Archive for March, 2010
31/03/2010 1 Comment

Race against time and tide to save Lyme Regis from destruction

PROPERTIES on the eastern side of Lyme Regis will be destroyed by landslides and erosion within five years unless a £20 million coastal protection scheme is carried out.

Since the earliest time any major scheme could start is in Spring 2012, and since work is likely to take two years, engineers are now racing against the clock and the sea. 

That is why planners at West Dorset District Council are being urged to approve plans next week for a project combining a new sea wall, slope stabilization, and landscaping, habitat restoration and management.

Lyme Regis needs a new sea wall and slope stabilization

Otherwise, officers warn in a report to councillors, “about 144 houses, Charmouth Road Car Park, much of Charmouth Road and Church Street and major underground pipes and cables are at risk of destruction or serious structural damage within 50 years.

“A few properties are expected to be lost within 5 years.

“Many other properties would suffer structural damage, loss of services or loss of access.

“Failure of the existing Church Cliff sea wall, which has an estimated residual life of about 10 years, would be accompanied by landslips that would immediately threaten several properties and Church Street.”

The parish church of St Michael the Archangel, Lyme Regis

Among the buildings that could be lost is Lyme’s Grade A Listed parish church.  

New sea wall to include existing wall

Engineers want to protect Lyme Regis by building a new 390-metre sea wall, described as sinuous, solid and uncluttered. This concrete structure would encase the existing wall. On top would be a 3- metre-wide walkway for pedestrians, wheelchair users, and maintenance and emergency vehicles. There would be seating on the cliff side, and three sets of steps down to the beach.  

Proposed slope stabilisation techniques include soil nails, pile-retaining structures, sub-horizontal drilled drains, also known as raking drains, trench drains, toe drains, and cut-off drains (“deep continuous drains installed at specific locations to intercept groundwater flow into the landslide – effectively ‘cutting off’ the supply of water that lubricates the landslide”).

The scheme has been broadly welcomed, although Lyme Regis Town Council’s planning committee regrets that the beach is not to be replenished, “with, as a consequence, the potential loss of the popular beach walk to Charmouth.”

Vandalism versus views

People living close to a proposed viewing area are also concerned about noise, litter and vandalism.

Officers note in their report to councillors; “The perception is that this facility will become a general ‘recreational’ area, rather than just a viewing platform, and will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining neighbours…

“If it is to proceed then the occupants of Bay View Cottage have asked that they be protected by a ‘substantial fenced buffer zone’ within the viewing area.”

But officers say that “it is commonplace to see areas of public open space immediately abutting the boundaries of private residences, and there is nothing particularly unusual about the current proposals in that regard.

“And a viewing area in this location would be a fabulous public amenity, offering tremendous views of the Jurassic Coast, with easy access from Charmouth Road Car Park.”

The scheme will be considered by councillors on April 8. It will also have to be aproved by the Government.

Work could start in spring 2012. It would probably take two years to complete.
30/03/2010 No comments

Bridport waste row: “Another nail in the Gore Cross coffin” says pressure group NOWTS

ANY SENSIBLE person would think that this latest review of possible locations for a Bridport waste transfer station has put another nail in the Gore Cross coffin. Since the county came up with the “it has to be Gore Cross” decision their primary argument has been that the Highways Agency will not permit any development directly accessed off the A35 and therefore Gore Cross was the only possible site. That has now been shown to be incorrect, the Highways Agency will permit such development.

Of course the other (unspoken) reason was cost and as the county highways department had decided that the Gore Cross site did not require any mitigation measures for the increased traffic, it was the cheap option as well. Building roundabouts and slip roads will increase costs. As Ron Coatsworth and others have pointed out all along, there could well be a public benefit in using the siting of the Waste Transfer Station (WTS) as an opportunity to resolve safety issues at dangerous junctions on the A35, Miles Cross and Eype especially. Since the Highways Agency “improved” the A35, (in their terms “improved” means faster traffic flows), the improved sections have become the most dangerous on that road in our local area. 

One problem with the Dorset County Council officials and lead councillors having spent so much money trying to impose the Gore Cross solution on us is that now becomes a strong incentive for them to put it there. If it does go to Gore Cross, then they haven’t wasted the money after all, it suddenly becomes money well spent.

I personally think they are still determined to carry on regardless.

Years ago a senior planning officer, now retired, came to talk to us at a Bradpole Parish Council meeting. He told us that the County would site a new WTS at Gore Cross. When councillors responded by asking him “What if the inpectors’ reports into the Local Plan and Local waste plan come down against it”, he replied, “It’s going to Gore Cross no matter what the inspectors say”. The inspectors’ reports did both say that the WTS should not be built there, but the County’s dictatorial attitude has continued to this day.

The County try to say that time is running out, it has taken years to get this far and the objectors are holding up the delivery of a vital local facility which will save a great deal of council tax payers money in “tipping away” payments.

Yet a careful inspection of council records and minutes show that the council was aware years ago that SITA, who had the waste contract and were responsible for providing a new WTS facility, were not making progress on this.

When Steve Burdis came in as the new Waste Management head he noted that where SITA had built a WTS for the county, it had cost an excessively large amount of money to buy back off them.

So the county decided to let it lie until the SITA contract had expired and build their own facility.

That is why all that time was lost, that is why the people who live right next door to the South Street site have had to suffer years of extensions to the “temporary” planning permission for that site, years of noise, smell, flies and wind blown rubbish.

That is why the county has paid and continues to pay a great deal of money every year to cart away rubbish to tip at Warmwell and Crossways.

That is why the county will try to put the WTS at Gore Cross despite everything that has passed in these last 15 years: short-term expediency, looking for the lowest up-front cost and the natural reluctance of a bureaucracy to take any but the easiest course.

What is lacking here is clear-sighted and determined leadership, a county council that will fight for what is best for Dorset rather than what is cheap and easy.

Steve Spear is a leading member of the pressure group NOWTS and vice-chairman of Bradpole Parish Council - Bradpole is the parish on the north / north-western side of what is normally just called Bridport.
30/03/2010 No comments

Bridport waste row: Top Tory gores county council

A NEW review of possible sites for a Bridport waste transfer station has put “a big nail in the coffin” of Dorset County Council’s controversial choice of Gore Cross. 

Top Tory councillor Ronald Coatsworth, who is chairman of West Dorset District Council and county councillor for the Bride Valley, said DCC should now change its position.

A new consultants’ survey suggests five other locations around Bridport as serious alternatives to Gore Cross. Coun Coatsworth said this was “a step forward”.

But he argued the report was “spoilt” by being produced two and a half years after the county council originally chose a stretch of open countryside north of Gore Cross, and then spent hundreds of thousands of pounds following a decision that now could, and should, be overturned.

“And we still have to wait another few months for the final, definitive report,” he added.

“My hope is, that at the next stage of this process, honesty and reality will prevail… but the truth is that the search for the best site should have been made before the site at Gore Cross was chosen.”

Five sites off the A35 are now included alongside Gore Cross on the final shortlist of six possibilities: two locations near Miles Cross, one near the Eype picnic area, one at Broomhills Farm, and one at the Green Lane nursery on the so-called Walditch Plain.

Coun Coatsworth said: “I have always believed that Miles Cross or Broomhills would be the most suitable sites because they are relatively isolated and have natural cover compared with the very open and visible site proposed north of Gore Cross.”

He argued that their suitability would become even more obvious if the consultants had used a grading system with more than three points.

“This leads to sites in the open countryside such as Gore Cross being give a grade 2 and more concealed places such as Broomhills being given the same score.

“I think we would be better served by a five point scale which would give a greater degree of discrimination.”

Mistakes

He went on: “Planning gain, by which the whole community benefits from a development, has been ignored, and there have been some mistakes.

“One example is the ‘potential land use conflict’ at Broomhills.

“Broomhills is given a 2, and the remark that a development could ‘conflict with the proposed re-opening of the railway’. There can be no re-opening of the railway because there was never a railway on this site, and a railway with a link into Bridport and a Park and Ride facility would be a community asset, not a conflict of interest.

“A site at Miles Cross with a roundabout would also be a much needed community asset.

Traffic

“Much of the report is concerned with traffic and closely follows the results achieved by the St. Andrew’s Residents Association Traffic report.

“It illustrates very clearly that a site on the A3066, or east of Bridport on the A35, would increase traffic on Greens roundabout and decrease it on the Crown roundabout. [Greens roundabout is the official name for the roundabout on the eastern edge of Bridport, near the petrol station, the fire station, the end of East Street, etc]

“A site west of the Crown roundabout would have the reverse effect.

“The report also shows the increase of traffic is quite small in relation to the total traffic. “From information I have gleaned from the report and other sources, the estimated number of vehicle movements to and from a waste transfer station is between 42 and 60 per day – say 4 to 6 per hour a 10 hour day. For a household re-cycling centre the number of vehicle movements are about 285 per day, or about 30 per hour.

“It clearly indicates that the worst effect on traffic on Greens roundabout would come from a site either at Gore Cross or on the A35 east of Bridport.

“A big nail in the coffin”

“Greens roundabout is the key to hold-ups. Eastbound traffic flows easily from the roundabout after it has been held up from sometimes as far back as Charmouth. Westbound traffic also tails back from Greens roundabout but possibly not to such an extent.

“This is clearly a big nail in the coffin of the Gore Cross proposals. Additional traffic at this site is clearly inappropriate.

“Greens roundabout requires some attention and I would remind readers that before Lidl got planning permission they had to pay the Highways Agency a sum of money for a study on how to improve this roundabout.”

Coun Coatsworth also argued that planning inspectors had said that a waste management facility at Gore Cross would only ever be appropriate if the site was designated as an industrial site, that is, surrounded by other industrial units.

“That position,” he said, “has never materialised.”
29/03/2010 1 Comment

Good luck to the new Bridport SPAR: but what the hell is it all about?

FOR THOSE living in the East Street area of Bridport and finding themselves in urgent need of a packet of Sour Cream and Chive crisps at gone nine at night, those requiring a bracing tot of rum just after seven in the morning and those wanting to buy a second hand, or ‘previously viewed’, DVD from a rather limited selection the opening of the new Spar shop will prove an absolute God-send. The rest of us can carry on scratching, breaking wind and trying to touch the tips of our noses with our tongues.

Spar, East Street, Bridport

Another convenience, AKA rather pricey, shop has opened.

When the editor of this site asked me to take a look at the establishment my first reaction was that he had taken leave of his senses and gone as far round the bend as I am. I really don’t go in for a lot of grocery shopping. Reviewing pubs yes, restaurants, if I have to, or even knocking shops at a push, but the weekly grub and cleaning materials grab and I are normally as total strangers.

Anyway I did take a swan along there and have a look. My first reaction was – why? What is it all about? Why has a company spent a considerable amount of money to provide a service that will prove of great value to those needing a bar of ordinary chocolate during the hike from Waterstone’s to Bridport Sports and very few others?

It beats me, but I know as much about high finance as I do about doing the weekly shop.

Although it is clean, well lit and pleasant-looking, it offers nothing that either the locally-owned Threshers franchise next door or the first-rate newsagents on the corner of Barrack Street don’t. Plus, they offer a wider choice of what they do sell, and at less cost, than the new painted lady in their midst.

So is it unneeded and unwanted or have I got it totally wrong?

Time and the wallets and purses of the populace of Bridport will tell.

I can see no need for it.

Having said all that, I really do wish them well. They have turned a desolate ruin in the middle of town into an attractive, cheery and inviting shop. They have employed local people, which is a positive bonus in these straitened times and they are paying their business rates, which will benefit us all.

So good luck SPAR – but why the hell did you do it?
27/03/2010 1 Comment

Rebellion in ciderland: Top author says the answer is to punish the bad and go easy on the good

WHEN your Government’s in trouble and you are fighting a long and protracted war, why not raise the duty on cider and tax the peasants? It’s happened before.

In 1643, during the English Civil War, the rate imposed was one shilling and threepence (1/3d) a hogshead, and a hogshead was 54 gallons unless you were in Herefordshire in which case it could be 64, 74 or even 108 gallons – the trick was to dilute the duty. England Expects Every Man to do his Duty…

In 1763, after Seven Long Years of War with the French, the de-facto Prime Minister, the Earl of Bute, decided to raise taxes on cider to help pay for it.

And what a mistake that was!

He put 4 shillings on a hogshead for the home, and 10 shillings on a hogshead for resale in the capital. There was real rebellion in Ciderland. There were riots. Effigies of Bute were burnt in the streets and hung on trees. Bute’s style of Government was referred to as the Scottish Yoke. Does this not ring bells? Bute was lampooned mercilessly in broadsheets and pamphlets and forced to resign in April 1763. Increasing the tax on cider cost him his job. So much for the wisdom of taxing ‘backward’ rural areas: Ciderland bit back.

In 1916, the year of the Battle of the Somme, when the peasants died in their thousands in mud and barbed wire, cider was made more expensive again. The tax was only lifted five years after the end of the First World War, in 1923. Somehow it escaped taxation during the Second World War, but it got re-imposed by a Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, he of the eyebrows, in 1976. However, he left a 1,500-gallon loophole for traditional artisan farmhouse cidermakers. Thank you Denis, that was a godsend for small producers, and it’s the small and middle size producers that matter: they make cider worth drinking.

"Traditional cidermakers make cider worth drinking"

Only trouble is, it is hard to find a peasant these days, some do exist in West Dorset and very proud they are of their cider clubs, but more often than not it is weekend middle class peasants who are drinking the amber apple nectar. That’s important, because they are the ones who are pushing the boundaries on cider experimentation. No more rats’ piss for them. They want a classy drink, fit for kings and queens and top class restaurants, one they can proudly put on their own dining room tables.

So now in 2010, with an expensive war in Afghanistan and an unprecedented financial cock-up, the Chancellor seeks to punish cider makers once again. But cider is not beer. Brewers can make beer any day of the week and at any time of the year. Real cider relies on an annual crop of cider apples and the labour involved in hand picking apples. The time taken in planting an orchard and waiting for it to come to fruition can often be measured in decades. The sugar that comes from cider apple juice ferments naturally and it’s this that provides the alcohol.

The problem is that much of the sugar used in large-scale cider production is not from English cider apples – far from it. Cheap cider, drunk late at night by teenagers on the streets, is an industrial product made with foreign apple concentrate ‘enhanced’ with corn syrup, colouring and sweeteners and anything else you care to mention. That, I agree, should be taxed at the same level as ‘made wines’ – but not artisan cider.

What government does not really understand is that the alcohol should come directly from natural sugar levels in the cider apple and this depends on the type of apple, the season and even the location i.e. terroir, even which side of the valley the orchard is on. Some years the sugar levels will be high and in cider apples this can give rise to alcohol levels of 8% and even higher, so the government is in effect taxing the power of the sun, which gives rise to the sugars in ciders. How green is that?

The nub of the problem is that the industrial ciders rely on corn, maize and wheat syrup where the natural starch is turned into sugar by enzymes. A good working knowledge of how ciders are made is therefore essential before taxing the industry wholesale. A watertight definition of cider and cidermaking would make the Chancellor’s decision easier to make. Juice contents on labels would also help. And herein lies part of the problem.

The National Association of Cidermakers (NACM) abides by Customs Regulation 162, but this allows them to add sugar ‘no limit’ and water ‘no limit’, as well as the use of apple concentrate. That is fine, but the general public should be made aware of how exactly their cider is made and where its ingredients have come from.

My main concern however is that the small and medium size artisan cidermakers will be penalised unfairly by this increase in cider taxation and all the hard work of re-planting orchards will be jeopardised.

If politicians want to do something constructive they should define cider more carefully and tax it according to its method of manufacture and raw materials. If there hadn’t been two expensive wars and a financial cock up of mammoth proportions would the politicians today be grasping at cider?    

What is interesting about the recent hike in cider taxation is not so much the punitive increases but the real lack of knowledge about the industry and its roots in apple trees and orchards. Is it sour grapes? Or is it that cider has taken sales away from beer? Or is it a misguided attempt to punish the poor in a time of crisis, a crisis that is of the government’s own making?

The Westcountry is not a Labour stronghold, so Labour politicians feel safe in attacking what are really Liberal heartlands. They do so at their peril. They should read more history, but then history has been marginalized in the National Curriculum for years.  

Lord Bute paid for his mistake with his job. After he resigned he returned to his Hampshire estate and became a keen botanist and literary patron. Among his beneficiaries were Samuel Johnson, Tobias Smollett and the Scottish architect Robert Adam. Earl Bute also gave significant financial help to the Scottish universities. No doubt Alistair Darling is considering funding the universities of Scotland in a similar vein. It is after all the poor students of Scottish universities who drink the cheap cider he is seeking to tax so heavily.

Editor’s Note: James Crowden is the author of Ciderland, which won an Andre Simon book award in 2008, and Cider: The Forgotten Miracle, which I edited for him more years ago than probably either of us care to remember. James used to make cider for Julian Temperley at Burrow Hill in Somerset and he is an expert on the history of cider orchards in West Dorset. The revival in recent years of cider clubs in West Dorset is partly down to him; one of his poems has hung for years on the wall of the famous West Milton shed.
26/03/2010 No comments

Bridport waste row: New waste transfer station could be built by picnic area

SIX sites – including one by a picnic area – have been shortlisted for Bridport’s new waste transfer station.

It’s the latest development in a saga which has now dragged on for more than a decade and cost local taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.

A new facility is needed because the current household recycling centre in Bridport town centre is too small, causes traffic jams and only has planning permission until summer 2010.

Having previously said that it did not wish to retain the South Street recycling centre, Dorset County Council will soon found itself in the embarrassing position of having to seek another three-year extension.

The problem is simply that a suitable alternative has proved hard to secure. Independent planning consultants Nicholas Pearson Associates (NPA) last year began winnowing down a list of 32 possible locations.

The six now left (in the Stage 1A review) are:

Broomhills Farm, off the A35

Gore Cross, North of Watford Lane, on the northern edge of Bridport

Green Lane Nursery, on the so-called Walditch Plain

Miles Cross 1, on the south side of the A35 – B3162 junction

Miles Cross 2, on the north side of the A35, between it and the B3162

Watton Farm, near A35 Eype picnic area

A Highways Agency rethink about access to and from the A35 means that a waste transfer station could be built by the Eype picnic area, or just further along the main road pictured here at the Miles Cross junction with the B3162.

Dorset County Council’s long-favoured site in the countryside north of Gore Cross is still in contention. In the consultants’ league table, it scores 30 points. Following consultation with the Highways Agency about access to sites off the A35, that’s now the same as Miles Cross 1 and Green Lane.

Miles Cross 2 and Watton Farm score 29 points, Broomhills 27.

Of Watton Farm, the consultants also note: “The area designated as Heritage Coastline in Local Plan adjoins the site and the Lower Eype Conservation Area is within 250m. Their setting could be adversely affected.”

“I’m shocked,” said Mark Shaw, a master thatcher who recently moved from Dorchester to one of the properties near the Eype picnic area.

“Crikey! I can think of much stronger expletives than that, but we’ll keep it at that, shall we?”    

All six sites will now be evaluated in a Stage 2 review.

A new facility is meant to provide an enhanced recycling service for people living in and around Bridport, as well as greater opportunities for local businesses to recycle and manage their waste. A waste transfer station would also allow refuse and recycled materials to be bulked up and taken on to processing facilities elsewhere.

Dorset County Council’s head of waste management Steve Burdis said:

“We have assessed in the region of 40 sites in our search to find the most suitable location for a much needed waste management facility in Bridport.

“Improving the household recycling and waste transfer facilities in the area has been a priority for the county council for some time, particularly as the current HRC site was only intended to be a temporary solution. As residents know, finding a suitable site is proving a complex issue with no simple solution.

“Throughout the process we have made a sincere effort to keep local people informed and involved, and as a result additional sites suggested by residents have also been evaluated.

“We will be holding further public information days before the Stage 2 review is completed, which we expect to be published later in the summer.”

Dorset County Council’s cabinet will make a final decision about which site should go forward for a planning application.

For more information from the council, or to read the volumnious Stage 1 and Stage 1A reports, click here

MORE TO FOLLOW
26/03/2010 1 Comment

Dorset to get first part of new national coast path

DORSET has been chosen as the first place in England for people to get new rights of access to the coast.

The quango Natural England has been ordered by the Government to create an unbroken long-distance walking route around the coast, with some limited possibilities for spreading out for activities like picnics.

Work is going to begin at Weymouth immediately, so that it can be completed before Olympic sailing events in 2012.

Weymouth Bay. Photograph by Jim Champion, reused under creative Commons Licence.

Janette Ward, South West Regional Director for Natural England, said “Of course the South West already has some of the best coastal access in Britain.

“At 630 miles the South West Coast Path is Britain’s longest and arguably most varied National Trail.

“It presents an excellent model for ‘coastal access’ and an example of what could be achieved for the country as a whole.

“However, the coast is a dynamic environment and the South West Coast Path regularly faces issues, such as landslips and erosion, that Coastal Access legislation could provide the mechanisms to deal with, enabling us in consultation with landowners, to roll the trail back or indeed to fix it on a future predicted line in the first place.”

Natural England is going to work in partnership with Dorset County Council, whose environment director Miles Butler said: “We warmly welcome this announcement. “Dorset has some of the finest coastline in the country and arguably some of the best access to it, particularly Dorset’s section of the 630-mile South West Coast Path National Trail.

“It is exciting that work to implement the route will start in Weymouth, providing joined-up coastal access in time for Dorset to host the sailing events of the 2012 Olympics.

“The Scheme will help local people and visitors enjoy even better access to our outstanding coastline, part of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.

“We can now begin the important task of consulting with landowners, businesses and local people to ensure their needs are addressed and that we protect as well as boost enjoyment of our unique coastline.”

The provisions of the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act were opposed by bodies such as the Country Landowners Association, whose members include, for example, the Welds at Lulworth.

Natural England is today publishing a Scheme to indicate how it intends to go about enforcing new rights of access, which you can read by clicking on this link.