Friends Of Redcar

Friday, 27 September 2013

Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.Three

Hi all,

Over the past few days I have been bringing you up to speed with our complaint regarding the brick and rubble on our beach in Redcar. For consistency please follow the links back to the original thread. (See Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.One and Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.Two)

The letter below is our reply to an Environmental Agency that doesn't feel they have any responsibility to the building debris left on our beach. Above and below are the new photos sent to accompany this email.

Enjoy.

Dear Gemma,

Thank you for your assistance in bringing us a reply to our complaint. Thank you also to Mr. James Mead the Project Manager for his reply and courteous invitation to inspect the beach area with the contractor next month. We (Friends of Redcar) would accept this offer to make our case. Thank you also for the distance photo shot of Granville Terrace that does indeed appear to show red brick on the left although difficult to make out anything more.

We, wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. Mead that the materials left over has "nothing to do with our works" and cannot agree that they "ensured that the material dug up from under the beach was removed" - certainly not thoroughly enough as described.

We would concede that naturally over the many years and developments/demolitions, that material would have "washed in and out", been buried and re-emerged and in any case building material would certainly have been evident next to the old defences, prior to the new coastal defences being installed. We would not dispute that in any way. However, please consider that;

- Much of the building debris remaining is not weathered or shaped (rounded) as would be expected from material that had been left to the elements for years.

- This is clean looking rubble and very similar in appearance along the entire stretch. We have seen "old" rubble too but not as much.

- The sheer weight of some of this debris would not suggest it had just washed in recently along the whole length of the defences after the builders departed and without being noticed. In such case there would surely be evidence of scattered debris all over the beach too. There is debris further out but is isolated to one particular area which is rocky.

By Mr. Mead's admission they did a "thorough" clean up and "ensured the material dug up from under the beach was removed". So are we therefore to assume that the jagged, clean masonry running the length of the new coastal defences, that we're speaking of, is "material washing in and out"? Well not necessarily because we are provided that picture of Granville Terrace which shows "a number of bricks" of which the contractor "cannot accept responsibility". So this is confusing. Is this new material washed up or old material already there? According to Mr. Mead both, but no way has anything to do with the construction work or the "thorough" clean up.

The "thorough" clean up Mr. Mead describes seems to therefore discriminate against any previous masonry that was found. That during their "thorough" clean up, the contractor carefully manoeuvred passed or turned a blind eye to the bricks and rubble already there, carefully examining what was theirs and what was not their "responsibility". Ensuring that they only cleared away their own mess. How "thorough" does that clean up sound?

Personally, I used to fit bathrooms and kitchens. When I finished I would clean up and hose down outside removing all rubbish and debris. Inside I would wipe everything down, polish it up and vacuum up and down the stairs. I would insist. And yes that would include mess I never made. Why? Because I took pride in my work and wanted to impress my customer. It was the professional and conscientious thing to do. And very much appreciated.

We disagree with and disapprove of Mr. Mead's response of what has been left and that he feels no responsibility. We are convinced that not only did the contractor leave the "nothing to do with our works" but also added to it. Perhaps our beach doesn't matter to the contractor or the pride they take with their clean up, but it does to the people of Redcar and to our tourism.

Furthermore we're not sure why a clean up would come from "public money" and not from the contractor's purse? With respect who is Mr. Mead to speak for the public by suggesting that this is not an efficient use of money? Ask the people of Redcar and indeed any coastal town if they'd like a clean beach and we can assure you the answer would be in the affirmative. Two JCBs, three employees, our volunteers, three to five large skips and a days work to polish off a great job, is hardly going to scratch the £30 million project.

We have just had our first summer with these fabulous new sea defence in place and yet the number of complaints received about the beach resembling a building site far outweighs the complimentary comments about the work. Was that the contractor's intended legacy and public opinion?

I have attached two more photos. The bricks and rubble displayed do not appear to be weathered from decades in the sea and were found beside the new defences. We are positive that these pieces along with the 4.5 tons our volunteers have already cleared along the defences since August this year, were left after the contractor finished working there. There simply is no other explanation and to deny this is insulting.

We look forward to going along to inspect the area when a date is set and having extra help to remove the remaining debris.

Once again thank you Gemma,

Yours respectfully,

Carl Quartermain

Chairman of a Friends of Redcar and on behalf of all our beach users.

If you would like to contact the Environmental Agency or the contractor to make your own point here are their details below. If you require the contact details of any of the Redcar Officials please let us know and we'll happily forward them. Thanks

Tel: 0191 203 4105 (Internal 728 4105)

Fax: 0191 203 4004

Email: gemma.alecks@environment-agency.gov.uk

Environment Agency

Tyneside House

Skinnerburn Road

Newcastle Business Park

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE4 7AR

http://www.balfourbeattycsuk.com/contact-us/

2200 Century Way

Thorpe Park

Leeds

LS15 8ZB

Tel: +44 (0) 113 821 3400

This series continues here:
Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.One
Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.Two
Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.Four

Thursday, 26 September 2013

Fir Street Patio StreetClub

Anything is possible if you share and work together #Redcar #FriendsofRedcar #StreetClub

Watch out for details of our own StreetClub coming soon

Original blog story: http://blog.streetclub.co.uk/2013/09/the-wonderful-fir-street-patio-project.html

Friends of Redcar Chairman condemns "Gagging Law"

Friends of Redcar chairman Carl Quartermain has condemned the proposed Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill as a "Gagging Law" and supports 38 Degrees campaign to raise awareness.

"This bill has been condemned by most reputable charities and community groups, voluntary organisations and umbrella organisation, from the National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) to the TUC, the Royal British Legion to the RSPB, Oxfam to Christian Aid.

"I'd like to highlight 38 Degrees stark warnings about the damage that part II of the government bill would inflict on open debate."

"The gagging law introduces new rules that would prevent non politicians from speaking up on the big issues of the day. Potentially this would provide power to the government to disperse groups, shut down funding and communications and even stop non-politicals blogs like this."

Despite public outcry in civil society about the problems with this law, the government has been trying to rush it through anyway without proper scrutiny.

Groups that normally wouldn’t agree have been uniting to speak out against this law.

Carl added "Politics should not be left to political parties and local councils to decide upon. In a healthy democracy everyone should be able to express their views which is why our group can be completely transparent about issues important to us. Legislative ideas like this have been handed down from the U.S. where liberty is being seriously undermined to protect political parties from losing control to opposition parties.

"Being an apolitical group does not mean sitting on the fence over bad policy. This legislation effectively gags any group's rights of choice and is therefore undemocratic. We would therefore request that our Redcar MP Ian Swales vote against this and we have written to him in respect of this."

MPs have another chance to vote on 8th October.

For more information please check the links below.

http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/tag/gagging-law/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/06/ministers-retreat-anti-lobbying-laws-charities
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/stuart-weir/governments-new-gagging-law-is-serious-attack-on-britains-civil-society

Tom Harris' summation of the Bill

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.Two

Hi all,

Following on from our original complaint (See Redcar Flood Alleviation Scheme Complaint Part.One) Below is an email we received on the 23rd September 2013 from the Environmental Agency. Mr James Mead is the project manager for the Environmental Agency who oversees the contractor's work. Above is the picture sent with this email to display that bricks were already on the beach prior to work commencing. I have replied and will show this in a new blog (Part.Three) shortly. Enjoy

Dear Carl

Thank you for your enquiry, received in this office on 12 September 2013. I have consulted James Mead who was the Project Manager for the scheme. James has made the following comments

We are confident in our contractor that they were very thorough in cleaning up during and after the sea defence works along Redcar Sea front. Further inspections were carried out as areas of work were completed to ensure no materials were left over from our works and we ensured that the material dug up from under the beach was removed and the sand placed back where we had been.

We cannot accept responsibility for materials that are nothing to do with our works, I attached a photograph of Granville Terrace before we started work which shows the stones and shingle at the top of the beach with a number of bricks visible amongst them. The photographs taken recently do not look dissimilar to this. This we would suggest is as a result of many years of materials washing in and off the seafront and not as a result of our recent works. Re-mobilising our contractor to carry out such a beach clearance for the small quantities of materials highlighted does not seem like an efficient use of public money.

That said we are happy to check the beach once again, when we return to site next month to install the second sculpture, to satisfy all parties that we haven’t missed anything. We would be happy for you and representatives from the council to join us on such an inspection. We will be in touch when our contractor has confirmed the timing of this visit.

I attach a copy of our "Notice" which sets out the various uses to which Environment Agency information and data can be put.

If you require any further assistance on this or any other environmental matter please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

Gemma Alecks

Customers and Engagement Officer

So what do you think? If you would like to contact the Environmental Agency regarding this matter or have any other concerns below are their contact details.