wightdogs.com ISLE of WIGHT DOGS and OWNERS

Hi all,

Following seeing the freedom of information requests on this website I have just made a  request on the whatdotheyknow site regarding the increase in the human excrement problem that is bound to come from the Councils intention to close half of the islands public toilets. Which is just plain crazy.

The beach hut owners will already tell you that human excrement is a problem at Appley in Ryde due to the toilets being locked at night. Obviously people still have to go if they need to and unfortunately they tend to do so between the beach huts. Which is all rather disgusting for the hut owners.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/human_excrement_at_island_parks#outgoing-100731

How can we therefore allow this crazy council to close half of our toilets as it is obvious that this health hazard will dramitically increase, and what effect is this going to have on tourism? I for one am not willing to just pretend that this is not a problem, which is exactly what this Council appear to be doing.

I have also made a request about the Council putting up "No bonfires or barbecues"signs and the effect this is going to have on beach hut owners who have BBQs.

Whether this is another case of them just putting up signs without having the authority to enforce them we will have to wait and see.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/no_bonfires_or_barbecues_signs#outgoing-100730

Welcome cookie,

and its great to see people using the whatdotheyknow.com website to make FOI requests.

 This is public information we are requesting which should be available to the public.

Before the whatdotheyknow.com website came along we were limited to making FOI requests for ourselves, and the authorities had it nicely sewn up as only individuals had access to this public information.

 However with the advent of whatdothey know.com we have an ever growing archive of public information finally available to us the public.

Please use this site to make FOI requests to any public authority ie council the police etc. All public authorities are listed on the site here, it is your right under the Freedom Of Information Act to request information, so if there is something you wish to know please request it here and everyone can benefit.

 Getting back to your requests cookie, I am also deeply concerned at the councils intention of closing any public conveniences at all,  let alone half of them. How short-sighted they are.

The problem you have highlighted has to be a serious concern to us all and will be one we shall have to monitor closely if the council are successful in their intentions.

As for the no bonfires and BBQ signs I have seen loads of these suddenly appearing and they make no mention of any penalty whatsoever. So if, as you suggest, it turns out that they aren't in fact prohibited they could well be further contenders for our "Sign of the times" thread. Where we have already had "Keep dogs on leads" signs where dogs didn't have to be on leads and a "Cycling prohibited" sign where cycling wasn't in fact prohibited.

Either way it will be a miricle if this is actually enforced.

 We shall certainly have to keep a close eye on your requests, thanks again for making them.

Well Ive had a "response" to the first of my FOI requests and apparently the Councils parks officer doesn't consider there is a problem with human excrement at Appley park in Ryde as a result of the toilet block being locked overnight.

I have left a reply to that on the whatdotheyknow.com website

Thank you for your swift response.

However as I have informed you of the existence of this public

health issue and your parks officer isn't aware of the problem it

would suggest that your parks officer isn't particularly on the

ball, as it is his job to be aware of matters such as this.

Also as your parks officer isn't aware of the problem then it

follows that the provision within the Council's Street Cleaning

Contract for the removal of antisocial deposits which includes

excrement (human or animal) are also not aware of the problem

therefore it is not being dealt with.

In this times of austerity your parks officer should be very

grateful he still has a job and I would suggest that as I have

informed you that the problem is around the beach huts, and as the

Council have in their possession the details of the hut owners, it

would be a good idea for your parks officer, or alternatively your

environmental health department, to contact the owners in order to

establish the extent of the public health problem.

Prior to the hut owners having to rely on contacting the people who

award the green flag for public parks if the Council are not taking

the problem seriously.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Cook

But of course if he admitted he was aware of a problem, and the problem remained,  he would also be admitting that he hadn't done anything to deal with it.

The IW council has hinted that the "No  bonfires or barbecues" signs, which they claim they are unaware of erecting recently , are a deterrent. Therefore assumably indicating that they have no authority to enforce the ban. Similar to the Shanklin dogs on leads signs where they didnt have to be on leads, and the Cycling prohibited on the puckpool upper sea wall signs where it wasnt prohibited. Although they have asked that cookie clarify the location of the signs she refers to, as they further state some locations are regulated by a byelaw.

However cookies FOI request was a general request to the council rather than a request for a specific area, and if some areas are covered by a byelaw then the council should have supplied details of those areas where a byelaw exists banning bonfires and barbecues, as this would be the authority to ban them which was requested:

1. under what authority are you stating this to be the case.

Continued on the whatdotheyknow.com website by clicking (here)

Well well, here we go once again not only "No BBQs" signs but also "Dogs are Banned"

Do you ever get the feeling you have been somewhere before?

We know, and more to the point the council know, full well that dogs aren't banned where these signs are stating they are. They're only banned on the first 100 metres of beach not from the entire beach.

We finally established this last year:

"Following my making the complaint below, the text and images of which are copied from the original pdf file I sent the IW council in August 2009, I was awarded a £250 "Time & Trouble" payment by the council due to the number of times I had had to repeatedly complain about the inaccurate sign-age. I was, at the same time, under sanctions from the council due to my making repeated complaints to them. I had copied the complaint to the Island MP and my local councillor."

Continued in the signs complaint by clicking (Here)

Well I have now requested a review of why I haven't bee supplied with the information I have requested.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/no_bonfires_or_barbecues_signs#outgoing-108016

Tell me why is it that if I am entitled to request information they don't just supply it in the time the law says they have to?

If it turns out that they have put up more signs which aren't telling the truth we will have paid to have false signs made and paid someone to put them up. On top of that we are paying someone to answer FOI requests which appear to be attempting to deter us getting the information we are legally entitled to, is the plan just to make the process as long winded and awkward as possible? In order that we just give up because we simply dont have the time required to fight them.

If it turns out to be the case that the signs are wrong, again, just think how much time and money would be saved if the signs weren't put up in the first place. Hardly any surprise that the Council have run out of money is it? Giving the pointless waste of it that goes on, and we are paying!

Same old same old Cookie, I have been meaning to get around to doing a guide to making a Freedom Of Information Act request to give people some pointers on exercising their right to request information

For example, not many people realise that you don't actually have to state that you are requesting information under the FOI Act as it is enough just to ask for info in a communication.its up to the council to have trained staff properly to spot the information request and pass it to the relevant department.

So bear in mind that if you have sent a complaint to them that hasn't ever received an answer, or even an acknowledgement, if you have requested information in that complaint they have 20 working days to tell you if they hold that information and if they do they also have to supply it to you.

Try not to ask questions aim more for requesting "any information in relation to..." The best place to make the request is the whatdotheyknow.com website, as then we can all see the information when you get it.

Its best to use your real name in making the request but just your title and your surname is fine ie Mr James

In theory you don't have to use your real name but you wont be able to make a complaint about not receiving the information you have requested if you don't as then you have to use your name and address.

But on the whatdotheyknow.com website, where you actually make your request and they send it to the council for you, you don't have to give the council your home address as you are allowed to make a FOI request using just an electronic address (email address) and the whatdotheyknow.com website wont give your email address to the council when they send them the request. The council then have to communicate with you and supply the response to your request through the website.

I will have to try to get around to making a video showing how to go about it as people should be requesting information as it is their entitlement to do so, and at least then you will get something back for all that council tax you have to pay.

Well the Council have now confirmed that the "No bonfires or barbecue" signs are for deterrent purposes only as they hold no record of any byelaws relating to bonfire/BBQ activities in areas other than at Chale Green, St Helen's Green and Fort Victoria Country Park.

And sure enough in between the byelaws prohibiting the placing of a photographic cart or steam organs on the green at St Helens, and the ban on the firing or discharging of fire-arms or missile to the danger of any person (actually theres a £5 fine for firing a gun on the green), fires were, as the council claim, banned on the green at St Helens by the Urban District Council of St. HELEN'S in 1906.

But that's not BBQs on the beaches or esplanade is it?

BYELAWS

Made by the Urban District Council of St. HELEN'S,

ISLE OF WIGHT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE GREEN,

1. Throughout these byelaws the expression of "the

Council" means the Urban District Council of St. Helen's

and the expression " the Common " means the piece of

land with the ponds, paths and roads thereon commonly

known as The Green, situate in the Parish of St. Helen's

in the County of Isle of Wight, and referred to as " the

Common" in the Scheme approved under The Commons

Act, 1899, on the 29th day of September, 1906, by the

Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

...........

7) Place on the common any photographic cart,

or any show, exhibition, swing, roundabout, steam

organ, or other like thing except in the case of a

fair lawfully held.

Light any fire, or carelessly, or negligently

do any act which may cause or be likely to cause

damage by fire to anything growing or being thereon.

9) Fire or discharge any fire-arm on the Common.,

or throw or discharge on the Common any missile

to the damage or danger of any person.

10)Turn out or permit to remain on the Common

any cattle, sheep, or other animal.

And in 1962 the Rural District Council of the Isle Of Wight did indeed ban the lighting of fires on Chale Green, and the same in 1975 at Fort Victoria, Yarmouth. Although as far as I'm aware there aren't any "No bonfires or barbecues" signs at these locations.

However, the council state in respect of the triangular signs at Ryde, Yaverland, Sandown, Shanklin and Ventnor, although they do include a “no BBQ” symbol the details provided are  informative and safety-related as well as complying with the beach awards. In other words there doesn't appear to be a ban despite what the signs say.

As for the Appley Park area we are informed sign-age has been installed at the back of the shelters and facing the beach huts. Which they add was as a result of numerous BBQs being carried out on the grass and shelter roof thus causing damage to public facilities and they add that they also received a complaint from one of the beach hut tenants who requested appropriate sign-age.

But I fail to see how installing signs stating something is banned if it isn't can be appropriate sign-age, especially at the request of one solitary beach hut owner. If it is to be banned take the necessary steps to ban it properly, after all they are the local authority. Erecting sign-age which is misleading breaks down trust and diminishes the effectiveness of legitimate sign-age, plus of course it is unenforceable.

Similar information, we are informed, can be provided for Gurnard where BBQs were being used on the Esplanade and green which became unsafe as it was happening too near the huts. The tenants were concerned that their own facilities would be damaged and requested sign-age. Did the tenants request misleading sign-age that couldn't be enforced, or did they request that the council should actually do something about the problem?  After all thats their job.