I have since written back to them completely rebuffing their allegation.
In all of my time reporting breeches and infringements I have been very careful to remove any reference to names and my criticisms have always been aimed at the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust as an organisation not any particular individual.
What was interesting was their reference to the 'sheer quantity of negative tweets and complaints'.
I sat in Spurn Liaison Group meetings for the first 7 months of last year making perfectly reasonable requests for information that largely were getting ignored by the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. There were only a small group of people at those meetings and when the minutes were issued they were not wholly reflective of what had been discussed and agreed.
Eventually last August I took the decision to provide my version of what was happening and make it public via my blog. It was also obvious to me that the planning conditions and other areas requiring statutory compliance were also not being adhered to.
The Visitor Centre was located in a very sensitive place to wildlife and other suitable places were available. The decision was made to build it in the triangle despite the objections of some 2800 people. I accepted the planning decision because it had been made using due process, however if it stated that something had to be done in the planning conditions then in my view it had to be done-to the letter.
If a specific requirement or action wasn't being carried out relating to statutory compliance, it had to be brought to the attention of the relevant authority (Planning Enforcement, the Environment Agency or Natural England for example). It is also important that those failings are brought to the attention of the wider public so they can form their own opinion and lodge a complaint if necessary. Ultimately I have always had the best interests of the fragile habitat and wildlife at Spurn at heart and if those entrusted to look after it aren't doing their job something needs to be done about it.
100 voices shout far louder than one.
It is important to note that the way that the planning process works, is that pre-commencement conditions have to be signed off prior to the works starting then it is the responsibility of the developer (in this case the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust) that all of the remaining conditions are complied with. The council will not proactively manage every condition but they will react if something is being compromised as a result of the development. They are wholly reliant on local councillors, members of the public and other statutory bodies to advise them if they think a breach has occurred and they will make a judgement if any further action is required.
So when the YWT talk about the sheer quantity of negative tweets and complaints, I would look at the sheer quantity of infringements and breeches in the first place. Wherever there is an action (or lack of one) there is a reaction, and if there wasn't the sheer quantity of things to complain against there wouldn't be the sheer quantity of information to tweet out.
They also suggest that maybe we could 'experience a more positive relationship in the future'. If the YWT and I have a more positive relationship in the future, that remains to be seen. But, how about creating a more positive outlook at Spurn? Most importantly, ensuring positive action is taken to ensure that the fragile habitat down there is protected properly and balanced against coping with visitors who want to experience such a magical place?
I think that the efforts of many other people as well as myself have made a huge positive contribution to what has gone on at Spurn following the granting of Planning Permission for the new VC. for example;
Management Plan
A Management Plan (MP) is required by the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations. A freedom of information request to Natural England revealed that a MP was not in place for Spurn. As a result of my complaint I was informed by Natural England that they would work with the YWT and one would be put in place 'as soon as possible'. The management plan template provided by Natural England calls for exemplar standards on a National Nature Reserve (hence my point about planning conditions and statutory compliance being adhered to by the letter). Hopefully the introduction and implementation of a management plan will now provide some better control. For example the correct use of the Unimog avoiding damage and disturbance will be stipulated within the MP.
The Unimog itself has been better controlled as there were far too many incidents of it accessing the peninsula over high tide and disturbing roosting waders. YWT's timetable has been revised to avoid clashes and therefore reduce disturbance.
The Unimog also causes damage to the fragile dune system and hopefully that will also be addressed in the MP.
To the best of my knowledge the MP has not yet been finalised but it is work in progress.
Artificial Lighting (Planning Condition 5)
The car park lighting scheme was clearly unacceptable and the whole of the night sky was lit up when it was first switched on. The planning condition and associated references for this stated that the sky should remain 'intrinsically dark'. As a result of the complaints arising from this, the East Riding of Yorkshire council imposed a restriction on the lights that they can only be used 15 minutes after dusk so preserving the need for darkness on an National Nature Reserve.