Belper, the bypass and the meadows

Everything I say here is based on the premise that “It is up to us to ensure what is built on the Meadows Edge site is the best possible for Belper”. That is not to say that I am against having a Tesco store on Meadows Edge but if it is to be I want it to be in keeping with the town and improve the area, not dominate or destroy.

Older News

11th March 2009
Belper Civic Forum put out new version of leaflet

Our vision - Belper at the crossroads 2

Before I start to explore this document I need to declare my position; since I last wrote I have got to know some of the member of Belper Civic Forum (BCF for short) and in at least one case discovered a friend is a member. I am not a member of BCF and will not be becoming one. If I think they are wrong I will say so, however, I do have more of an understanding of the thinking behind their position. I must also say I am very much in favour of the redevelopment of this area but it must work for the town and not be like every other development in recent years and just bring more homes and offices.

Previously I have said the original document by Belper Civic Forum was and still is one of the better discussions of the problem, setting out the pros and cons quite evenly, this time I’m not so sure. Before you could draw some clear ideas and conclusions from the document, now .... well it is a lot woollier, a lot less decisive.

If you are to understand what I am about to say you need a copy of the “our vision - Belper at the crossroads 2” leaflet.

Should the later of the above links fail here is a poorer quality copy of the document scanned from a printed copy of the leaflet.

What are the big ideas?

So let us consider the big ideas first, the myriad of little ideas we might come back to later.

No demolition!

Personally I would go much further no building fronting on Bridge Street or on the town end of Derwent Street needs to be demolished. The only building of any significance that might be under threat is the Dance School and that should be replaced if demolition is necessary.

No Tesco Superstore

You the people of Belper seem from everything I am told to be slightly against the building of new super store. This seems to be the position that almost every town is discovering when people are asked what they want. However, the reality of your shopping habits tells a differing story and BCF say the space exists to the south of Derwent Street roughly where I originally suggested.

This picture is of the area named on the leaflet as Thornton’s Yard and is also where I think BCF is talking about the space existing for the supermarket. So at a guess we have to choose between the two options.

Remember Morrisons is so successful that it has applied for and been granted planning permission to be extended the store by twenty percent and I would guess it will still be over performing once it is extended. The car park and the surrounding area is hell at weekends and not a lot better Monday to Friday — gridlock is common.

I will leave those questions for you to answer, one caveat don’t think of local government they have no money, national government has taken it all!

What will Tesco do if they cannot build a new super store, i.e. planning permission is refused? Well if I was Tesco I would build a group of smaller units with a common theme and car park. They are much more likely to get planning permission if the scale of the development fits the town. They could then sublet the space to themselves and other stores, with which they did not compete, i.e. open Tesco White Goods, Tesco Booze, Tesco Clothes and Tesco Food. If they do this the total floor space might just be greater but the buildings would be smaller.

The Bypass has gone or has it?

What a load of cr....., sorry but “When is a street not a road?” I ask you. I think I get it but what a terrible way to express the idea. If the same volume of traffic flows through the difference is semantics, there is no practical difference. The form of the road, street, bypass, relief road, bypass is what is important not what it is called. The traffic flow through the town has to be carried and it has to be carried in a safe and reliable manner and personally I still favour a one way system not dissimilar to Nottingham Road. Despite what the county might try to tell you the A6 up through Belper is a major commuter route which at peak times exceeds its capacity and it is getting busier.

If Bridge Street and the new buildings are to be successful they need bigger pavements, car parking and access without people feeling endangered, cut-off or intimidated. According to BCF the northern section of the relief road is optional. Let’s not beat about the bush, the northern section of the new road is needed now, before the build starts and before the next ten years growth of homes in this valley!

A new flood relief canal has been added.

First let’s think about a rule that will probably be placed on any development that includes this sort of idea by the Department of the Environment.

RULE: Water flow rates at the river bridge and at Hopping Mill will be required to remain at current nominal levels, i.e. the rate at which the water comes into the meadow and leaves the meadow must remain the same. Otherwise you just pass the problem to someone else who will have the flood instead.

So what is the advantage of digging a flood relief canal?

Flood relief canals can serve two purposes without breaking the rule.

  1. They can act as a reservoir which will effectively slow down the speed at which the river level rises and falls. This can mean the peak water level is reduced. The dams in north Derbyshire are already meant to do this and we all know what happened to the people who live in the cottages on Wyvern Lane that got flooded because water management was not as good as it should have been. Incidentally these houses are inclined to get flooded at about the same time as the meadow so holding water back at the river bridge is not an option.
  2. Flood relief canals can also help drain areas that have been flooded more quickly. This means that say a hockey pitch that was under water for two weeks previously might be drained in a few days. However, it would still have been flooded and the draining can only be done once the main flood has passed.

The bund (raised walkway) built from the spoil from the canal might stop flash floods. However, as the ground is porous it would simply slow down any large flood by a few hours as the water simply soaks through underground. If the canal had not done enough to stop the flash flood it would simply pass the problem down river to someone else!

The wetlands mentioned are simply parts of the meadow which have been lowered so that they remain wet most of the time. This has been done at Duffield and is very good for wildlife and can be very beautiful but both the canal and the wetland will need to be maintained or they will simply silt up and revert back to a meadow. The meadow is so flat simply because the slow moving flood water when it is over the meadow drops silt and the silt slowly fills the dips and hollows.

I guess you are wondering about the picture to the left, it’s a section of the retaining wall at the top end of the meadow, the yellow bit is dry stone walling above ground level, the red bit is the retaining wall below ground level and the blue stone is about 12 inches tall. I calculate the water level to be around eight feet below the level of the meadow at this point. A long way to dig down for both the canal and the wetlands. I’m not sure of the sense or practicality of digging out that much!

Finally, just a thought if these changes are to be effective they need to deal with many hundreds if not thousands of cubic meters of water. (Your green wheelie bin holds about one cubic meter) Who is going to pay for the work?

If you want an idea of the volume involved just think of between one and six feet, an average of say eighteen inches, of water over the whole of the meadow.

A raised Promenade has been added.

This is possibly a big advantage but there are so many ways the advantages could be destroyed. It would act as a ’dividing line’ and a ’barrier’ between the meadow and the development. If it is to be built it must not be allowed to encroach onto the meadow and it must link up with enjoyable, pretty paths to the rest of the town not some dirty ally. The construction must be from the same rough hewn stone that is used to retain much of the existing road, river and railway infrastructure in the area. Finally, it needs to provide ample access to the meadow.

If the change in level is made with one retaining wall it is likely to be more than twenty foot high, approaching the height of a two story house. On balance I think a grassy bank would be better.

Three new open areas.

Brettles Court — (pictured above) this is currently the car park for the DeBradelei shops. So approximately thirty replacement car parking spaces needed.

Thornton’s Yard — This sounds nice; it’s in scale with the town keeps existing brick buildings and provides a new shopping courtyard, however it requires more new car parking spaces for both workers and shoppers, possibly as many as fifty cars will need to be parked.

The picture above is the best I could get without trespassing or putting myself in danger but it does show today reality of the “Thorntons’s Yard”. The building will never look pretty they will need to wear the scars of there heritage with pride, but that I like a bit of honesty.

Unity Square — Fabulous a new public meeting place whatever that means but again the space around the Unity Mill is currently used as car parking so more spaces required.

Further, the existing “unused” Thornton’s car park on Dewent Street and Derwent Street it’s self are adding seventy or more car parking spaces to the town today and these will need to be replaced just to maintain the number of available spaced.

Government policy is that local authority car parking has to be paid for, not free. Offices and shops that have dedicated car parking are by government policy being restricted at the planning stage and possible taxed by the parking space once in use.

So where are and who pays for the new car parking spaces in the BCF plan?

While I am talking about car parks multi-story car parks are quite often bad but underground car parks are even worse! Do we want underground car parks?

The Key Issues

The leaflet raises several real points in the Key Issues that will not necessarily be linked with the site development and must be resolved for the future of Belper. So let’s consider each key issue in turn:

Key Issue 1 — Local landmarks and conservation

I cannot argue with a no demolition policy after all it’s what I have already proposed. As for the meadows read the words “could”, what do we want? Should any plan be tied together as a whole? Again who pays?

Key Issue 2 — Trains, busses, cars and pedestrians working together

The new travel interchange is a great idea but the train run infrequently and the frequency cannot easily be raised, the existing car park is over subscribed and will be reduced in size, probably halved, and if I read the sketchy outline correctly the Lion Garage will be removed, if so it needs to be replaced, where?

The whole of this issue is about increasing the number of people in the area but reducing the requirement for parking and car travel! Can this achieved?

Key Issue 3 — Retail

Despite everything said by us there is clearly a need for more shops and I think that probably means a supermarket of some type. Maybe we should loose the Somerfield store which is owned by the Co-Op and have a larger Tesco Store. We may have to loose Somerfield because of the competition rules, so if demolished the loss might be a blessing to the centre of town by allowing a new square and access to the transport interchange. Can we, should we swap a new Tesco for Somerfield?

Key Issue 4 — Tourism

I’m all for tourism but the suggested arrival point does nothing for the existing town centre and is not connected to the transport interchange. A new square at Somerfield would be a better choice to support the centre and provide access from public transport. Can we have a new square with a cafe to replace Somerfield?

Key Issue 5 — Sustainable development

Every issue in this section would be improved by increasing local employment. So no development unless it reduces the numbers of people travelling to work would seem like a very good idea. All road development should discourage through traffic but not by introducing the sleeping policeman type traffic calming solutions. Can we please have some small industrial units to encourage local businesses to grow?

Finally, why has the library disappeared?

10th November 2008 - Amber Valley Draft Development Brief

So I’ve finally read the planning brief and associated documents, if you want to read it go to the Amber Valley Site and be prepared to spend a geed few hours just reading. Although I find much of it to be perfectly acceptable, I have a number of reservations. The biggest is very simple; yet another site that used to and still could provide employment in manufacturing will be turned into offices, shops and homes.

If this goes ahead as it stands, The Vanessa Millar School of Dancing and all the other existing small businesses in the Derwent Street area will just be driven out by the larger businesses that want to move in. The compulsory purchase of the dance school building would possibly not provide enough cash to buy a new location and build a suitable building and certainly not on this site. Provision should be made to accommodate the existing businesses without penalty.

All this is of course against a background where the roads and public transport cannot cope with the current level of commuting in and out of the town. Small commercial units would bring employment and reduce transport problems but they don’t make big profits for the developers or make Amber Valley look good.

From the point of view of the shop keepers of Belper what could be worse than Tesco opening a big new store. Well let’s try adding to the store eight or ten medium sized retail outlets and Woolworths, Boots and New Look would if given the chance move off King Street, McDonalds would move from the Orangery. In would come Argos and a couple of clothes retailers. What would that combination do to King St and Bridge St?

The brief seems to have been written to support just this sort of development, it looks better than a supermarket on it’s own but just think it through.

Further, the current credit crunch has killed the market for the sort of flats and houses the plan appears to include. So if they were ever built the chances are that many of them would remain empty for a period of time or possibly have to be sold of cheap further depressing the local house prices.

I still think Tesco will come, probably must come but so must the chance for Belper town centre to survive and to achieve that the Tesco to Town Centre link must be very strong and extra shops must not throw the balance from King Street to Meadows Edge.

Finally, the brief is so wide that you could ride a coach and horses through it and not risk knocking down those stood on the pavement and that’s more than you can say about Bridge Street!

Frank

20th August - Land between the A6 and the River Derwent, Belper

If you want to hide something change it’s name well we have had "The Thorntons Site", "Derwent Street", "Meadows Edge" and now "The Land between the A6 and the River Derwent, Belper" what next. If you are interested in the Tesco proposals closely watch this location on the Amber Valley Site. The development brief documents should be out some time soon.

PS - Sorry I’ve a bit quiet but not a lot has visibly happened during the summer. It should all kick off soon!

25th January 2008

Congratulation to Amber Valley the planning section of the wen site is much improved and the comments we made before Christmas have been resolved - well done and thank you.

24th January - Morrison application granted!

Morrison granted permission to increase store size by 20%..

21st Dec 2007 - Amber Valley Planning WEB Site

Amber Valley are going to simplify the planning department site. In the very near future all the documents will presented as such and not as a long list of individual pages. So although it will take longer to download a document once you have you will have the full document, not one page from it. Further, they say they will shuffle the layout to make it more logical.

Good, thank you, I hope all the other changes are as helpfull.

Another View

10th November 2007 – The Belper Civic Forum have some nicely laid out and thought out leaflets that show some of the background on this subject. I'm not quite sure of the tenure of this body but they are a member of the Civic Trust. Judging by there output they clearly have access to official information and have funds to produce well produced leaflets.

It’s one of those leaflets that is of great interest in this case as I believe it distills the probable official position into something digestible. Have a read of The ‘Meadows Edge’ Category and dig down to the Belper at the Crossroads Leaflet, if you have not seen this yet it is well worth closer inspection and is not that far from my conclusions when I started this "My original ideas and opinions".

Remember the planning department even if they don’t like an application can only apply the rules as set out by government. Therefore, outlets like this one are very useful in the long term as they help us form an informed view.

Update

21st October 2007 - Update added pictures and made a few changes to other parts of the page. Some time soon I will update with a few pictures of the top end by the Triangle and try to show you how I think the road layout could be made simple in that area. This is getting too big to be one page so I will also look to break it down into several pages allowing more detail to be added to the individual sections.

BATS and the Labour Party

27th October - Update

I almost took this as a joke it is so bad but one arrived through my front door today and they seem to be delivering one to everybody in Belper. Personaly I think it is - bad, very bad and so amature, clearly biased and what has which partly you support got to do with the question? Come on Labour party why and what are you up to? Give me an answer and if I can I will publish it.

14th October 2007

Hu! I don’t know who is worse the Labour Party for the original survey or BATS for there "balanced considered" reply. At least I think the BATS response was largely "tongue in cheek", any way, go have a look and form your own opinion. Sorry, because of the way the BATS site is structured you many need to hunt for the posting. If so simply do a search for "A VERY IMPORTANT SURVEY".

PS I thought politicians were meant to reflect local opinion, which is clearly spit, and be neutral until they can clearly do so or am I just a little nieve?

So it has started

Update: This a picture of part of the lower end of Derwent Street the right hand half of the picture is the Ice-cream Factory and it has been cleaned up and boarded up since the publicity resulting from the Labour party "survey". Update: the ice-cream factory has now been demolished and is just a concrete platform with some loose bricks lying about.

12th October 2007

Tescos have applied to have part of the old Thorntons site demolished and cleared. Sadly unless you are very patient and can be bothered to hunt hard you will miss it. Try the following list of steps, sorry but I have not found an easier way

So this is, to my knowledge, the first application quietly hidden behind the Thorntons name. Although I don’t think anybody can object to this building being demolished it saddens me that it is hidden behind the Thorntons name and not publicised as being on behalf of Tesco.

I am sorry but despite all the Open Government promises it is difficult to find and access the documents on Government web sites at any level. It must cost a fortune as many government employees are expected to use these sites but even they cannot find the documents, sometimes even knowing the document title does not help.