Contents: News | Sign our Petitions | How to Object | FAQ | Site Photographs | Sample Objection | Press Coverage | Resources
Click to see the proposal on the planning portal: 24/02489/CCD.
The deadline for public consultation has been delayed to is 26th September. However, objections are likely to be considered up until the decision date.
You can contact us at info@berwick-heritage.co.uk.
For light relief, have a listen to our heritage songs, also available in video form on our YouTube channel.
Listen to an audio summary of the issues, generated by NotebookLM from our FAQ - please excuse pronunciations. Download
Please sign our petitions.
1. If you live, work, study or use services in Northumberland, then please sign the official Northumberland county council petition. This will be considered by the relevant committees. You can view the number of signatures in this list of petitions.
2. Anyone can sign our original change.org petition. While it can't officially be taken into account by planning committees, it's valuable in showing the wider interest in preserving the beauty of Berwick and giving a voice to all those concerned about the plan.
Anyone can object, wherever they live. Comments may be anonymous. Objections are the most important tool we have as heritage advocates to send a message to the decision-makers in the council.
Some of the grounds you might cite are the case for conservation, destruction of iconic views, loss of biodiversity, extra traffic and pollution, the safety aspect for a junction of 6 roads, and the fact that we could instead have a wonderful Tweed viewing experience and tourist/customer 'magnet' for Tweedmouth businesses. You can read existing objections online for further inspiration.
Method 1: Online. You can object online by clicking on this link: 24/02489/CCD. You will need to create an account if you haven't already, and then under the Comments tab, click Make a comment.
Method 2: By email. You can object by emailing the case officer at planning@northumberland.gov.uk. Click on planning@northumberland.gov.uk to start writing your email. Please use a subject line similar to: "For the attention of Mr Will McKane, Planning Officer, case 24/02489/CCD". Then write to Mr McKane stating that you object to the application, and why.
Method 3: By letter. You can object by writing to the case officer: Mr Will McKane, Planning Officer, Planning Department, County Hall, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2EF. Cite case 24/02489/CCD and tell Mr McKane that you object to the application, and why.
Summary
I strongly object to this application. The plan to place a car park close to one end of our historic bridge, especially after the 400 year anniversary celebrations have highlighted its crucial value to the town as a visitor attraction and much-loved scheduled monument, is extremely insensitive. It will harm the tranquillity of the bridge, generate congestion and fumes, damage local biodiversity, and harm local heritage and amenity.
Details
1. Loss of visual and other amenity: from the Quay Walls and higher positions in Berwick, and from the Old Bridges and other bridges, the historic, peaceful view of the bridge will be marred by vehicles, signs and other paraphernalia of a car park. The King Charles III England Coast Path will be interrupted by the car park entrance, complicating the approach to the bridge from Tweedmouth. At present, the site provides a welcome green, open space, complementing the grassy river bank on the other side. The Design and Access Statement says the scheme "doesn't affect the local area visually," which is plainly untrue.
Views towards the Quay Walls from around this area of Tweedmouth will be ruined, as there will be cars at the bottom of the view instead of a green space. Importantly, the loss of the old sales building will mean that the eye rests on the huge modern dock building, instead of being drawn to a building of human scale in keeping with Berwick's history.
Building a car park, even just for five years, is a terrible missed opportunity to give visitors a calming green space from which to view the bridges, Berwick, and the river.
2. Biodiversity loss: the commissioned ecology report indicates a 26% loss of biodiversity. Two mature rowan trees will be cut down, and grassy areas paved over. In today's climate of awareness of the importance of nature and biodiversity, this destruction is madness when this area could instead be thoughtfully managed to work with and not against nature. Also, there should be an application for trees in a conservation area.
Heritage loss: the heritage report dismisses the timber frame sales office as of no heritage interest, citing a submission that appears to be unavailable (21/00303/PREAPP). However, in the old application's archaeology report, Nick Best (the assistant county archaeologist) writes to the planning officer on 7/11/2023:
"Note that this response relates to the 'archaeology' topic only. Comment and advice in relation to the 'built heritage' topic should be sought from colleagues in the Built Heritage and Design Team."
But no such advice has been given. With its timber cladding, barn-style door, and unusual (asymmetrical!) stone roof finials, this nineteenth-century building in a conservation area has historic interest and charm. The building was owned by John Wilson & Son, funerary sculptor, before the company was taken over by Robertsons - the last occupier - and so the building was associated with the notable Berwick architect and funerary sculptor William Wilson, whose work can be found around Spittal. The site is where Wilson's Jimmy Strength sculpture was repaired in 1953 (the remains are now at the Barracks). The building can be seen in an 1899 Ordnance Survey map (Northumberland IV.SW, revised 1897 and published in 1899).
The Town Council's objection to the old application cited among other things, "the loss of a building with worthwhile character i.e. the timber frame sales office."
Do we really want to sweep away a vestige of Berwick's past with so little thought? It meets neither conservation nor sustainability aspirations.
Historic England must comment before a decision is made, due to the site's proximity to listed structures: the bridge and 20-22 Main Street.
4. Traffic congestion: increased traffic, noise and fumes will reduce the enjoyment of walking along the bridge, especially as vehicles back up along the bridge waiting for vehicles turning out of or going into the car park. More traffic will be generated on Union Brae, which is already prone to cars obstructing traffic. The entrance will become a hazard for walkers. There is no assessment available to the public and decision-makers of the consequences of traffic and increased pollution.
5. Misuse of car park: given that camper vans already park opposite the site in question, near and under the New Bridge, it is very likely that the car park would become popular with these vehicles. You could ban them, but who is going to enforce it? A de facto camper van park would further damage this sensitive site and reduce the appeal of the area for tourists and residents alike.
6. Lack of evidence for need: last year, the Town Council noted the lack of evidence for the need for the car park. Indeed, the future of the Maltings development is in doubt given the change of government. So it would be folly to do harm to this area for absolutely no reason, if there is no certainty it will be needed. Plus, there is often parking space available under the New Bridge in Tweedmouth and along Main Street. The Coastal Erosion Document itself states that the car park will only be of 'minor economic benefit to the local community'.
7. Mistakes in the application. (1) The application wrongly states that there will not be a loss of non-residential floorspace. The two buildings that the Council proposes to demolish were, until very recently, respectively an office and a brick store for salmon fishing gear used by the last remaining net-fishers on this stretch of the river. (2) The application describes the buildings as derelict, giving a misleading impression of the site. The buildings are not derelict: the timber-sided and slate-roofed building was occupied until recently. (3) There should be a separate application to remove trees in a conservation area.
Northumberland Gazette article on the application, 22nd August, 2024.
Northumberland Gazette article on objections and the petition, 5th September 2024.
Old Bridge Car Park Proposal Enrages Residents article and discussion on The Bridge news site..
Deadline for comments on temporary car park plan in Berwick is extended, Northumberland Gazette, 11th September 2024.
We appeared briefly on Greatest Hits Radio (Borders) with comments about why we started a petition, on 3rd September 2024.
Bridge Car Park Poster 1 (Stop the Berwick Bridge Car Park Development)
Bridge Car Park Leaflet 1: our printed leaflet