wightdogs.com ISLE of WIGHT DOGS and OWNERS

You will recall that in June 2009 I received the only Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) issued for the whole year by the Islands dog wardens for the beaches of Ryde. (Although the council now claim that no dog exclusion FPN's whatsoever were issued during 2009) This was for allegedly having my dog on an excluded area of the beach. Having exhausted the councils complaints procedure regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the FPN I complained to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). Although the LGO's reputation leaves a great deal to be desired  they are the only option you have in an attempt to gain justice over the actions of councils.

Having submitted my full complaint with all supporting evidence to the LGO I eventually received their provisional view of my complaint. That Provisional View upheld the councils actions in full.

On this thread I am going to examine various aspects of my complaint starting with: The height of the tide at 09:00 on the 17 June 2009, when the FPN was issued to me.

I supplied to the council, and subsequently to the LGO, a photograph taken by me during the issuing of the FPN in order to demonstrate the height of the tide at the time I was accused of the offence ie having my dog on an excluded beach within 100 metres of the sea-wall. Although I insisted that the dog warden who issued the FPN looked at the photo I had just taken, and I specifically insisted that he must mention it as evidence in his notes, when I obtained a copy of his notes under a Freedom Of Information request, he had made no mention of this photograph at all, or that I had insisted he list it as evidence (this was far from the only discrepancy in his notes - a lot more on this later).

That picture (copied above) also shows a witness (I have put a gaussian blur on the inset image to protect his identity on the web) who subsequently offered to supply me with a statement of what he saw, from his vantage point at the foot of the sand bank on the beach, during the incident of the issuing of the FPN. In that witness statement he clearly states that at no time did the dog warden ever enter the beach rather he stood at the railings on the sea-wall shouting at me as I walked with my dog in the shallow sea. The witness further states that I never stopped walking until I had left the beach, at the steps which are dog permitted, and had approached the Dog warden at his position on the sea-wall. This statement was signed by the witness, including his address, and was supplied to the IW council and subsequently the LGO.

However according to the dog wardens notes he claimed to have approached me when I was on the beach approx 10 yards from the sea-wall, he then claimed he had introduced himself and told me I was on an excluded beach and asked me to leave the beach on three separate occasions. He further stated that on each occasion I refused to leave the beach.

In actual fact when I left the beach, at the steps which are not within the ban area, and approached him on the sea-wall he refused to give me his name on three occasions when asked for it as I told him I intended to complain over his conduct of shouting accusations at me. In the end I had to photograph his van number plate in order to identify him due to these continued refusals.

This was directly contrary to the Isle of Wight Council’s Enforcement Policy on the use of Fixed Penalty Notices for Environmental Offences, Appendix C , FIXED PENALTY NOTICE PROCEDURE

Which states that in the first instance the dog warden should:

 “Approach the offender, and introduce yourself showing your ID”

Incidentally the image above is taken Council’s Enforcement Policy on the use of Fixed Penalty Notices, I was unable to trace this document anywhere on the councils website or indeed anywhere on the Internet, I finally received this IW council policy document under a Freedom Of Information request 

 Also note:  this document, setting out the procedure for issuing FPNs, states "A dog is seen not to be in an exclusion area" This is wrong, as it is only an offence to have a dog in an exclusion area, if the dog is not in the exclusion area the owner isn't committing an offence. (perhaps the dog warden in question had read this flawed IW councils procedure and thought I was committing an offence by "not" having my dog in an exclusion area)

A current google search will produce a totally different version of this document, however the newer version only states the Enforcement Policy on the use of Fixed Penalty Notices for dog fouling, there is no mention of either dogs on leads or dog exclusion any longer in the IW councils Policy document!

Strangely enough neither the photograph showing the height of the tide, nor the witness or his statement are mentioned at all in the LGO's provisional review. However the LGO's view does state that the IW council have supplied evidence from the Ryde Harbour Master which states that the tide could not have been 100 metres out from the sea-wall at the time the FPN was issued, and the LGO have accepted this evidence. 

The FOI request produced an email conversation between the IW councils Community Safety Operations Manager (this was the officer who attended the meeting of Ryde Town Council who stated that the beach ban at Appley was unenforceable) and the Ryde Harbour Master.

The Manager first of all enquires to the Ryde Harbour Master as to whether the tide was in or out on Wednesday 17 June 2009 at 08:55 on Appley beach.

In reply the Ryde Harbour Master states that he has no records to ascertain this but guesses that High Water in the morning was at about 0700 BST

Despite the Community Safety Operations Manager being informed that the Harbour Master has no relevant records he never the less responds by asking for the Harbour Masters opinion as to: if High Water was at 07:00 could the tide have receded more that 100 metres by 09:00.

To which the Ryde Harbour Master replies in his opinion it would not be the case as the sea stays at the High Water level for about 2 hours. He continues however that to stand up in court you would have to measure it 2 hours after High Water

with the same predicted High Water.

He then claims that according to his “book” the height of the tide at that time of the month with High Water at about 07:00 would have been about 4.6/4.7metres.

I dispute every aspect of this "evidence" as although the Ryde Harbour Master may have no relevant records I do have. Please refer to the scan of the Portsmouth tide table 2009, which gives the relative height of tides at all Solent and Isle of Wight locations.

The Ryde Harbour Master appears to be merely guessing in stating High Water was at 07:00 on 17 June and if his “book” states the height of the tide was 4.6/4.7metres, well it appears either his book was wrong or he misread it.

The high tide at Ryde on 17 June 2009 was in FACT 06:26 and the height of the tide was 3.9metres. The Ryde Harbour Master was quoting a tide height 4.6/4.7metres which at Ryde is a height for a Spring tide whereas this was actually a Neap tide, the complete opposite. This is the most basic of errors and 4.6/4.7 is in fact a higher tide than the actual Mean High Water Springs at Ryde which is 4.5 metres.

The image below is taken from the Portsmouth tide table 2009 which gives the times and relative heights for high and low water at locations in the Solent and Isle of Wight. For Ryde 10 minutes must be subtracted from the given time for Spring tides and 10 minutes added for Neap tides at Ryde.

The difference in these two tide heights - 3.9 metres and 4.6/4.7 metres - being 0.8metres, which is an equivalent difference to someone when standing on the same spot, in the first instance of the actual height of the tide being ankle deep in the sea compared to the Harbour Masters instance with the sea coming up to their waist.

The Ryde Harbour Master also states that the the sea stays at the High Water level for “about” 2 hours yet continues to state that to stand up in court you would have to measure it. Why would you have to measure it for court evidence? He is stating it stands for about 2 hours. If this is a factual statement it could be proven as such in court. If it isnt a factual statement the council and the LGO should not be accepting it as evidence.

The Harbour Master also suggested the height of the tide could be measured the following day. The IW council have apparenlty confirmed in reply to a FOI request that such a measurement was not undertaken, in the area where the alleged offence for which the Fixed Penalty Notice was issued, when the tide was at a height of 4.7 metres or at any other height: "I understand that this was not implemented" :

Prior to supplying my full response to the LGOs investigator I asker her to clarify certain points and informed her I had made a FOI request to establish whether the Ryde Harbour master was qualified to calculate the exact position of the tide at a given time and precise location. And also whether the point where the FPN was issued (approx 1 mile east of Ryde Harbour) was within the Ryde Harbour Masters professional jurisdiction.

In her reply she stated that the Ryde Harbour Master had stated that high water was at about 7am on 17 June 2009, and as the tide stays at that level for about two hours it was the Harbour Masters opinion the that sea couldn't have been more than 100m away from the sea wall at 8.55am on 17 June 2009

 She continued that she didn't consider this to be a vague claim as it is the professional opinion of the Harbour Master [ [UPDATE: the IW council have confirmed  in their response that  "official jurisdiction for all waters below mean high-water springs of Ryde shores lies with the Queen's Harbour Master Portsmouth"] , and although he wasn't present he would have knowledge and understanding of the water levels at particular times of the day and it was reasonable for Council officers to accept his judgement.

Therefore despite being supplied with the actual photograph taken at the time (the detailed original being 4.37MB which is available to them with it Metadata showing it was taken on the day in question) clearly showing the height of the tide, and the photo is further authenticated by including the image of a witness who has supplied a statement confirming that it is indeed him shown, the council and it appears the LGO are dismissing this evidence and instead relying on the  "evidence" of a council employee, the Ryde Harbour Master, who despite admitting he had no relevant records, proceeded to make a wild and inaccurate guess as to the time and height of the tide, arriving at the erroneous conclusion that at 09:00hrs the tide was fully in and at a height of 4.6/4.7 metres.

 However to add even further inconsistency , according to the dog wardens notes "the tide line was approximately 50 yds from the sea-wall" when I was on the beach. Therefore according to the Harbour Master, the council and the LGO my dog and I must have been swimming, or in a life-raft, at that distance from the sea-wall if the tide was at its full height of 4.6/4.7 metres. Which wouldn't be an offence under the THE DOGS EXCLUSION (ISLE OF WIGHT) ORDER 2008 as we wouldn't have been on the beach because it would have been underwater, as would the sandbar and the steps. As anybody who lives in Ryde will tell you.

Finally the IW council have now confirmed that the area concerned actually falls within the juristiction of the Queens Harbour Master: "official  jurisdiction for all waters below mean high-water springs of Ryde shores lies with the Queen's Harbour Master Portsmonth"

tweets from @BembridgeFish concerning this thread

@wightdogs hi ref distance water from wall. U r correct that spring/neap key but air pressure can have a MASSIVE impact on height of tide

@wightdogs I'm a commercial fisherman working out of tidal Bembridge harbour.

Always wise to check with a reliable source Pete

BTW which direction was the wind actually coming from on the eighteenth?

Thats a 66% mark up on Melish's price for the PORTSMOUTH TIDE TABLES, I know because I bought one at Melish's.

I wonder if the Ryde Harbour porta cabin is allowed to be run as a retail outlet?

We could ask the Council, as I think they own it dont they?

Ahh but the staff are polite at Melish's aren't they, and you're forgetting that good manners don't cost anything. Additionally, you aren't just paying for the Tide Table at the harbour, you're also paying for the expertise.

I had an email this morning from a site member who spotted this graffiti sprayed on the "harbourmasters" trailer down at Ryde Harbour. It appears that the reputation of this "profesional" has reached the level where I find myself needing to obscure the obscene graffiti aimed towards him - due to the wightdogs website being a family friendly zone and all.

But looking more closely at this handiwork I have my suspicions that this could be another Banksy creation, it is a simple, straight forward and to the point example and you could hardly accuse it of being a misleading observation. The island has been the venue for the artists work in the past and I think this could well be another example. If so what an opportunity for the council to redeem itself for painting over Banksy's previous gift to the island which appeared briefly in Shanklin before the council defaced it. At the same time preserving this creation for posterity the Island could only stand to benefit from the increase in visitors that surround previous examples of the artists work on public display.

UPDATE

A few hours later I took a walk to the harbour and by then the council had done their rounds, slopping the wightwash about again, wantonly defacing yet another potential masterpiece which could have proved a valuable asset to the Islands economy. However I spotted the remains of a stencil on the beach and I suspect that Banksy could well have been disturbed whilst executing his artwork leaving it unfinished and as the stencil resembled a football player I have concluded that the finished artwork would have included the word "Scunthorpe", as in Scunthorpe United FC. in the claret & blue of the team strip with the play on words representing the Ryde Harbourmaster.