So – funding for the Morpeth flood prevention scheme which politicians of all colours (not just Nick Clegg) assured us was safe – has been deferred. But Morpeth is going to fight the decision (apparently)
As I understand – EA flood protection funding has been cut by 27% for 2011-12, and with existing contractual commitments – they are left with only £19M uncommitted funding for the whole country, and first call on that is for statutory functions such as maintaining reservoirs.
Meanwhile – though the whole Morpeth Scheme costs £17M – allocation of £4M for 2011-12 will see the technical preparations, planning permission etc completed and work started on the ground. And starting the work next year is critical because the Government is consulting on new funding arrangements to start in 2012-13 which would require a significant community contribution to the cost. If we don’t get the scheme started next year, then whatever happens it won’t be funded fully by Government.
So Plan A is to lobby the EA Board (chaired by Lord [Chris] Smith) ahead of their meeting in March to fully fund the Northumbria Regional Flood Defence (NRFC) programme – the top priority of which will be the Morpeth Scheme
If this fails, then we are told that £500k will cover the costs of completing the details of the scheme, gaining planning permission etc so that work on scheme can start as soon as funding becomes available. So Plan B is to raise that £500k either from the NRFC local levy (they have discretion over a c£2M pot ) or from other sources. And the NRFC meet to confirm their programme, informed by the EA Board’s funding decisions in April.
And finally – though it is possible for the work on the scheme to be phased, it is not a good idea to break up the overall scheme since the business case for separate elements of the scheme is weaker than that for the full integrated scheme.
So – let’s tet out there and start lobbying…
Friday, 4 February 2011
Monday, 24 January 2011
Goalposts moved above the floodline
Update from NCC councillor to Town Council
"It was confirmed at the Northumbria Regional Flood Defence Committee that the Morpeth scheme has not scored sufficient points on the Outcome Measures to be included in 11/12 allocation DEFRA's budgetary landscape has changed to the extent that the OM required score of 5 (which Morpeth scheme comfortably achieved) to 14.
This could hardly be more disappointing, especially coming on the back of over 2 years-worth of reassurances.
"The whole committee and officers were devastated and there is a clear determination to progress a suitable scheme for Morpeth.
" The responsibilities and funding landscape around flooding is also in the throes of change. The new Floods & Water Management Act allocates responsiblity to local authorities (NCC) to lead on flood-related matters ('Lead Local Flood Authorities') but with EA retaining responsibility for coast and main watercourses. It also proposes changing the way funding is allocated with fewer schemes receiving full-cost funding and most will be dependent on local discretion - the replacement for the NRFDC (Regional Flood & Coastal Committee) will have more responsibilities and enhanced decision-making (which at the moment is largely restricted, in practice, to allocation of the local levy-funded - relatively small - schemes).
" How this will play out in practice is unknown, but we should share the EA's determination to see this interregnum and the new system as an opportunity."
Not good news then - and it also leaves the Dransfield foodstore application with two dilemmas i) is it really safe without the promise of comprehensive flood defences and ii) their 'community obligation' was to build the flood defences (bund) along the river edge of their site - will that still hold?
"It was confirmed at the Northumbria Regional Flood Defence Committee that the Morpeth scheme has not scored sufficient points on the Outcome Measures to be included in 11/12 allocation DEFRA's budgetary landscape has changed to the extent that the OM required score of 5 (which Morpeth scheme comfortably achieved) to 14.
This could hardly be more disappointing, especially coming on the back of over 2 years-worth of reassurances.
"The whole committee and officers were devastated and there is a clear determination to progress a suitable scheme for Morpeth.
" The responsibilities and funding landscape around flooding is also in the throes of change. The new Floods & Water Management Act allocates responsiblity to local authorities (NCC) to lead on flood-related matters ('Lead Local Flood Authorities') but with EA retaining responsibility for coast and main watercourses. It also proposes changing the way funding is allocated with fewer schemes receiving full-cost funding and most will be dependent on local discretion - the replacement for the NRFDC (Regional Flood & Coastal Committee) will have more responsibilities and enhanced decision-making (which at the moment is largely restricted, in practice, to allocation of the local levy-funded - relatively small - schemes).
" How this will play out in practice is unknown, but we should share the EA's determination to see this interregnum and the new system as an opportunity."
Not good news then - and it also leaves the Dransfield foodstore application with two dilemmas i) is it really safe without the promise of comprehensive flood defences and ii) their 'community obligation' was to build the flood defences (bund) along the river edge of their site - will that still hold?
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
Maintaining the Link
Mark Dransfield is coming to town next week: he’s meeting as many local groups and interested parties as he can over 11th-12th Jan before he puts in the full application for a supermarket on the Dark Lane site. As I understand it. he’s hoping that if he gets permission by Feb/Mar and have builders on site in Jun/Jul for a twelve month build. He says he’ll be announcing the supermarket operator in February – but the strong rumour is that Morrison’s will cross the road, and Waitrose will move into current Morrison site.
It all rather dashes any hopes that follow-through on the outline application would be delayed, but I guess proof is needed that the Dark Lane site is viable to head off appeals over the two edge of town applications. So it’s all to do with mitigation now, and that falls into several themes:
Staithes Lane residents: are not happy about having car parking at the level of their bedroom windows, light pollution, delivery lorries using Staithes Lane – especially late at night and very early morning – and access for long stay car parking. Some residents are also worried about the loss of the Red Bull which would be demolished to give wide enough access to Staithes Lane for the delivery lorries.
Environment: It’s not clear how the proposed re-alignment and partial culverting of the Cotting Burn will maintain its role as a wildlife corridor.
The Wansbeck itself is also an important wildlife corridor, and the riverside walks are a major Morpeth attraction which would be marred by the delivery area of a supermarket backing onto the river. I’m particularly concerned that the trees along the river on both sides of the footpath will be lost. A lot of money has been spent through the Castle, Woods and Water (liveability) programme making the river walk attractive – lets try to avoid throwing all that away!
Then there’s the flood risk: there’s going to be a massive new area of tarmac and concrete – take a walk along Staithes Lane, downstream along the river and back down to Dark Lane from Tommy’s Field to get an idea of the size of the site. Burnside Terrace nearly got flooded from runoff from Lidls and the bus station in 2008, and Staithes Lane got runoff from three directions. Then deep concrete foundations so close to the river must disrupt groundwater flows. It isn’t enough to managing flooding on site, building must be designed not to exacerbate flooding elsewhere.
But the main thing, perhaps, is will the new supermarket damage or support town centre shopping? The real distinction between edge of town and town centre supermarkets is whether they generate ‘linked shopping trips’ with people going to both the supermarket and town centre shops. Obviously Mark Dransfield has an multimillion pound interest in promoting town centre shopping, so he’s going to try to make it work, but I have my doubts. The current Morrisons supermarket is just about managing it. However, I cannot see people parking on the far side of Dark Lane and shopping in a supermarket sited roughly where the vets is now then walking up to the Sanderson Arcade let alone the Market Place to do further shopping. To all intents and purposes, the new site is an edge-of-town site, and having the supermarket right at the back of the site makes this even more so. Maybe we just have to hope that shoppers at the current Morrisons site (whoever is running the supermarket) will increase their ‘linked trips’.
It all rather dashes any hopes that follow-through on the outline application would be delayed, but I guess proof is needed that the Dark Lane site is viable to head off appeals over the two edge of town applications. So it’s all to do with mitigation now, and that falls into several themes:
Staithes Lane residents: are not happy about having car parking at the level of their bedroom windows, light pollution, delivery lorries using Staithes Lane – especially late at night and very early morning – and access for long stay car parking. Some residents are also worried about the loss of the Red Bull which would be demolished to give wide enough access to Staithes Lane for the delivery lorries.
Environment: It’s not clear how the proposed re-alignment and partial culverting of the Cotting Burn will maintain its role as a wildlife corridor.
The Wansbeck itself is also an important wildlife corridor, and the riverside walks are a major Morpeth attraction which would be marred by the delivery area of a supermarket backing onto the river. I’m particularly concerned that the trees along the river on both sides of the footpath will be lost. A lot of money has been spent through the Castle, Woods and Water (liveability) programme making the river walk attractive – lets try to avoid throwing all that away!
Then there’s the flood risk: there’s going to be a massive new area of tarmac and concrete – take a walk along Staithes Lane, downstream along the river and back down to Dark Lane from Tommy’s Field to get an idea of the size of the site. Burnside Terrace nearly got flooded from runoff from Lidls and the bus station in 2008, and Staithes Lane got runoff from three directions. Then deep concrete foundations so close to the river must disrupt groundwater flows. It isn’t enough to managing flooding on site, building must be designed not to exacerbate flooding elsewhere.
But the main thing, perhaps, is will the new supermarket damage or support town centre shopping? The real distinction between edge of town and town centre supermarkets is whether they generate ‘linked shopping trips’ with people going to both the supermarket and town centre shops. Obviously Mark Dransfield has an multimillion pound interest in promoting town centre shopping, so he’s going to try to make it work, but I have my doubts. The current Morrisons supermarket is just about managing it. However, I cannot see people parking on the far side of Dark Lane and shopping in a supermarket sited roughly where the vets is now then walking up to the Sanderson Arcade let alone the Market Place to do further shopping. To all intents and purposes, the new site is an edge-of-town site, and having the supermarket right at the back of the site makes this even more so. Maybe we just have to hope that shoppers at the current Morrisons site (whoever is running the supermarket) will increase their ‘linked trips’.
Friday, 10 December 2010
It's not going to flood....
We are experiencing a fairly rapid thaw of the snow in the Wansbeck catchment. Apparently it's nothing to worry about, though.
The last time there was a flood in Morpeth because of snow melt was in March 1963. Then there was twice as much snow, it melted over 2 to 3 days and it was accompanied by heavy rain. And the ground was frozen so it couldn't soak up any of the melt.
Today there is only the equivalent of 3" of rain held in the snow, there is no rain forecast and it will probably take 2-3 days at these temperatures for a total melt (we are in December, not March, so the average temperature is a lot lower).
75mm of rain over 3 days equates to approximately 1mm/hr. We are told that the Wansbeck can cope with more than 4mm/hr before there is any worry of possible flooding - even before the flood alleviation measures are built. For it to flood ALL the snow would have to melt within 15 hours and enter the river!
I'm told that the river level may rise a foot or so, but that is all.
Watching the water level.... http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/riverlevels/120694.aspx?stationId=8139
The last time there was a flood in Morpeth because of snow melt was in March 1963. Then there was twice as much snow, it melted over 2 to 3 days and it was accompanied by heavy rain. And the ground was frozen so it couldn't soak up any of the melt.
Today there is only the equivalent of 3" of rain held in the snow, there is no rain forecast and it will probably take 2-3 days at these temperatures for a total melt (we are in December, not March, so the average temperature is a lot lower).
75mm of rain over 3 days equates to approximately 1mm/hr. We are told that the Wansbeck can cope with more than 4mm/hr before there is any worry of possible flooding - even before the flood alleviation measures are built. For it to flood ALL the snow would have to melt within 15 hours and enter the river!
I'm told that the river level may rise a foot or so, but that is all.
Watching the water level.... http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/riverlevels/120694.aspx?stationId=8139
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Fair for All or Free for All?
Thought I’d better put in my two penn’orth on the Council’s car parking strategy as the consultation comes to an end:
The Morpeth Herald campaign – like all press-run, yes-no, petition-led campaigns – does oversimplify things, but the principle that car parking should be charged for is basically correct.
On the other hand, the Council needs to be more careful about why it is charging for car parking: from my fading memories of Castle Morpeth BC, I recall that if charges are simply to raise revenue, they are liable to VAT (20% from next month), but they aren’t liable of they are part of a comprehensive traffic management strategy. And, if it is revenue raising, they do need to recognise they are in competition with free private sector car parking in Cramlington, Ponteland and elsewhere.
I put forward a compromise position – that all county-run car parks in Northumberland should by liable to charging, but some could be ‘zero-rated’ – for inclusion in the Morpeth TC response, but my fellow councillors didn’t appreciate the subtlety of the position.
Then again – the pattern of shopping imposed on us by supermarkets and malls almost requires the use of a car. Which is why you have people living within 20min of Morpeth town centre driving in to do their shopping. A car parking strategy which – integrated with other planning and transport strategies – tried to modify this would certainly get my support.
The Chamber of Trade continue to get way with their classic 1984 ‘doublethink’ arguments: i) car park charging in Morpeth is keeping people away and ii) there is not enough car parking provision in Morpeth to cater for all the shoppers. The end result is that Morpeth has a reputation as ‘the town with car parking charges’ when Hexham, Alnwick, Corbridge etc have equal or greater charges – not to mention Newcastle.
Given that the RAC reckons it costs average £113 a week to run a car, 50p an hour or £2 a day doesn’t seem an awful lot extra, even if you don’t get a permit. So – it must be the principle not the amount, or the inconvenience – and the time restrictions. I guess people don’t idly browse or take a leisurely coffee if they are limited to ‘two hours on the meter’.
But – on a third hand (?): car parks in town centres are very valuable properties, and a hard-strapped Council has a responsibility to maximise the return on their assets. Car park charges generating anything less than a reasonable return on the asset value of the site – let alone free car parking - are effectively a Council subsidy for car users. Council tax from non-car users, who are generally less well off than car users (especially if they are paying full fare on public transport!), is subsidising car users.
I am looking forward to the introduction of civil enforcement of on-street parking – ie car park attendants rather than traffic wardens giving out parking tickets – which goes with the strategy, though.
The Morpeth Herald campaign – like all press-run, yes-no, petition-led campaigns – does oversimplify things, but the principle that car parking should be charged for is basically correct.
On the other hand, the Council needs to be more careful about why it is charging for car parking: from my fading memories of Castle Morpeth BC, I recall that if charges are simply to raise revenue, they are liable to VAT (20% from next month), but they aren’t liable of they are part of a comprehensive traffic management strategy. And, if it is revenue raising, they do need to recognise they are in competition with free private sector car parking in Cramlington, Ponteland and elsewhere.
I put forward a compromise position – that all county-run car parks in Northumberland should by liable to charging, but some could be ‘zero-rated’ – for inclusion in the Morpeth TC response, but my fellow councillors didn’t appreciate the subtlety of the position.
Then again – the pattern of shopping imposed on us by supermarkets and malls almost requires the use of a car. Which is why you have people living within 20min of Morpeth town centre driving in to do their shopping. A car parking strategy which – integrated with other planning and transport strategies – tried to modify this would certainly get my support.
The Chamber of Trade continue to get way with their classic 1984 ‘doublethink’ arguments: i) car park charging in Morpeth is keeping people away and ii) there is not enough car parking provision in Morpeth to cater for all the shoppers. The end result is that Morpeth has a reputation as ‘the town with car parking charges’ when Hexham, Alnwick, Corbridge etc have equal or greater charges – not to mention Newcastle.
Given that the RAC reckons it costs average £113 a week to run a car, 50p an hour or £2 a day doesn’t seem an awful lot extra, even if you don’t get a permit. So – it must be the principle not the amount, or the inconvenience – and the time restrictions. I guess people don’t idly browse or take a leisurely coffee if they are limited to ‘two hours on the meter’.
But – on a third hand (?): car parks in town centres are very valuable properties, and a hard-strapped Council has a responsibility to maximise the return on their assets. Car park charges generating anything less than a reasonable return on the asset value of the site – let alone free car parking - are effectively a Council subsidy for car users. Council tax from non-car users, who are generally less well off than car users (especially if they are paying full fare on public transport!), is subsidising car users.
I am looking forward to the introduction of civil enforcement of on-street parking – ie car park attendants rather than traffic wardens giving out parking tickets – which goes with the strategy, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)