Crunch Time at Low Stanners

I understand that Mark Dransfield’s application for a supermarket on Low Stanners is designed mainly to pre-empt applications for edge of town supermarkets by demonstrating that a site nearer to the town centre is viable, and by providing the necessary level of ‘choice’ required by national planning guidelines.

But the three applications cannot be considered together – so we could end up with three new supermarkets in Morpeth.

Mark (I’m sure he doesn’t mind me calling him Mark) is only going for outline permission, so a lot of his plan is ‘indicative’

- but some of these ‘indicative’ elements are essential to demonstrate that the site is viable – and it would be useful if these ‘fixed’ elements of the indicative design are made clear. In other words – what can’t be changed once outline permission is granted.

I have been lobbied heavily by residents of Low Stanners, especially Staithes Lane, whose main concerns are:

• Traffic levels
• Noise and light pollution
• Overnight security in the car parks (including recycling centre)
  

There is also a strong lobby opposed to the demolition of the Red Bull Inn, for both community and heritage reasons. This proposed demolition seems only to be part of the indicative design, it needs to be clarified whether demolition of the Red Bull would be included in the outline permission.

Choice and Need
Morpeth has Morrisons, Lidl, M&S (main store from November), Iceland and a significant number of independent food shops – not to mention a thriving market. It is not clear to me that there is not already adequate choice meeting local need.

Traffic and Car Parking
The scheme has a loss of 29 longstay car parking spaces (194 down to 165), and it is a moot point whether the 300 short stay car parking spaces will allow or encourage people to shop in the town centre whilst parking at Low Stanners – or whether they would just be shopping at the supermarket.
The longstay carparking will probably fill up 7-9am and empty 4.30-6.30pm – that is there will be two two-hour periods with 80 vehicles an hour joining or leaving Dark Lane from Staithes Lane. In addition, Dransfield estimates that there will be 14 lorry deliveries a day between the hours of 7am and 10pm (approx) – so on average there will be four lorry deliveries during these peak congestion periods.
The suggestion that traffic lights be installed at the two junctions is welcome

Flooding
It is not clear whether the proposal has been endorsed by the Env Agency. Currently there is 60% impervious cover on the site, with 40% allowing soak away. The development will have 100% impervious cover so that all rainfall will need to runoff and so will be entirely dependent on effective gulleys and drainage channels. The prospect of contaminated runoff entering the Cotting Burn or the Wansbeck will be increased.
The loss of hedging and trees will also reduce local water soakup.

Trees and Wildlife
The Cotting Burn and Wansbeck are designated wildlife corridors – including significant widths of the bank to be effective. Re-alignment of the Cotting Burn is very likely to disrupt wildlife and will destroy the local habitat. Locating the rear of the supermarket – with lights, smells, noise etc for 16-20 hours a day – hard on the river bank will disrupt the main Wansbeck wildlife corridor, as well as threatening the tranquillity of the riverside walk.
Loss of trees and established hedgerow will also destroy key habitat in the wildlife corridors.
And construction work will also disrupt wildlife

Site
It is not clear that this site will be ‘integral’ with the town centre shopping ‘hubs’, with primarily short stay car parking, it might just as well be an out of town supermarket
The 'indicative' layout does little to integrate the development with the town centre.

It is also not clear that Library-Willows site along the river is a suitable site for the proposed new Health Centre, Library and Info Centre complex. Certainly displacing that development from this site will delay the replacement facilities for Morpeth Cottage Hospital.

I hope the councillors on the North Area Planning Committee make the right decision for the right reasons! It's a tough one

Drought in the Bus Station

Hanging baskets got everywhere for the Britain in Bloom competition - including at the end of each of the bus bays outside the new bus station.

Unfortunately, Heighleygate staff (contracted by the Town Council) to water all baskets could not get to these. The bus drivers reckoned it was too hazardous to bring the watering equipment onto the bus apron. So - unlike most of the hanging baskets around town, they've shrivelled and died.

Put it down to 'teething problems' with the bus station, and do it differently next year.

Fungus damages Tree

Local people may have noticed the largest of the cherry trees in the Rotary Gardens on the corner of Wellway has been cut down. Apparently it was badly affected by plum fungus (photo) to the point where it could start dropping branches on people.

NCC are proposing replace the tree - using a native species of appropriate fullgrown size, but not a cherry which would be susceptible to lingering fungus in the gardens. Any suggestions?

I'd quite like a see a crab apple tree....

Setting a Premium on Insurance

Following on the varied experience of insurance companies in response to the flood, my attention has now been drawn to a curious situation with Castle Morpeth Housing and its tenants regarding insurance:

Obviously CMH insure the buildings themselves, and have arranged a good deal for contents insurance for their tenants with their insurance company.
And – ever keen to save money, they encourage their tenants to claim on contents insurance for any damage to fixtures and fittings – which is all above board under the terms of the policy.

However – where routine maintenance is behind schedule or not a priority (and my informant tells me their estate hasn’t seen any significant maintenance in the last eleven years), then the lack of maintenance can lead to more frequent damage and hence claims than might otherwise be expected.

And here’s the nub: my informant says they have had to make four claims in the past five years, and now their premium is so high (even under the CMH-negotiated scheme) that they can’t afford it – and are running the risk of having no contents insurance.

And worse – if and when CMH contractors do a bad job or accidentally damage fixtures and fittings, again CMH encourage tenants to claim on their insurance. Now normally, in such circumstances, the insurance company would make a claim against CMH, and the tenant would not lose their no claims bonus – but because they are also CMH’s insurers and get good business from them - they seem reluctant to do so, and the tenant has to cough up higher premiums.

Now it seems to me that there is a systematic problem here – CMH are quite reasonably trying to save money on their maintenance budget, but in the end it is their tenants who are having to pay out extra. CMH needs to rethink it’s policy.

Problems with the Low Stanners Scheme

The trouble is – if too much detail is put into the outline planning application – then we are locked into a rushed scheme which may not be the best possible option. I’ve heard a number of concerns:

i) the urban design of the site – with the supermarket backing onto the river – is poor, and not well-integrated into the town centre or the river walks.
ii) Loss of the Red Bull to provide access for delivery lorries. A building is going to be needed at the ‘front’ of the site as i) – I reckon at a pinch the Red Bull could afford to lose the modern extension but stay in place
iii) Traffic levels: we’re told there’ll be about 14 delivery lorries a day, which could be kept between the hours of 7am and 10pm – that’s about one an hour. Then assuming access to the 167 space longstay carpark is concentrated 7-9am and 4-6pm, that’ll be 80 additional vehicle movements an hour along Staithes Lane for four hours a day.