Most Read
Comments
News Junkie
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
Now council pulls out of Lancaster public inquiry
3 July, 2009
A controversial £140 million scheme to regenerate a huge stretch of Lancaster has been left on the verge of collapse after the city council pulled out of the public inquiry into the scheme
The North Canal Corridor scheme, designed by 3D Reid, won outline planning permission in October and was set to include 32,500sq m of shops, 150 townhouses and flats, and an 800-space car park on a 4ha area to the east of the city centre.
But following massive opposition by the heritage lobby and the calling in of the scheme in January, the council — which supports the project — has now pulled out of the inquiry, leaving only opponents taking part.
The council’s move last week followed the lead of developer Centros, which in March decided not to defend the scheme at the inquiry on the grounds of expense.
In a statement, the council said: “Testing of evidence at the public inquiry has identified a number of issues which need to be addressed. In light of the decision by Centros not to appear before the inquiry these questions remain unanswered.”
Conservation groups including English Heritage have objected to the project claiming it would irreversibly damage the area by demolishing around 30 buildings, 18 of which are within conservation areas.
Architect and TV presenter Ptolemy Dean called the council’s latest move extraordinary, adding: “If neither the local authority nor the developer are willing to stand up for it, what reflection does that have on the proposals?”
3D Reid declined to comment, but Centros chief executive Richard Wise blamed EH for the mess, likening it to the intervention by Prince Charles into the Chelsea Barracks scheme.
“It is high time that the government called EH to heel,” he said.
“Following significant changes that we made in response to their input, they stated they were happy for Lancaster Council to decide the application. After the council’s decision in favour of our development, EH then reneged and campaigned for a call-in.”
But a spokeswoman for EH said Centros had passed up the opportunity to give evidence at the inquiry and called on the developer to withdraw the application.
Readers' comments
Lancaster City Council pulled out after its Senior Conservation Officer stood up at the inquiry and expressed his views. After that, its flimsy case collapsed. A brave man with integrity, unlike some involved in this shabby affair. The comments of Centros regarding English Heritage are ill-advised and risible. EH always expressed its opposition to one part of the scheme, the demolition of Conservation Area buildings at Stonewell and the construction of a bridge which would have ruined the setting of a listed church, and all that is clearly documented in correspondence and planning reports put to committee. It tried to get Centros to change that, but Centros refused. For more see: http://www.itsourcity.org.uk andwww.savebritainsheritage.org
Lovely buildings harking surely for a lean- time makeover to attract likeminded souls: possibility here for new modest philosophical ethic to emerge on previously unsullied pure building type with canal edge. Next step urban idyl?
The biggest culprit in this is the local authority who should not be granting outline planning permission in a conservation area especially when it involves the demolition of such a large number of buildings within the conservation areas. I was totally shocked at this scheme when BD first reported on it. I cannot understand how any local authority (or architectural firm!!) in their right mind would throw away the opportunity to senstively redevelop these areas and celebrate the robust semi industrial character of the existing buildings and spaces. This has happened successfully in so many other areas, Regents Quarter, Kings Cross and the Roundhouse Foundry, Holbeck Leeds spring to mind. There are other good examples in EH's Shared Interest publication. I hope this scheme is literally buried and the local councillors for the authority are suitably ashamed of this debarcle.
See the alternative proposals for the site by Richard Griffiths Architects on the SAVE website.