. We were also told that the shortfall for the visitor centre will be paid for……. By the coastal communities fund.

There are some other points that I won’t into  detail right now but just bring you completely up to speed, the last meeting was held on Thursday 20th July. It ended pretty much by most of the people  around the table agreeing that the SLG had been a complete waste of time. Nothing tangible has been agreed there has been no improvements in relations between the community and crucially the group and the wider community have not been adequately informed on a number of points (namely those listed above).

If you go back to the points I made at the outset regarding the protocols document, I am of the opinion that Planning Condition 21 has not been adequately complied with and therefore fail to see how it can be discharged.

Just so you are aware the minutes of that meeting held on 20th July have not yet been issued.

In light of all of the above I have written formally to ERYC voicing my concerns and it is my understanding that they met with YWT on Thursday of this week

I have asked for a summary of their discussion.

I summary I can only offer words of disappointment. I have accepted the decision for the Visitor Centre to go ahead but will always maintain that it is in the wrong place. I saw the Spurn Liaison Group as an opportunity to make the best of the situation and I hoped that the way this (post planning submission) was handled could be used as an exemplar to be used on similar schemes elsewhere. When I read the protocols document it filled me with hope that there was a real commitment to re-build relations and make Spurn a great place to visit. Instead I feel that the members of the Spurn Liaison Group and the local community have been led up the garden path. We'll put all of these nice words together, we'll attend a few meetings and kick as many of the issues as far down the football pitch as we can. I feel let down by ERYCC-they have just sat back and allowed it to happen, I cannot recall one instance where YWT have been urged to respond on any of the pressing matters.

Quite simply YWT have ridden roughshod over this whole process, they have ticked their relevant boxes and ERYC have just sat back and allowed them to do it.  It feels as if no-one in authority cares. If YWT had been honest from the outset they could have told us on day one that we were wasting our time and it would have saved us the trouble.

The points that I have made are my own interpretation of the facts and I will happily share any further information (should it be forthcoming) to provide any more clarity. Thank you for reading.

Kilnsea WWBT

Well I've finally managed to get around to posting some photos of the magnificent White Winged Black tern that was frequenting Kilnsea Wetlands for nearly a week.

It turned up in particularly bad weather north east wind and rain and unfortunately for me the sun was never out on the three occasions I went for it.

It was nearly always visible and active and only on the odd occasion did it rest on the marker post in the middle of the wetlands.

Considering it was so visible and on view for such a long time, it was a very difficult bird to photograph. I tried from the hide, the viewing screen and long bank and very rarely did it come close and even when it did it was for fleeting seconds and far to fast. It was also a struggle with autofocus more often locking on to the land behind it rather than the bird itself.

Having said all of that I am quite pleased with the images below, however I didn't get 'the' shot that I wanted and the next one in Yorkshire will get equally as much attention if it hangs around.