~~~~~

On 17th January 2019, the Scarborough News published an article with the headline.

‘Scarborough bakers Cooplands fined for health and safety breach over 14 years’.

“A visit by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) found that H&S standards fell below the expected levels between April 2002 and April 2016 at the Cooplands factory at Pindar Business Park, Eastfield.”

HSE inspector Geoff Fletcher stated in court that:

“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards”.

As a result, Cooplands were fined £159,080 and ordered to pay £4,594 in costs.

On 3rd Sept 2018, Cllr Martin Smith, in his role as SBC Cabinet Potfolio Holder for Leisure, stated to the SBC Cabinet that the Swan passenger boat which operated on Peasholm Lake, had been subject to a spot inspection by the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA).

The MCA found that the H&S standards fell below the expected standards and, according to Cllr Smith, the Swan had operated in that manner for 35 years.

SBC were not fined and were not asked to meet the costs of the inspection.

SBC do employ a H&S Officer, Mr Robert Webster. Where has he been for the last 35 years, and why did he not report the findings of the MCA to the HSE?

On the face of it, SBC got away pretty lightly, eh?

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD examining the possibility that poor Health & Safety standards at SBC may already have cost a young life.

~~~~~

The subject of Scarborough Borough Council’s performance on Health & Safety issues has featured in the NYE on several occasions recently, notable in connection with the HGV manoeuvrings in and around the West Pier car park in Scarborough and with the Council’s non-compliant ‘Swan’ pleasure vessel at Peasholm Park.

Many readers will be aware of the heart-rending tragedy that occurred at Seaton Garth, near the south pier at Staithes, at around 4.47pm on Wednesday 8th August 2018, when a rock-fall ended the life of nine-year-old Harriet Emily Nicola FORSTER, from Oxford, who was visiting Staithes with her family. I have no doubt that the entire NYE team – and readership – will join me in offering deepest condolences to the bereaved family, whose loss is as unimagineable as it is irredeemable.

Shortly after the incident, North Yorkshire Police (NYP) made an appeal to the public for information for a report to the Coroner’s office.

As chance would have it, I was able to provide NYP with the following information which had not, to my knowledge, appeared in any press reports of the tragedy, so I responded verbally to the appeal by dialling 101. No doubt that conversation was recorded.

I informed the Police that, one week prior to that dreadful incident, at 3:15pm on 1st August 2018, a report of a similar rock-fall at the same location appeared on the Whitby Wildlife Sanctuary Facebook platform.

It seemed likely to me that an incident so close to the SBC Staithes Harbour Office must surely have been logged with one or another of the authorities. I told the Police that I would have expected the information to have been shared with the Coastguard, the RNLI, and the Borough Council.

Following that telephone conversation, I forwarded to NYP a written account of my limited knowledge of the events preceding the tragedy, and an un-redacted version of the above screen-shot. The screen-shot therefore included the mobile number of the lady close to the Harbour Office who originally called in the report. Thus, the Police were provided with two avenues of further enquiry.

My email received only an automated read-receipt from NYP, but in due course I received a very informative follow-up telephone call (no doubt also recorded) in which I learned that there was apparently heated dispute over which authority bore the burden of responsibility for coastal erosion in general – and the Health & Safety of the public, in particular – and that Scarborough Borough Council had already denied any responsibility.

This came as a considerable surprise to me because, until relatively recently, the Scarborough Borough Council Cabinet included a Portfolio Holder for Harbours, Coast & Flood Protection – Councillor Mike COCKERILL [Ind.Ind.].

My own understanding is that the land itself where both of the rock-falls took place is in the freehold of the National Trust, though I do believe that the responsibility for adequate signage resides with Scarborough Borough Council.

Locals have reported that the ‘Beware Dangerous Cliffs’ sign on the approach to the site of the rock-falls is old and dull and has not been repainted or replaced in many years. At the time of writing, it has still not been renewed.

Seaton Garth

Locals have also reported that, in the immediate aftermath of the second rock-fall, Emergency Vehicles were impeded in their progress by the number of unsuitably and illegally parked cars. Responsibility for Parking resides with the Cabinet Portfolio for Leisure, Councillor Martin SMITH [Con.], best remembered as the former Mayor who adjourned a meeting of Full Council because the public gallery applauded Councillor BARNETT [Lab.] when he outrageously declared that he had always understood that he was elected to represent the people.

I now recall that, as recently as 22nd March 2018, SBC was trumpeting its coastal protection initiative at nearby Runswick Bay on the Council’s website:

https://www.scarborough.gov.uk/latest-news/runswick-bay-coastal-protection-scheme-begins

On 11th June 2018, the Council indulged in some further chest-beating regarding the delivery of a £13.453 million scheme to stabilise the cliffs behind the Spa complex in Scarborough:

https://www.scarborough.gov.uk/latest-news/formal-start-stabilisation-scheme

But Staithes straddles the northern boundary of the Borough of Scarborough, about as far out in the sticks as it goes. It lacks the credentials to be glorified by any of the Council’s vanity projects, or even to command much attention at all. No money for effective signage there . . .

After SBC’s failure to respond to the ‘flashing red light’ of the earlier incident (on 1st August 2018, when a mole and a baby stoat survived a rock-fall – though other creatures may have been less fortunate), as well as the West Pier and Peasholm Lake ‘accidents waiting to happen’, is it now time for the Health & Safety Executive to investigate the practices and policies of Scarborough Borough Council in the entire area of Health & Safety?

Certainly, SBC’s Assets & Risk Manager Martin PEDLEY and Health & Safety Officer Robert WEBSTER should, at the very least, consider re-training, though past experience tells me that the Directorate and the Leader will defend them – even in the Courts, should it come to that – and with the taxpayers’ money, if the futile defence of the successful legal action brought by Ben MARRIOTT offers any guide. Perhaps I am alone in my disappointment and disgust that, at SBC, nothing is ever anyone’s fault and no-one is ever brought to account.

UP-DATE

BACKGOUND

For readers using smaller screens – and lest we forget – the caption beneath the image of SBC Chief Executive Jim DILLON reads “Named by judges … Jim Dillon”.

Guest Author Allan ROBERTS reports on another Health & Safety oversight on the part of Scarborough Borough Council, who had opportunity to comment but declined to do so.

~~~~~

Each and every vessel carrying more than 12 passengers is classed, under UK Merchant Shipping regulations, as a ‘Passenger Ship’ and needs to be appropriately surveyed and certificated, undertaken by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, (MCA).

• A Health & Safety Risk Assessment.
• A Safety Management System
• A competent and certificated crew
• A Stability Certificate
• Statutory safety equipment
• A current Passenger certificate on display stating the number of passengers it is allowed to carry.

Without any of the above, any passenger liability insurance would be void.

On 10^th August 2018, the ‘Swan’ passenger vessel operating on Peasholm Lake  appeared to be overloaded, and was in fact carrying 18 passengers, plus 1 crew.

The was no Passenger Certificate displayed on the vessel, although the operator stated that the vessel carried “between 18 or 20”.

SBC Health & Safety Officer Mr Robert Webster was contacted directly, and provided with images of the over-loaded ‘Swan’.

He was also asked for details of the ‘Swan’ Passenger Certificate, etc, as a matter of urgency.

In the absence of a response from SBC, a call to the MCA confirmed that they had no record of any passenger vessel operating at Peasholm Lake and took appropriate, and immediate, action to suspend operation of the ‘Swan’ until further notice, thus depriving SBC of what, if run safely and competently, could be a good source of revenue for the Council taxpayer.

This is the second example within a month of the failure of the SBC Health & Safety department to provide adequate safety provision to the public.

http://nyenquirer.uk/high-risk-low-safety-standards/

In light of the above one reasonably may ask, is the SBC Health & Safety department fit for purpose?

Is it time to delegate the Borough’s Health & Safety management to a professional and competent independent source, who is able to work without the pressures put on them by SBC’s blinkered belief that tourism is the only industry to be considered, at any cost to safety, as in the case of the West Pier car park?

Mr ROBERTS declares an interest in the future of Scarborough Harbour in general, and the West Pier, in particular.

~~~~~

Sir,

Allan Roberts’ article “High Risks- Low Safety Standards” with regard the West Pier Health & Safety fiasco, highlights a very real problem in which it seems that the risk of harm to the public is being forfeited for revenue by Scarborough Borough Council under a very mediocre and complacent Health & Safety regime assessment of just how the risks to the general public are perceived.

This story began in May, when I witnessed what is known in Health & Safety parlance as a “near miss”, in this case it was a VERY near miss that could have cost a toddler her life. Thankfully, no harm was done and she walked away largely unharmed and apparently oblivious to what had just happened.

Nevertheless, the near miss prompted me to ask, via email, a Mr Robert Webster (who is, I gather, the Health & Safety practitioner for the Borough, including the town) whether any consideration had been given to the high level of vehicular activity on West Pier for the assurance of public safety. That email was sent on 29th May. I am still awaiting a response today (Wednesday 15th August).

However, my email did (it would seem) prompt Mr Webster only the following week to pay a visit to West Pier, accompanied by Mr Martin Pedley, who I understand is the Risk Manager for SBC. The visit, I am told, was itself not without its own drama, as  Mr Webster himself  also became a “near miss” victim for a manoeuvring HGV.

Obviously, the Health & Safety department was oblivious to just how much industrial activity occurs on an almost 24-hours-a-day/7-days-a-week (and on almost a 365-days-a-year) basis.

Scarborough Harbour has, in recent years,  transformed itself into what can only be described as a seafood hub for the East coast, with a variety of seafood types leaving and arriving at the port, from the Orkneys and Shetlands down to the South Coast, hauling scallops, prawns, fish, lobster and crab.

Much of it arrives and leaves by HGV and is subsequently redistributed into vans. As a consequence, there is frequently a plethora of forklift-trucks emptying and loading wagons and vans, along with the discharge of catch from vessels at the quayside. This, to the reader, paints a very busy picture; indeed it is a very busy part of the harbour scene within a highly-congested area within which, at present, the public are free to wander, thereby putting themselves at risk.

Access to West Pier for a large HGV, sometimes a left-hand-drive vehicle coming from the continent, is difficult in itself, with 9 times out of 10 any vehicles attempting to leave West Pier at the traffic lights either having to jump the lights of reverse onto West Pier, often against a queue of traffic behind it, and with pedestrians forced onto the road due to lack of a secure footpath. (see https://youtu.be/pLji93SHOfs ).

Returning to the visit by SBC Heath & Safety Officers, it would seem a perfunctory Risk Assessment (RA) was hurriedly cobbled together in order to at least be seen to be doing something. The Risk Assessment for the Harbour was created and signed-off by the Deputy Harbour Master Mr Chris Burrows and covered a multitude of other risks, including terrorists attacks. No Traffic Management Plan (TMP) has yet seen the light of day or, at least, has not been shared with those of us who have to abide by it even if it’s not practicable – much like the RA.

None of the other mitigating measures to reduce risks in other aspects the Harbour have been implemented at all.

The whole exercise has the appearance of a box-ticking exercise.

What did come out of the RA was that SBC has ‘gained’ 6 additional parking places – this, reportedly, much to the jubilation of the Harbour Master, Mr Ian Vasey. Why that should be is oddly inexplicable, since none of the West Pier car park revenue is ploughed back into the Harbour coffers. Maybe he is on some kind of bonus scheme – who knows?

Following only a week later after the HSE visit, North Yorkshire County Council contract line-painters arrived on West Pier to re-line with a new grid layout, albeit one based (I’m told) on a different plan to the Scarborough Council version, and in any case, the contractor ran out of paint and left the Pier unfinished.

The chaos that ensued  is now almost legendary around the Harbour in terms of unclear and unfinished markings.

NYCC again returned the following week with more yellow paint and completed some of the work and have returned yet again, only last week, having found some black paint to paint out the incorrect white markings. Now you sees me, now you don’t.

What is obvious is that this whole fiasco is as a result of complacency and insufficient attention to Heath & Safety around what is now a very busy industrial area.

Even the Scarborough Borough Council Dean Road Depot, where very limited public access is allowed, has hard barriers in key locations, to protect SBC employees. Pedestrians on the West Pier are in far greater danger.

“Mandatory high visibility clothing. All areas except pavement”

SBC seem to put the value of a parking place – according to the former Council Head of Technical Services department Mr John Riby – at £2,000 per annum. That value is placed far and above the value of the life of child or indeed any member of the public paying less than total attention to their surroundings whilst on holiday visiting Scarborough Harbour.

Quite possibly (if not probably), the driving factor for this mediocrity and complacency is the demand for revenue from parking and its value to SBC coffers, which obviously over-rides any safety consideration. Even the Risk Assessment gives mention to the potential for having a parking attendant on West Pier who could also double up as a traffic marshal.

The £12,ooo revenue from the 6 new parking places would largely fund that role and in fact create a job; surely that would be a start in trying to find a solution to the prevailing chaos. Another possible solution would be a sign stating how many parking places are available – and thereby end the continuous flow of traffic driving around West Pier in a fruitless search for a parking place.

The ideal solution, however, would be to restore West Pier to its intended purpose, before it was “misappropriated” by the SBC Tourism Department (from Harbour Assets). By doing so, this would allow the Harbour and its fishing activities to prosper by enabling shellfish processing companies to expand and achieve their full potential.

Of course that doesn’t tick the tourism ambition box, but it should surely figure in the growth of the plans recently announced by SBC.

Yours, etc

Bob

Bob ROBERTS, Scarborough. 16th August, 2018.

~~~~~

The recent article published by NYE and written by Ali Wilkins entitled “Talk to the Wall” and dated 31^st May 2018 – (note that date) – which contained details and images of the apparent disregard for public safety on West Pier Scarborough, prompted me to ask SBC for a copy of the Risk Assessment ( RA) and Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the West Pier.

In view of the safety concerns involved on West Pier, on 10^th July 201, I wrote directly to the SBC Health and Safety Officer, Robert Webster asking for the following information,

Mr Webster. 

There have been concerns raised regarding the apparent risk to the public using the West Pier car park, and I have attached several images for your convenience. As this is a safety issue may I ask that you respond to the FOIA request, below, as a matter of urgency. I would also appreciate any comments from yourself on this issue.

Please provide copies of all risk assessment’s carried out for West Pier car park between the dates of 1^st Jan 2011 until the present time. Please provide copies of all traffic management plans formulated for West Pier car park between the dates of 1^st Jan 2011 and the present date. 

Please accept this request as made under the FOIA Act 2000. 

Please provide me with a FOIA number.

Regards

Allan Roberts

 I received an immediate standard computer generated acknowledgement and FOIA number.

Thn on 18^th July I received this response from Mr Webster, 

Response

We do not have any historical risk assessments or traffic management plans as they are destroyed when out of date. We have a current traffic management plan and risk assessment but these are under review at the moment.

I considered that Mr Webster had not answered my FOI correctly, my view being:

1. That any ‘current’ Traffic Management Plan is applicable until it is rescinded, and replaced by an updated assessment and plan.
2. That any Traffic Management Plan is useless unless it is published for the public to read digest and act upon.

I immediately contacted Mr Webster asking for the current RA and TMP, and provide him with further images of West Pier activities.

I received no response from Mr Webster, which I happened to mention to Cllr Vesey who, to his credit, told me by email on 23^rd July 2018 that,

“The harbour office is putting a response together for your foi request so I will be copied into it regarding the traffic management and safety on the west pier.“

Puzzled as to why the Harbour Office would want to respond to a FOIA made directly to the SBC Health & Safety Officer, I made this immediate reply.

Cllr Vesey,

Thank you for your help.

Robert Webster, the SBC Health and Safety Officer, has confirmed that there is already in existence, a traffic Management Plan, and Risk assessment for the West Pier car park.

However, and despite the attached FOIA request from myself, you will see that Mr Webster declines to provide a copy of those documents.

My view is:

1. That any ‘current’ Traffic Management Plan is applicable until it is rescinded, and replaced, by an updated assessment and plan.
2. That any Traffic Management Plan is useless unless it is published for the public to read digest and act upon.

 I have contacted Mr Webster again, asking for a copy of the current RA and TMP as at the time of my initial FOIA, ie 10^th July 2018, however Mr Webster has thus far chosen not to respond to that request.

As the main holiday season begins it seems there is no sense of urgency to address what is clearly, in my view, a serious safety problem on West Pier.

I attach for your convenience a coupe of images of holiday makers who are probably not aware of the dangers surrounding them.

May I say how disappointed I am at the apparent disregard to public safety on the West Pier, and by the single response of the SBC Health and Safety Officer.

I understand that I cannot approach the Information Commissioners Office, until I have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by Scarborough Borough Council, which will be long drawn out process I am sure.

As this is a safety matter I would appreciate your help in dealing with this issue as a matter of urgency.

Regards

Allan Roberts

Toddlers wandering unaccompanied between commercial vehicles

Pedestrians passing through industrial areas

Fork-lifts manoeuvre in areas accessible to parking and pedestrian traffic

The next day, 25^th July 2018, Cllr Vesey made this reply,

Thank you Allan for raising this concern. I have emailed the chief executive Mr Dillon and the leader of the council requesting urgent action, ie temporary fencing to be installed.

I will let you know of any reply.

On that same day, in what seems to have been a damage limitation plan, Mr Webster informed Cllr Vesey that work was due to begin on 1^st August 2018 to re-mark the West Pier car park, and provided him with a plan, which Cllr Vesey has kindly shared with me.

This is the plan, dated 8 June 2018.

I replied to Cllr Vesey, copying Mr Webster into that reply, on 26 July 2018 at 3.57pm:

Cllr Vesey,

Thank you again for your help. 

After looking at the revised parking proposals, my view is that the proposed changes do little to alleviate the problems on West Pier.

My view is that if the public are to continue to be encouraged to park amongst the trucks, vans and HGV vehicles that use the industrial part of West Pier as their business base, then the parking places need to be enlarged, if that park is to be used in safety. 

I enclose for you three images taken today, which clearly show that the present layout of parking is totally inadequate and the parking places too small.

I am also reliably informed that not all of the processors named on the rough sketch/plan, dated 8/6/2018, have been consulted, as the wording states, which makes me skeptical of the validity of that claim.

Parking bays too short, leaving cars over-lapping the throughway

My understanding is that a Traffic Management Plan cannot be formulated without a formal Risk Assessment. If so, then Mr Webster’s reluctance to provide copies of any formal Risk Assessment leaves me rather skeptical of the value and validity of any changes he is proposing. (Indeed does one really exist?)

Clearly, Mr Webster must have been stung into action; to my surprise I received, at 3.59pm, within two minutes of my email above, this response:

Mr Allan Roberts,

Please find copies attached of the reviewed and finalised Risk Assessment including the planned layout of the West Pier demarcation.

Kind Regards,

Robert Webster

Health and Safety Officer

DOWNLOAD

This response is the only communication I have received from Mr Webster during what should have been a straight forward request dealing with a very real, and ongoing, public safety concern.

I wonder:

• Was there ever a risk assessment or Traffic Management Plan for West Pier, prior to this present ‘fag packet’ production?
• Why did Mr Webster choose not to provide the ‘current’ RA and TMP, that he said existed but has so far never produced?
• Why did Mr Webster claim that the risk assessment was ‘under review’ when in fact it is dated 30 May 2018, 41 days prior to my FOIA request dated 10 July 2018?
• Is it coincidence that the date of the Risk Assessment is 30 May 2018, just one day before the article “Talk to the Wall” was published in NYE?

Perhaps Deputy Harbour Master Chris Burrows knows?