Merton Council's warped idea of democracy

From, David Coleman, The invidious knife at the throat of democracy

History

Cannon Hill Common is, or was, a small oasis of calm in London SW20 It still is a grade one nature site with a small pond (a strip of water approx 260yds x 24yds ) forming the border of a designated bird sanctuary where the majority of birds are, of course, water fowl. Naturally local residents supported the erstwhile Council’s prohibition on fishing. Indeed the said Council, London Borough of Merton, extolled its green virtues in press releases which, while publicising its credentials, also pointed out the damage that angling does to the environment. Suddenly all has changed and, with regard only to outside anglers, not to local residents, the Council have promoted a new angling club to fish these waters. Herons have been ensnared in fishing lines and drowned, ducks and gulls are being hooked, vegetation trodden down and trike-riding toddlers wanting to feed the ducks banned from the footpath while fishing platforms are planned. Dog walkers have suffered abuse for their ‘disturbance’ and obliged to go elsewhere. You will see from the correspondence listed below that the Council will brook no criticism. They cite the Environment Agency ( an unelected quango ) and its funding, as their authority. Indeed, Cabinet leader Simpson’s final words are “ I will not be responding to further emails from you”

Dear recipient, this missive is directed to you as I sincerely feel that the principles of democracy are being callously obliterated. The facts are that local residents, for a multitude of reasons, would like to see the previous ban on fishing restored on this small nature reserve. The Council has accepted funds from the so called Environment Agency and in cahoots with salaried public sector workers - cost of current CEO to ratepayers over £200,000 pa - steadfastly refuse to answer what I consider to be legitimate questions. I wonder if I am writing to Homer or Bart, not David, when I address the “Cabinet ( ! ) leader. I am now obliged to beat a tactical retreat but hope, in the meantime, that my blog http://cannonballcommonblog.blogspot.com// (seems to activate better on google than yahoo) will cast some light-hearted spotlight on this abuse of democracy.

In response to my election as persona non grata by our leader it is, I feel, appropriate to add here some reflections on the role of the Council’s so-called Greenspaces team, hard workers that they undoubtedly are. They have an unfortunate track record, ranging from trying to promote a 5km run with up to 200 runners ploughing up 5 circuits of this grade one listed nature reserve to promoting an all weather 24 hour floodlit football arena complete with alcohol bar on the nearby Morden Park. Talk about the devil and idle hands. Cannon Hill is now sporting a rash of numbered poles resembling a fairground hoopla site and information boards ironically referring to nature reserve and angling club together. A large banner supporting the lottery commission, reference to the BBC Breathing spaces, no cycling and a tatty fishing rules notice adds to the eyesore.

Correspondence

The despoliation of Cannon Hill Common, off Cannon Hill Lane, London SW20 and the abuse of the democratic process.

Local Government Ombudsman reply, 5 March 2010

"I am sorry to tell you my provisional view, based n the information available to me at the moment , is that your complaint should not be pursued further "

Signed Ms J Beck

Investigator.

( this reply accords with intelligence on the net which states that 90% of complaints are rejected by the office that is mostly staffed by ex public sector workers ! For more visit,

local-government-ombudsman-lgo.blogspot.com )

========

Local Government Ombudsman - Complaint Form

February 13, 2010

Which council or authority are you complaining about?

London Borough of Merton

Have you complained to the council or authority? Usually, you should have completed all stages of the council's complaints process before we can look at your complaint.

Yes

If you have answered 'yes' above, please say - if you know - when you complained to the council or authority. If you do not remember, Please put 'don't know' in the box.

17 Nov 2009

What do you think the council or authority did wrong?

Wrongly and recklessly supported a private fishing club on a grade one listed bird sanctuary in London SW20 against local wishes after falsely representing the club's foundation meeting as an open meeting with a democratic agenda. Thereafter supplying false information as to numbers present to justify their decision. Ignoring resident ratepayers association's submissions, ignoring correspondence re, inter alia, health and safety, curtailing further supplications and rejecting local MP's suggestion of a face to face meeting with a complainant. By their actions they are, furthermore, contravening Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countyside Act, disturbing the south bank nesting and roosting sites where once up to a dozen broods of chicks were to be seen.Can be considered acting ultra vires.Their data manipulation constitutes an abuse of power

How has this affected you?

It has led to me, my friends and local residents avoiding pondside excursions with our grandchildren to our local grade one listed nature reserve which is a waterfowl sanctuary. We have been subjected to witnessing the slow death of a heron entangled in a fishing line and to malards being hooked. It has led to us all questioning the democratic process as practised by our local council and public sector workers. Personally I feel that the authorities insensitive regard to my disabilities has made me feel that my performance has been inadequate, given the importance of the issues involved, and that my non attendance at their selective meeting means it is seen as apathy or worse.

What do you think the council or authority should do to put things right?

Ban Fishing, as did the past Council and/or call a properly constituted open democratic meeting, with all options on the agenda at a reasonable location and time of day. In passing I note that their bi-monthly magazine provided ample opportunity to seek the views of the whole borough.

Councillor Simpson's reply to me, 18 Dec 2009 has turned out to be another falsehood. I have considered his reply long and deeply for the past week as to whether I should not just pack it in and leave the subject, but my conscience will not let me. This cannot be swept under the carpet.

Unfortunately as the Council has now put it in writing from both Mr Napier and Mr Simpson that they brook no further correspondence with me, I am informing the Council legal department that I have initiated a formal complaint.

My Napier writes to you that I will not compromise. Oh but I did - I simply requested a proper open meeting with an unbiased agenda, only to be told by both Mr Simpson and Mr Napier that correspondence with me was closed. Mr Napier also responded to my local MP, Mr Stephen Hammond on 5 Jan 2010 as follows, no doubt in collusion with Mr Simpson, "we are not inclined to meet with him (sic) as we feel that we have now thoroughly explored matters with him etc, etc" This when you admit they do not know who were indeed ratepayers/residents of their borough at the said meeting! If I can be permitted a personal musing, I can only point out that to a forensic accountant such as me, when practising, this would have sounded unsettling alarm bells. Anyhow a meeting with any one who talks of stakeholders, cabinets, meeting with, registered fishery, and other solecisms and malapropisms would immediately lose the interest of this old-fashionedly educated dinosaur.

Formal Complaint to The Local Government Ombudsman

I am accusing the Council Leader and Greenspaces team of maladministration, maintaining that the meeting was not correctly called and that later by providing no less than three contradictory sets of figures of the attendees they deliberately misrepresented the will of local residents and that the figures are still not correct. Furthermore, three times,17 Nov 09,8 Dec 09 and 12 Jan 2010 I have raised the question of a passer-by or child being hooked and each time it has been studiously avoided. This constitutes additional gross negligence by The Council and employees. Their misapplication of the spirit and powers behind the delegated legislation powers applied, is an abuse of this power and its inherent principles.

On my second but related matter, I seek personal redress.

By their continued harping on my non attendance at, "a very productive consultation meeting", which was not publicised to the general electorate of the area in an acceptable democratic manner, I have been made to feel ashamed that I am responsible and guilty of some degree of democratic negligence. They have thrown into the correspondence this accusation at least five times despite my explanations and protestations each time. Their insensitive disregard of my disabilities (I do not wish to labour the point but I suffer pain all day every day - for which I receive a small military pension) - has caused me heartache and depression and I simply cannot agree that a 73 year old disabled pensioner should be taken to task for refusing to attend an angling meeting in the dark of night. As one, who like many of my generation were trained to suffer hardship in the line of duty, it would usually take more than his and the Council Leader’s and Mr Napier's repeated 'yah' 'boo' 'sucks' type repetitions to unsettle me but I do confess to finding their approach distressing, unprofessional and unhelpful. It is in this respect that I seek personal redress.

========

Dear Mr Hammond, I thank you for your letter of 11 January 2010 and simply say that I anticipated the outcome weeks ago from the continuing timbre of the Council's replies. Unfortunately as the Council has now put it in writing from both Mr Napier and Mr Simpson that they brook no further correspondence with me, I must ask you as my MP to pursue the complaint that I am now laying before you and seek your advice on the remedies available.

By their continued harping on my non attendance at, "a very productive consultation meeting", which was not publicised to the general electorate of the area in an acceptable democratic manner, I have been made to feel responsible and guilty of some unidentifiable malfeasance. They have thrown into the correspondence this accusation at least five times despite my protestations each time. Their insensitive disregard of my disabilities - for which I receive a military pension - has reawakened the depression that I suffer when dealing with bureaucrats and I simply cannot agree that a 73 year old disabled pensioner should be taken to task for refusing to attend an angling meeting in the dark of night. As one, who like many of my generation were trained to kill without malice, it would certainly take more than his repeated 'yah' 'boo' 'sucks' type repetitions to unsettle me but I do confess to finding his approach unprofessional and unhelpful and will be bringing it to a wider audience. It is in this respect that I seek your advice. I am assuming of course that the laager mentality of the local Conservative Councillors' does not extend across the whole local party organisation, or I would be corresponding with your cocker spaniel. I am complaining of the whole handling of this matter by the Town Hall and seek your advice as to all options open to me. To save time, I confirm that I have to hand details of the LGO, Parliamentary Committee on Delegated Legislation,The High Court and Direct Gov but simply seek a sensitive approach at his stage. Many thanks.

　

Final reply from David Napier 13 Jan 2010

Dear Mr Coleman,

Further to your note below, we do not intend to enter into any further correspondence with you on this topic beyond this response. Your opposition to angling on the lake is now well documented and we have gone to great lengths to explain the course of action that is now being embarked upon. The fundamental point that you seem determined to overlook is that fishing has occurred at this site over many years and in our view is it better to attempt to manage it proactively than attempt to impose an outright ban that is totally impractical to enforce. If the club format ultimately fails to bring about the required standards then, as we have explained, we are quite prepared to review the arrangements.

I do not intend to respond to some of your very personal questions, but I am not an angler myself and I can report that no Merton officer is supporting this initiative based upon any need to preserve their own position. I have however been a member of the RSPB for almost 30 years and, what is more, I have been a practising open space manager for many years and so understand the classification and processes of declaring nature reserves extremely well. As reported in my previous mails, angling and nature conservation are not mutually exclusive and there are Local Nature Reserves and indeed National Nature Reserves that permit angling and in many cases I suspect the angling activity predates the conservation designation. In the local context I can report that both Tooting Common and Battersea Park have been assessed (not by us but by other qualified professionals) as higher in their intrinsic nature conservation value than Cannon Hill Common which falls into the same value category as Wandsworth Common in fact. Cannon Hill Common and Wandsworth Common are both recognised as a "Site of Borough Importance Grade I" within the Mayor of London's comprehensive site inventory; Tooting Common and Battersea Park are of higher status at the grade of "Metropolitan Importance". All of these sites support angling and waterfowl of course.

Thank you for confirming the context to "Go Fish". It was not clear from your earlier correspondence that this was a Merton reference as the feature predated me by some 8 years. I do indeed know Chris Mountford, but have never before known him as "Facilities Manager". Such a position does exist here at Merton but has no management responsibility for open spaces and so this reference merely confused matters still further. I will certainly speak with Chris on this issue when I see him next, but circumstances and personnel have changed significantly since he was parks manager and, what is more, a new plan of action has now been agreed with the support of a number of parties and key representatives of the users of the site.

Finally with reference to your comment below "I put on record that you make no response to the last four paragraphs of my original", I believe that we have provided answers to all of the questions raised in your 5th December email, assuming that this is the "original" that you refer to. We have nothing more to add.

Regards

Doug Napier Greenspaces Manager

Dear Mr Napier and Ruth (glad to see you back in the frame), Thank you for your reply which reiterates much earlier stuff that is balderdash and I regret to say continues to evade key issues. I note your jargon re 'stakeholders' what on earth is this meant to mean and what is the point you are trying to make ? I fear you are talking about salaried public sector workers intent on protecting their raison d'etre, do correct me if I'm wrong. It's certainly not democracy in its accepted sense. I note that you say no minutes exist and that you say such a 'minor' issue does not require attention at senior level. Where, by the way Doug, do you live and in which local elections did you vote? The fishing site is advertised nationally and indeed is visited by anglers from outside the Borough. I note that 'you' do not consider planning permission is required for the building work and that you plan no further discussions on 'such a minor and local issue'. This really does take the biscuit. The other London parks fishing venues that you list are not grade one listed nature reserves or bird sanctuaries. Perhaps you were not aware of this and would like to reconsider. Anyhow, what is wrong with simply leaving the fish alone? What is the legal position if an angler hooks a child? (perhaps one of my grandchildren) What does health and safety advise regarding mixing pedestrians with anglers? What has my non attendance, (dragged in for the fifth time) at an undemocratically called meeting got to do with any of this ? But anyway have you read my detailed medical reasons, thrice given, for absence? Does this seventy three and a half year old soldier war pensioner, but more importantly a ratepayer, have to beg your forgiveness ? Let's get this straight once and for all. I quote from the bull in a china shop approach of Dave Bartlett's notice " If you are interested in securing the future of fishing at the lake it is important that you attend this meeting". Enough said. His photo illustration, as I have pointed out before shows his team for the day treading down the lottery funded banks from the bridge to the new reed beds, using keep nets and all. Say no more squire. It's things like this lead me to suspect you have simply drawn the short straw but have not been furnished with all the relevant correspondence. It recalls my two years as a school leaver in 1953 when I was a CO2 at the Port of London Authority under the tlc of NALGO. Plus ca change. You should not play the numbers game. The figures "in the hundreds" I shall politely call an euphemism. The jury was nobbled - the ' friends' have mysteriously 'enjoyed' an influx of members, from guess what - you got it - anglers. It was these that made up the majority of 'friends' independent attendees. I have spoken to other friends, some were present and others not, and the consensus is that being unfamiliar with the Machiavellian machinations of pressure groups they felt coerced and intimidated as it was continually stressed there was no alternative, so they felt outnumbered and outgunned. The RP&WB residents assoc would be pleased to provide details of the relevant petitions presented to Council over the years on this issue. In all fairness I should let you know that I am a member of the latter and indeed of the 'friends' as well as the London Wildcare Trust, the RSPB and Kew Gardens. If you wished, I would be glad to sponsor your membership of any of these bodies. I draw the line at Peta and Animal Rights - not my style. The facilities manager of whom you are unaware is Chris Mountford who still acts as part-time consultant. Strange this as he certainly knows you. Your press dept still has on file GO FISH 21 Dec extolling Merton's green fishing policy. What's your response ? I would hate to go down as a miserable old kill joy as I grew up as an angler on the banks of the Stour in Dorset and have fished the world over. Neither do I wish to be judged a nimby although I do regret that my wife will no longer feel able to take our eight grandchildren to feed the ducks or throw sticks in the water for dogs to retrieve. On the other hand I've a mind to take up the latterly. No it is simply that the whole scheme is ill conceived, badly thought through and in the name of box ticking is being forced through with no thought of the wider community feelings. ( or of democratic niceties) Anyhow what self respecting real angler fishes a bird sanctuary-grade one nature reserve 260yds x 24yds pond without feeling it is simply shooting fish in a barrel ? I am currently circulating my dossier on the damage and limitations of this site to colleagues at waterscape and the environment agency (NRA), as well as to friends editing the main fishing publications, seeking their views. I anticipate you have done the same as part of your due diligence. I put on record that you make no response to the last four paragraphs of my original. Before I continue to follow the other procedures I have put in train against this folly I offer you the last word between myself and the Council, if only to sign off, as has David Simpson. I close with a reminder that I have been a staunch supporter of the Council since moving here 45 years ago. Completely in sorrow, with no rancour, I return your regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Napier To: #### Cc: Ruth Hutton Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:14 PM Subject: Fishing at Cannonhill Common Dear Mr Coleman, FISHING AT CANNON HILL COMMON Further to your recent correspondence on the above topic with Ruth Hutton and others and with particular reference to the points in your email of 5th December we can report as follows: (a) The Lake is a registered fishery and the Council is not intending to change this, however we are hoping to improve the management of the site to deter the damage to wildlife and the bank edges which we are equally concerned about. The Council does have concerns about damage to the local wildlife by some people who are abusing the site, but recognises that it no longer has the staff resources to police the fishing activities frequently and therefore has undertaken to explore alternative means in order to preserve these. (b) The Council has considered the damage and possible legal action. This is one of the reasons why the fishing club option is being pursued. (d) The lake is one of only two fisheries in the London Borough of Merton and it has been used as a fishing lake for many years. At one point the Council did remove fish from the lake, however new fish were quickly reintroduced (by persons unknown) and we know from experience that this situation is likely to reoccur and therefore be ineffective in the medium to long term. I have no knowledge of the Facilities Manager's comments of December 2000, nor indeed who this individual is/was, nor the context, but clearly we are attempting to resolve issues in the current environment and with, undoubtedly, a different set of stakeholders from those of nine years ago, if indeed this is a reference to immediately local matters. I am not aware of any Council minute on this particular topic, moreover it is not the sort of topic that I would anticipate being considered at such a senior level but one that ordinarily would be delegated to officers to deal with. (e) The Environment Agency are currently leading the process of setting up a committee for the fishing club. Merton officers have been supporting them on this project and Merton hosted and co-organised the consultation meeting that occurred in late 2009. The local friends group for the Common, who represent many local residents (membership measured in 100s), has been consulted and are in agreement with the trialling of the fishing club to manage the site, to regulate the behaviour of anglers and promote good practice. Members of the friends group's committee attended the consultation meeting late last year, together with more than 40 others, many of whom were not anglers. If I recall correctly, you were also invited to attend this meeting but declined to do so. (f) There are many local authorities that allow fishing on their lakes within public parks and open spaces, including on waters that are formally designated as nature reserves. There are three fishing facilities within Wandsworth’s parks that we are aware of, and two fishing lakes on Clapham Common (L.B Lambeth). Other fishing facilities in local authority owned spaces in South London that we are aware of include South Norwood Lake (L.B Croydon) and Barnes Common (L.B Richmond). Merton is therefore not unusual in offering and promoting fishing as a recreational pursuit. (g) The lake at Cannon Hill Common is a registered fishery and it is within the Environment Agency's core remit to develop and promote fishing nationally. It is not therefore a surprise to discover that they are promoting the site, not least because they have also provided some finanical investment to improve it in recent years. However, we would be most surprised if this small facility is attracting anglers from far and wide irrespective. The facility is indeed designed to cater for local needs, but clearly with only two such opportunities in the borough our anticipated catchment is much wider than the Cannon Hill area alone. (i) Planning permission will not be required for our proposed fishing platforms in our view. Our design proposals for these will be sent to the local friends group who respresent the views of users of the site and the proposed club for their inputs primarily. Information will, furthermore, be posted up on site, but we have no plans for any wider consultations on such a minor and very localised matter. (j) & (k) We have no current plans to prohibit fishing across the whole site whilst either bank or vegetation repairs are undertaken. Local exclosures may be adopted as required however. (l) The notion of a close season has been raised already. Further advice will be obtained from the Environment Agency before any final decision is made on this point. Existing policing and enforcement concerns will be perinent in this regard, of course. We trust that this note addresses your outstanding issues and concerns. Regards Doug Napier Greenspaces Manager

To Defra 06 Jan 2010

Dear Susan Williams, although I couldn't open your attachment a colleague has kindly done so on his computer. I thank you for your response I would still like a reply to my questions from Defra as their pro-active and unwelcome support is being cited as being responsible for the degradation of the said nature reserve which is located on Cannon Hill Common, adjoining Cannon Hill Lane London SW20. You should be aware that your staff has engineered the overturning of the previous prohibition on angling and their attentions are not appreciated or wanted by the local residents.

----- Original Message ----- From: "mailto:Correspondence.Section@defra.gsi.gov.uk" To: "mailto:####" Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:25 PM

Subject: RE: Response to your Query : - Ref:DWOE000164542 - FW: Grade 1 listed nature reserve

Dear Mr Coleman

Please find attached a PDF version of the reply sent to you.

Regards

Defra Helpline

To Daily Telegraph and various MPs 30 Dec 09

I return Councillor Simpson's compliments and will henceforth have nothing to do with such a jackass. Where do you politicians continue to dredge up such ignoramuses ? Mine are simple questions needing only simple answers. Furthermore, by what stretch of the imagination can a meeting called by anglers for anglers be called a public meeting ? Simpson's clairvoyance, unfortunately, does not stretch to his second comment, although he's right on the first - at this hour of the day I am confined to our house recovering still from the painful after-effects of a laminectomy, conducted in the Atkinson Morley section of St George's, and wandering about in the dark is not recommended therapy. Apart from this I gave advance reasons to his staff why I would not be attending. The guy is obviously grasping at straws. The whole episode is redolent of calling a creditors meeting at dawn on New year's day in Glasgow for a bust Southampton company. I'll ask the editor of the Daily Telegraph to pass this on to his part time scribe Boris Johnson, as he too appears to have difficult replying to points made to him as the professed guardian of green London. Unfortunately Hilary Benn seems to live in a world far beyond anybody's reach. Some may find it more convenient to reply to "http://cannonballcommonblog.blogspot.com//"

From David Simpson 30 Dec 09

Mr Coleman

It is clear to me that your views and those of this local authority are unlikely to reach an agreed position.

It is also clear to me that you had the opportunity to attend the public meeting but chose not to do so.

I regret to inform you that I will not be responding to further emails from you on this subject.

David Simpson

To David Simpson 30 Dec 09

Thank you. Here follows a personal plea to you. Why do you all find it so difficult to answer questions honestly and precisely ?? eg is it right to allow fishing on a nature reserve? Do you like seeing herons drowned and waterfowl hooked? Why despite petitions from local residents association do you continue to ignore their wishes and not prohibit fishing? Having received, say, some 1500 electoral votes, how dare you say the right is yours? Do you like it that Wimbledon is now being promoted worldwide as "home of bird killers"? Small beer in the light of Westminster scandals perhaps, but are you surprised that politicians are held in such low esteem? p.s. can I please have an answer to the points I raised in mine of 8 Dec which is certainly within your remit ? You will probably be pleased to learn that this lifelong Conservative supporter, his family and his many colleagues can no longer relate to the present so-called principles of this party.

To David Simpson 22 Dec 09

Dear Mr Simpson, my name is David Coleman and I live in SW20 and I am requesting the following information under the terms of the freedom of Information Act. I am aware of a so called open meeting at Joseph Hood Recreation Ground on the 24 November 2009 . Could I have answers, please, to the following;

(a) Who called the meeting

(b) Do Council minutes referring to this prior to the meeting exist and can I have a copy

(c) What notice was given and what length of time was allowed for outside representations

(d) How was it publicised

(e) I am told by your Doug Napier 'some' 50 people attended. Could you please be more specific

(f) Of the attendees I am also told 'around' 60% were fisherfolk (say 30?), so again please be more specific

(g)Please provide the names of, the 2 Greenspaces team members, the officers from the Environment agency, the two PCSOs and the local councillors.

(h) Confirm that the above are included in your 'some' 50 attendees.

(in) Of the people included in (g) and (h) above please confirm where they reside - postal codes will suffice. Alternatively confirm or otherwise how many of them reside in the borough.

I thank you for your forthcoming response

To David Simpson 18 Dec 09

Dear David Simpson, with respect this is balderdash! What public meeting? The original 50 fisherfolk attendees has magically increased to 60 in your response - typical, I regret, of the obfuscation and gerrymandering I continue to encounter. In a population of some 180,000 locals the enormous majority of whom knew of no public meeting your use of 'overwhelming majority' is pitiful, nay, pitiable. You may be 'profoundly aware' but let me address your awareness for you. Are you aware that the best solution is to prohibit fishing altogether? It is obviously a foregone conclusion that this a fait accompli, despite Ruth Hutton's denial to me. However accepting this I still require the detailed answers to the points I have raised in my follow up dated 5 Dec 09. Isn't this what democracy at the Town Hall is supposed to mean? So let's have the answers, please. I should also add here that my reasons for my non attendance as a matter of principle were clearly made known to Ruth Hudson. But as the implication seems to be that I am at fault and may be considered as apathetic, reluctantly I disclose that aggravation of injuries incurred on active service 55 years ago (I am a war pensioner) makes any attendance extremely uncomfortable, pointless, and fruitless.

Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 11:23 AM

Subject: RE: My email dated 5 Dec 09 re fishing on Cannon Hill Common

Dear Mr Coleman

I have had sight of the detailed email you received from Ruth Hutton earlier this month and to which you forcefully responded on 09 December.

I am also aware having seen the email Ruth Hutton sent to you that the public meeting held on 26 November overwhelmingly endorsed the idea of having a licensed Angling Club as the best way forward to stop the erosion around the lake and litter. This meeting consisting of some 60 people local residents and friends of Cannon Hill Common.

Clearly we respect your views you have made them clear to all of us but it is also clear that we must respect too the views of the vast majority at that meeting on 26 November that endorsed the idea going forward that the best remedy to the difficulties of which we are all profoundly aware would be a licensed Angling Club.

David Simpson

Cabinet Member for Environment and Leisure

-----Original Message-----

From: ###

Sent: 18 December 2009 10:33

To: "mailto:margaret.brierly@hotmail.com"; Councillor Gilli Lewis-Lavender; "mailto:jonathan.warne@merton.gov"; Councillor Brian Lewis-Lavender; Councillor William Brierly; Councillor Deborah Shears; Councillor David Simpson; Councillor Angela Caldara; Councillor David Williams

Subject: My email dated 5 Dec 09 re fishing on Cannon Hill Common

I am saddened that not one of you, our elected representatives, has the courtesy, nay, decency, to comment back to me on the objections raised in my email. Without being rude, I ask what is the point of councillors? Do you believe that a national un-elected Quango, nice chap that Hilary Benn may be, should dictate who should control local parks, advertise fishing rights nationally, and invite all and sundry from far and wide, to despoil the bird sanctuary? Do you not feel that you should support the prohibition of fishing here, as it was in the past, as the best way of solving the problems and saving ratepayers money? It strikes me, apparently a lone voice, that it is absolutely immoral as well as unconstitutional to reward those who are responsible for the damage in the first place. I look forward to seeing what replies are engendered from each of you as individuals, please not the 3 line party whip response.

From: DAVID COLEMAN 

Sent: 08 December 2009 12:08

To: chris.lea@merton.gov.uk; Ruth Hutton; Lorraine Burke; Helen White; Councillor David Simpson; margaret.brierly@hotmail.com; Councillor William Brierly; Councillor Angela Caldara; Councillor Brian Lewis-Lavender; Councillor Gilli Lewis-Lavender; Councillor Deborah Shears; enquiries@environmentalagency.gov.uk; Stephen Hammond; Boris Johnson; reajn@parliament.uk; Councillor Jonathan Warne

Subject: Fw: Cannon hill latest response by me

Dear Ruth Hutton,

CANNON HILL COMMON

I now have time to respond further to your email of 2 Dec 09. The quick rejoinder that I originally sent does not do justice to the matter so I will give more care to seeking answers from the Council in this present approach.

(a) Your reply compressed my original points 1 an 2 and did not address my concerns about hooked and drowned wildlife. This will continue as long as fishing is permitted and I ask, why does the Council, by its actions, seem to accept this?

(b) Health and safety: Your answer does not show due regard to the dangers of injury caused by inadvertent hooking, totally predictable where anglers are mixed with passers by who are accompanied by children. In the event of legal action the Council would be at fault. Has this been considered /debated?

(c) I am familiar with the contents of the Open Spaces Act 1906, and for the present simply say that my raising of the question of Ultra Vires was to indicate that a whole load of case law over the past 100 years has bearings on several issues involved here as does indeed more recent European Law.

(d) The bulk of your reply rests on the certainty of fishing being authorised. Have you and the present Council read GO FISH dated 21 Dec 2000 and the then Facilities Manager's sensible appraisal. I ask again, can you please tell me when and why this was revoked? Could I have copies of the relevant Council minutes, please?

(e) You have already had my views on the validity of a meeting called by anglers for anglers. I ask, does the Council consider this a democratic meeting properly called, for the local residents, ratepayers, with the correct procedures of notice and conduct applied? Or do they consider it correct for salaried employees to dictate policy to the local population?

(f) Is the Council aware that neighbouring London Boroughs of Lambeth, Croydon, Wandsworth and Sutton, have withdrawn fishing rights? I recommend their websites to you. As part of our boro, Council is obviously aware that the Mitcham Common Conservators no longer allow fishing on the ponds there.

(g) Arising from point (f) is the Council aware that Environment Agency has been actively promoting Cannon Hill Common to the whole of the UK fishing fraternity?. vide Waterscape.com - Britain's official guide to canals, rivers and lakes. No wonder the influx of strangers, all on to a strip of water some 200 yards by 50 yards that is a bird sanctuary. You comment " The Environment Agency would not be happy with this solution ( e.g. prohibiting fishing ) as a large amount of E.A funding contributed to the improvement project." A case of he who pays the piper calls the tune? Hardly democratic.

(h) The PCSO's that you indicate have 'agreed' to make regular visits have been doing so throughout the year and off duty have no doubt been cheerful anglers there and, to boot, probably instigators and founder members of the new angling club.

They do not reassure the wild life. No doubt they would be equally diligent if fishing is prohibited?

(i) In the event that the Councils' outrageous proposals are implemented will technical drawings be first be put before the public showing size, number, and locations of platforms? Will planning permission be required?

(j) In the event of the Councils' outrageous proposals being implemented, whilst the urgently needed repairs to the bank are being carried out, will fishing be prohibited?

(k) In the event etc etc., after repairs, when presumably Environment will replant the foliage, will fishing be prohibited for a reasonable period of one year?

(l) In the event etc,etc., is the Council aware that Wandsworth, with several ponds, all larger than Cannon Hill pond, permits fishing on one only with a strictly enforced close season during the nesting season from February to June and is the Council prepared to write a similar clause into any contract?

(k) Is the Council aware that the whole length of the south bank, approx 260 yards long is fished and prevents the general public from enjoying a carefree stroll as previously? In summer the ensuing display of " builders bums" affords amusement to some but anxiety to others, particularly to young parents with children, who now avoid the area; as do the old folk in wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Does this please the Council? Shame on you - you have stolen our pond bank.

(l) Is the Council aware that the width of the pond is only some 24 yards ? The approximate distance between cricket wickets. Anglers on the south bank routinely cast to reach the brink of the northern shore and trawl back. Does the Council appreciate that this means that not a single square centimetre of the water is fishing line and hook free to swimming waterfowl?

(m) The Heritage Lottery Fund; like you I have been involved with successful lottery funding, in SE London youth sporting facilities so know how hard one has to work. My contacts simply aver that the funding committee could not have been aware of the bird sanctuary.

(n) The nearest toilet facilities are over 1000 metres distant - so guess what ? If portaloos were considered as a solution to this natural call of nature I can only comment that the ones authorised for the car boot sales smell as sweet as ever weeks later. Similarly the nearest car park is also 1000 metres plus distant and anglers cars clutter up the narrow road bridge approach and adjacent side streets.

(o) I have always enjoyed living in the borough and were they still alive I am sure Sir Michael Havers, Jim Braben, OBE, and ex councillor Ken Goddard would be prepared to vouch for my bona fides. Because the issues I have raised extend beyond our borough's boundaries, I have extended distribution to include our MP, the Prime Minister(but as his email facility remains out of service I ask our MP to forward this for me) and the mayor of London. In conclusion I repeat it is the wrong place and a bird sanctuary, to boot.

From: Dave

To: "mailto:jill.truman@btinternet.com" ; "mailto:shirinhassan@yahoo.co.uk"

Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 12:34 PM

Subject: Fishing at Cannon Hill Common

As a long time resident of the borough and member of the association - 40 plus years - I recall over the years a petition being presented to the Council expressing the feelings of local residents over fishing on the pond. I also remember that the overpaid public sector workers, masquerading under hi-falutin' titles were, and still are, adamant that they were going to have their way - come hell or high water. I am well aware of the current situation at the town hall so do not require reiteration of the current mantras but simply ask " is there anyone out there who cares about waterfowl being killed?" I have made my views known to Hilary Benn - with no response - whose so called Environment Agency is behind this despoliation, The sobriquet 'Wimbledon, the home of bird killers' rests ill alongside 'Wimbledon, the home of tennis' which I now promote on my international web site. The Council does not care.

Dear Ruth, Can I be permitted to address you as such as the tone of our original correspondence sounded friendlier when you first replied to me as David. First of all thank you for your reply. Can I repeat that I too am a fisherman and ask you to re-read the reasons for my not wishing to attend the meeting. These still apply and the turnout seems to support my views. I accept completely that anyone can form an angling club and, within law, the Council may go about its business. You say 'some' 50 attended the meeting of whom 30 were keen anglers and only 20 local residents. I and many of my neighbours have been 'friends' of the common for over 45 years since I first moved here without joining any formal groups. Thus within a population of some 300,000 independent individuals in the borough I feel that the views of such a minority should not outweigh those of the majority of the ratepayers. I ask you sincerely. what kind of person intelligently supports fishing from the bank of a bird sanctuary where 99% of the birds are waterfowl ? It is completely the wrong place. Turning briefly to the list of options, the one screamingly missing is - prohibit all fishing on this stretch of water! In this respect I quote in part from press release GO FISH dated 21 Dec 2000, extolling the virtues of Merton's no fishing policy, Facilities Technical Manager "Fishing causes disturbance to the pond's ecosystem etc, etc, which can injure waterfowl." What has changed? Ruth, I would be dishonest if I agreed that your reply addressed all my concerns. All I see is a 'fait accompli', executed in an undemocratic manner, but before I pursue various matters further with you would you be good enough to answer the questions I pose here? I reciprocate your kind regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave

To: "mailto:leisure@merton.gov.uk"

Cc: ###

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:11 PM

Subject: Emailing: Damage to lakeside banks 001, Damage to lakeside banks 002, Damage to lakeside banks 003, Damage to lakeside banks 004, Damage to lakeside banks 005, Damage to lakeside banks 006, Damage to lakeside banks 007, Damage to lakeside banks 008,

Dear Claire, thank you for your prompt response but having followed a similar approach in the past and then getting no further response, a sense of unease pervades. In the very old days, local government was run under the aegis of the Town Hall where the buck stopped with The Chief Clerk, an honourable, historic position. Now with CEO's, myriad job titles, quangos and delegated roles, it is very easy for concerns to slip under the radar or, indeed , be hijacked by vested dedicated individuals with an axe to grind, (or in this case a fish to fry?) The proposal to form a Cannon Hill Angling Club raises this spectre - What about CHC canoe club or CHC sub aqua club? Whose lake is this ? Please get this in front of someone at the top of the chain.

The information board on the common tells us it is our common and to look after it. That's all we seek to do. That the residents' association and ' friends of' group do not appear to be able to find time to launch an objection should not be taken as carte blanche for an angling club. Anyhow these groups, like the fishermen, are not truly representative. They are minority groups and the unbeaurocratic views of local residents ( the electorate) should be canvassed. In the meanwhile maybe fishing should be suspended.

I have enclosed some photos showing the deplorable damage caused to the banks by fishermen. Who is going to pay for the repairs ? The obvious response from the fishermen's committee will obviously be " ah, yeah , when we police the banks this won't happen" please look carefully at Dave Bartlett's flyer of his open day and tell me who is treading down banks, using keep nets etc.

The Council says fishing from the footpath is allowed but, again, who authorised this? Who mixes up pedestrians with children out for a stroll with anglers energetically casting lines and hooks? A hook in the eye, a trip over a rod, health and safety requirements, who is responsible. Is the Council prepared to be sued? There just isn't room for all this on such a constricted site.

I know I 'm coming across as a spoil sport, a killjoy but the fact is I'm completely neutral as regards fishing per se. Used to fish a lot as a child in Dorset. My stance is that here is the wrong spot: It needs a bigger locale away from the public and I've already suggested Mtcham Common but on reflection and looking at the map, what is wrong with a dedicated area of the lake in Wimbledon Park? Please tell me.

Dear David,

Thank you for your email.

There will be an open meeting held at Joseph Hood Recreation Ground on the 24^th November at 7.30pm. You are welcome to attend.

The Greenspaces team do not currently have the capacity to manage the fishing ourselves but will continue to litter pick and otherwise maintain and monitor the site within reason, but we have no dedicated staff there and therefore other options are being looked at.

In order to allow better management and policing, a fishing club has been raised as one of these options. The Environment Agency are supportive of this and are chairing the meeting on the 24^th. The club would be free for local residents to join, however in order to be a member they would need to also register their name and address. This would ensure better management. They would also be able to oversee the removal of line more often and look at the possibility of installing purpose built platforms to reduce the likelihood that the remainder of the lake edge is damaged. Any members found fishing from the Josesph Hood side would be banned from the club.

There would be a termination clause within any contract of 3 months if the fishing club was not a success.

Kind regards

Ruth Hutton

Greenspaces Development Manager

Greenspaces Team

020 8545 3658

"mailto:ruth.hutton@merton.gov.uk"

From: David Coleman

Sent: 16 November 2009 15:38

To: Councillor Margaret Brierly; Leisure

Cc: Raynes park residents; john.clare@rspb.org.uk

Subject: Fishing on Cannon Hill Common

Although I am sincere in my congratulations to the Council and the ground staff for the attention and care given to our local common I wish to express concern at the ' pressure group' methods seemingly being used to ramrod an undesirable and unwanted private fishing club upon us local residents. Who is behind all this? Surely not the same people that tried to create a cross country race venue here and allow twice weekly car boot sales on the adjacent fields? Is it not ironic that your new information board refers to the bird sanctuary that borders the lake ? Is it also a coincidence that toddlers trikes that threaten damage to fishing rods and lines have been banned from the esplanade so that residents no longer have the pleasure of bringing grandchildren here to feed the ducks? Not that there are many ducks left now compared to two years ago when at one stage at least a dozen broods of mallards and similar were regularly seen criss-crossing the lake. This year most of the ducks departed unable to cope with being hooked in such a confined space. Yes, it does regularly happen. Furthermore, many of your local home sapiens now sadly avoid the site.It has become a foreboding location. A club will not redress this.

The proposal for a private fishing club may also infringe upon the spirit of lottery funding guidelines which state that funds are to create facilities for the general public; certainly not for the destruction of wildlife and its environment. Fishing in the right place is surely a relaxing pastime enjoyed by thousands but please get the appropriate council officers to attend this site and consider a more suitable location . If you need suggestions, Mitcham Common springs to mind.