Well - the Tories took the South ward from the LibDems in their first attempt at a Town Council seat after both parties put a huge amount of effort in, with three-four leaflets, a full canvas, County Councillors being wheeled out - and knocking up on polling day. More the sort of thing you'd expect in a marginal seat at a General Election than a byelection for a Town (parish) council. The Tories had nine people turn up at the (45 min) count. Since officially only one counting agent, candidates and candidates' partners were allowed to attend, you might infer that new Town Councillor Dave Herne is a bisexual bigamist [joke Dave! Don't set your legal advisors onto me!].
I didn't see much about what the Town Council actually is about in any of the other campaigns - but with the Tories' campaign mostly about car parking, the LibDems weren't helped when the LibDem County Council published their long-awaited car parking strategy a few days before polling day.
Ron did well - with a massive personal vote of 120 - but in the end, it was another case of people voting tactically against the blues or the yellows - and of the two - more people voted against the yellows.
I only hope now that we won't see County Council politicking being replayed in the Town Council, but with a two year campaign for the County elections [May 2013] now underway, I think we're in for a rough time on the Town Council.
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Sunday, 19 June 2011
A geography of voting
To save money, there'll just be one polling station - at Storey Park Community Centre - for the Town Council byelection on 23rd June. So - will people travel the mile or so from Allery Banks or Southgate Wood to vote? I know in South Africa and elsewhere, people walk 20 miles and more to vote, and queue for hours or days - but, despite heavy canvassing by the yellows and blues, I suspect Morpeth South voters won't be readily inclined to pop down to the polling station before or after work or squeeze it into their daily routine.
So - if voting intentions are linked to house type or neighbourhood character, as most parties assume - then the parties favoured by the neighbourhoods nearest Story Park - High Church, Deuchar Park (?) - might do better.
On the other hand - a lot of people will have, and use postal votes - but then, are certain parties favoured by people with postal votes? Perhaps it would have been better to make to by-election entirely postal?
But - in an election, with a likely turn-out of 20-30%, a couple of score of loyal party voters could swing it.
I hope Ron Forster has a big personal following! Vote for Ron on Thursday!
So - if voting intentions are linked to house type or neighbourhood character, as most parties assume - then the parties favoured by the neighbourhoods nearest Story Park - High Church, Deuchar Park (?) - might do better.
On the other hand - a lot of people will have, and use postal votes - but then, are certain parties favoured by people with postal votes? Perhaps it would have been better to make to by-election entirely postal?
But - in an election, with a likely turn-out of 20-30%, a couple of score of loyal party voters could swing it.
I hope Ron Forster has a big personal following! Vote for Ron on Thursday!
Monday, 13 June 2011
Vote for Ron!
Town Council by-election in South ward on 23rd June - and there's a lot of interest with red, yellow, blue and green candidates, with particularly intensive campaigning from the blues who have never shown the slightest interest in the Town Council before. And of course, we are all saying that party politics has no real place in parish councils. The Independents (Chamber of Trade) did select a candidate - but he had to withdraw due to health reasons.
The huge interest is that this is the first local election in Morpeth since 2008 with the next scheduled elections not due until 2013 - unless there are more byelections as existing Town Councillors - who are just starting the fifth year of a six year term - drop by the wayside.
And these are interesting times: Northumberland CC is keen to devolve services - and Morpeth Town Council, as the biggest spending parish council in the county, is expected to take a lead in forming a local 'parish cluster, but without overwhelming neighbouring parishes. NCC are also routinely consulting parish councils as the voice of their local communities, Morpeth is under huge pressure from housing developers, and within the next two years - we're going to have both the Northumberland LDF Core Strategy (with designation of the Morpeth Green Belt) and neighbourhood planning under the new Localism Bill.
So - we've put up Ron Forster, who is probably the best known of the candidates through his (Sun)day job, and has a good track record in understanding and expressing community views. And - I'd suggest that the Greens also have a good track record in challenging and contributing to Town Council work without descending into party political bickering.
So - lets see what the voters in South ward think...
The huge interest is that this is the first local election in Morpeth since 2008 with the next scheduled elections not due until 2013 - unless there are more byelections as existing Town Councillors - who are just starting the fifth year of a six year term - drop by the wayside.
And these are interesting times: Northumberland CC is keen to devolve services - and Morpeth Town Council, as the biggest spending parish council in the county, is expected to take a lead in forming a local 'parish cluster, but without overwhelming neighbouring parishes. NCC are also routinely consulting parish councils as the voice of their local communities, Morpeth is under huge pressure from housing developers, and within the next two years - we're going to have both the Northumberland LDF Core Strategy (with designation of the Morpeth Green Belt) and neighbourhood planning under the new Localism Bill.
So - we've put up Ron Forster, who is probably the best known of the candidates through his (Sun)day job, and has a good track record in understanding and expressing community views. And - I'd suggest that the Greens also have a good track record in challenging and contributing to Town Council work without descending into party political bickering.
So - lets see what the voters in South ward think...
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
The Last Bite at the Cherry?
The Low Stanners supermarket plans are going to NCC Planning Cttee for a final decision in early June – and Morpeth TC are about to submit their final comments.
National planning guidance effectively means that we have to have two ‘big name’ supermarkets in Morpeth to ‘provide competition’ – the wide range of local shops, Iceland, M&S and Lidl count for nothing. But Dransfield have not yet announced who will be operating the new foodstore – so lighting and signage will be finalised ‘after the events’, any conditions regarding deliveries or range of stock and opening hours are likely to be challenged or ignored – and we won’t get anything like the community benefits that towns dealing direct with say Tesco or Sainsbury’s have got. And I’m thinking about the £10M shortfall in funding for the Morpeth Flood Scheme. Currently the only community benefit I can see offered is relocation of the vets to Whorral Bank!
And it is a new full application, not a reserved matters application – so none of the conditions and mitigations agreed under the existing outline planning permission apply, and we’ll need to see that they are reconfirmed.
So a number of points I’ll be raising at the Town Council this evening:
Cotting Burn: The ecology report says that the construction of the bridges and the re-alignment of the Burn could be disastrous to its role as a wildlife corridor. The upstream two-way road bridge looks as though it carries several car parking spaces as well as the road width, so it will be a deep dark cavern underneath. Apart from measures to relocate crayfish during construction, there seem to be no mitigation measures proposed.
The runoff from the car parks – including oil, fuel, grit and salt in the winter – looks as through it will run straight into the Burn. There seem to be no traps or filters proposed – and the Burn is sufficiently small that ‘dilution effects’ will not be adequate,
Flood Risk: Although the developer cites OKs from the EA, I have not (yet) seen any direct documents giving the EA seal of approval.
Besides the obvious concerns brilliantly put by MFAG and others about the speed of major flooding and evacuation plans – it sees to me that the underground car park will flood slightly – or at least pond - every time it rains. It is 0.5m below Staithes Lane, which floods regularly. There is likely to be a flow of water in through the access road, maybe water swelling up through the ground when the water table rises etc. It will be perpetually dank and damp – and they admit that there will be danger of cars floating if water depth exceeds 300mm (1 ft). Even if the pumping system can cope, it will be operating near continuously at some times of the year.
Traffic: The underground carpark has 225 spaces incl 12 disabled ones. It will generate congestion at rush hour morning and afternoon. That’s one car every 24 secs! And the morning filling up of the longstay car park will coincide with the later part of the agreed delivery times. Comparison with existing traffic flows on Staithes Lane to the vets don’t apply because that is throughout the day, not concentrated in 90min morning and evening.
And even if HGV lorries only make deliveries early morning and evening – the vibrations they generate along Staithes Lane are likely to be severe.
The traffic report says that NCC Highways has deferred implementation of traffic light co-ordination, and the signalisation of the Bridge St roundabout – which was generally welcomed - as suggested in the outline planning application, because it might contribute to the ‘urbanisation of Morpeth’. As a result, Dransfield is offering no transport mitigation with the plan, and cannot be asked to pay for a subsequent scheme when NCC Highways gets its act together.
Travel Plan: I am surprised that the site travel plan does not include measures to encourage ‘linked trips’ ie people shopping both in the supermarket and in the town centre.
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA): The developers suggest that because no EIA was requested at the outline stage, they assume none is needed at the detailed stage. I’d have thought that the need for the EIA only really comes at the detailed stage.
Construction: a number of factors need to be taken into account
a) availability of car parking on the Dark Lane site during construction
b) construction noise – start and stop times and weekend working
c) light pollution during construction
d) timing of tree and building demolition – they say they’ll time it to avoid disrupting bats – and relocate the crayfish, but they also need to consider nesting birds, and riverbank wildlife
Signage: As with the filling station, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of advertising signage in the application. Obviously the detail of the signage will depend on the market operator, but it would be useful to lay down the basic specs now – rather than have to fight a retrospective planning application later. For a start – I’d like to know what sort of signage will appear on the road at Dark Lane, they certainly won’t settle for signage just on the building.
And Finally : Move of the Vet to the top of Whorral Bank
This is a separate planning application, but which is closely linked. I have three main issues:
a) the site is well outside any settlement boundaries. What guarantees are there that this is not a precedent for infill between the roundabout and Pegswood village, or ribbon development along the bypass. I’d like it spelt out that this is a discretionary exception and does set a precedent.
b) the nearest Pegswood-bound bus stop is the other side of the Pegswood village road, so people will have to cross both that and the bypass, or the roundabout – with a sick pet – to get to the vets. Not sure where the Morpeth-bound bus stop is (if any). Can we have some crossings or at least traffic islands?
c) There’s a nice SUDS water treatment site. I’m assuming it is good enough to treat vet waste. Can we condition and management and refurbishment plan? Given it’s location at the top of Whorral Bank, there could be a lot of ‘fall-out’ if it failed.
National planning guidance effectively means that we have to have two ‘big name’ supermarkets in Morpeth to ‘provide competition’ – the wide range of local shops, Iceland, M&S and Lidl count for nothing. But Dransfield have not yet announced who will be operating the new foodstore – so lighting and signage will be finalised ‘after the events’, any conditions regarding deliveries or range of stock and opening hours are likely to be challenged or ignored – and we won’t get anything like the community benefits that towns dealing direct with say Tesco or Sainsbury’s have got. And I’m thinking about the £10M shortfall in funding for the Morpeth Flood Scheme. Currently the only community benefit I can see offered is relocation of the vets to Whorral Bank!
And it is a new full application, not a reserved matters application – so none of the conditions and mitigations agreed under the existing outline planning permission apply, and we’ll need to see that they are reconfirmed.
So a number of points I’ll be raising at the Town Council this evening:
Cotting Burn: The ecology report says that the construction of the bridges and the re-alignment of the Burn could be disastrous to its role as a wildlife corridor. The upstream two-way road bridge looks as though it carries several car parking spaces as well as the road width, so it will be a deep dark cavern underneath. Apart from measures to relocate crayfish during construction, there seem to be no mitigation measures proposed.
The runoff from the car parks – including oil, fuel, grit and salt in the winter – looks as through it will run straight into the Burn. There seem to be no traps or filters proposed – and the Burn is sufficiently small that ‘dilution effects’ will not be adequate,
Flood Risk: Although the developer cites OKs from the EA, I have not (yet) seen any direct documents giving the EA seal of approval.
Besides the obvious concerns brilliantly put by MFAG and others about the speed of major flooding and evacuation plans – it sees to me that the underground car park will flood slightly – or at least pond - every time it rains. It is 0.5m below Staithes Lane, which floods regularly. There is likely to be a flow of water in through the access road, maybe water swelling up through the ground when the water table rises etc. It will be perpetually dank and damp – and they admit that there will be danger of cars floating if water depth exceeds 300mm (1 ft). Even if the pumping system can cope, it will be operating near continuously at some times of the year.
Traffic: The underground carpark has 225 spaces incl 12 disabled ones. It will generate congestion at rush hour morning and afternoon. That’s one car every 24 secs! And the morning filling up of the longstay car park will coincide with the later part of the agreed delivery times. Comparison with existing traffic flows on Staithes Lane to the vets don’t apply because that is throughout the day, not concentrated in 90min morning and evening.
And even if HGV lorries only make deliveries early morning and evening – the vibrations they generate along Staithes Lane are likely to be severe.
The traffic report says that NCC Highways has deferred implementation of traffic light co-ordination, and the signalisation of the Bridge St roundabout – which was generally welcomed - as suggested in the outline planning application, because it might contribute to the ‘urbanisation of Morpeth’. As a result, Dransfield is offering no transport mitigation with the plan, and cannot be asked to pay for a subsequent scheme when NCC Highways gets its act together.
Travel Plan: I am surprised that the site travel plan does not include measures to encourage ‘linked trips’ ie people shopping both in the supermarket and in the town centre.
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA): The developers suggest that because no EIA was requested at the outline stage, they assume none is needed at the detailed stage. I’d have thought that the need for the EIA only really comes at the detailed stage.
Construction: a number of factors need to be taken into account
a) availability of car parking on the Dark Lane site during construction
b) construction noise – start and stop times and weekend working
c) light pollution during construction
d) timing of tree and building demolition – they say they’ll time it to avoid disrupting bats – and relocate the crayfish, but they also need to consider nesting birds, and riverbank wildlife
Signage: As with the filling station, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of advertising signage in the application. Obviously the detail of the signage will depend on the market operator, but it would be useful to lay down the basic specs now – rather than have to fight a retrospective planning application later. For a start – I’d like to know what sort of signage will appear on the road at Dark Lane, they certainly won’t settle for signage just on the building.
And Finally : Move of the Vet to the top of Whorral Bank
This is a separate planning application, but which is closely linked. I have three main issues:
a) the site is well outside any settlement boundaries. What guarantees are there that this is not a precedent for infill between the roundabout and Pegswood village, or ribbon development along the bypass. I’d like it spelt out that this is a discretionary exception and does set a precedent.
b) the nearest Pegswood-bound bus stop is the other side of the Pegswood village road, so people will have to cross both that and the bypass, or the roundabout – with a sick pet – to get to the vets. Not sure where the Morpeth-bound bus stop is (if any). Can we have some crossings or at least traffic islands?
c) There’s a nice SUDS water treatment site. I’m assuming it is good enough to treat vet waste. Can we condition and management and refurbishment plan? Given it’s location at the top of Whorral Bank, there could be a lot of ‘fall-out’ if it failed.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Alcohol Licensing in the Arcade
Barluga Deli moving into the Arcade and the Corbridge Larder cafe moving into the bus station have both put in for alcohol licenses, Corbridge Larder wanting both at table and off-license sales. Both are looking to serve alcohol from 8am through to 9pm or 9:30pm. I've got two main concerns which I've put through the Town Council....
i) why do they want to serve alcohol at 8am - do they expect people to order a full English breakfast and a glass of Chablis? I'd be happier if they waited till the 'sun was over the yardarm' - say midday at the earliest
ii) they both refer to the Sanderson Arcade security (beadles) and CCTV in their applications. Now - as far as I'm aware - apart from M&S, these are the first alcohol licenses in the Arcade - and I'm not aware that the beadles have had the appropriate training for dealing with drunks. And - again, as far as I'm aware - the beadles and CCTV finish at around 8pm to 9pm - so they are not going to provide closing time cover
- and that is particularly concerning if we have an off-license open to 9:30pm in the bus station which stays open - unstaffed till 11pm. I'd have thought it would become a magnet for drinkers who - for one reason or another - can't or don't want to drink in pubs or at home.
Hope the NCC North Area licensing committee thinks this through...
And another thing, so far as I'm aware, Corbridge Larder have not put in a planning application from change of use (from CMDA offices). Either an oversight - or they think that a retrospective application will be easier to get. if they already have the license. Licenses are much easier to get than planning permissions and are, I gather, often used as a 'back door' approach. As it is - I'm already concerned that the handful of cycle racks (a nod to an original planning condition) have been removed and aren't likely to be put back.
i) why do they want to serve alcohol at 8am - do they expect people to order a full English breakfast and a glass of Chablis? I'd be happier if they waited till the 'sun was over the yardarm' - say midday at the earliest
ii) they both refer to the Sanderson Arcade security (beadles) and CCTV in their applications. Now - as far as I'm aware - apart from M&S, these are the first alcohol licenses in the Arcade - and I'm not aware that the beadles have had the appropriate training for dealing with drunks. And - again, as far as I'm aware - the beadles and CCTV finish at around 8pm to 9pm - so they are not going to provide closing time cover
- and that is particularly concerning if we have an off-license open to 9:30pm in the bus station which stays open - unstaffed till 11pm. I'd have thought it would become a magnet for drinkers who - for one reason or another - can't or don't want to drink in pubs or at home.
Hope the NCC North Area licensing committee thinks this through...
And another thing, so far as I'm aware, Corbridge Larder have not put in a planning application from change of use (from CMDA offices). Either an oversight - or they think that a retrospective application will be easier to get. if they already have the license. Licenses are much easier to get than planning permissions and are, I gather, often used as a 'back door' approach. As it is - I'm already concerned that the handful of cycle racks (a nod to an original planning condition) have been removed and aren't likely to be put back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)