Lancaster to be ruined

[Nemesis]

I did - but the renovation word has connotations of rip it out and spoil it, whereas repair is much more SPAB!

This will be fought strongly.

All letters seeking a call-in will help, addressed to Planning, Gov Office for the North West (GONW).

http://www.go-nw.gov.uk/gonw/Planning/?a=42496

Ian Garland, Planning Casework

 

[shelli]

you can email the following pro forma letter to IAN.GARLAND@gonw.gsi.gov.uk

Ian Garland,
Government Office for the North West,
12th Floor ,
City Tower,
Piccadilly Plaza,
Manchester M1 4BE

Dear Mr Garland,

Re: - Planning Application Numbers : 08/00866/OUT, 07/00674/LB, 07/00673/CON, 07/00671/CON, 07/00670/CON,07/00669/LB,07/00668/LB, 07/00667/LB, 07/00666/CON,07/00665/LB,07/00663/CON and 07/00662/LB submitted by Centros for development of the Canal Corridor North Site in Lancaster.

This application was accepted by the Lancaster City Planning Committee on the 14th October 2008. I request that these decisions be called in and that also an Article 14 Directive concerning these planning applications be issued by the Secretary of State.

Yours sincerely
(Your name)
(your address)

 

[Nemesis]

That's a start, but it will also require a few more reasons why it should be called in. Demolition of buildings which make a positive contribution to conservation areas, and which could and should be retained and adapted, damage to the settings of listed buildings, demolition of buildings which are of local importance to the city and its history, blocking views in and out of conservation areas, unsuitability of design, quoting PPG15 will help.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppg15



There are other local and national planning policies which can be cited, but those are ones which are easy to argue.

The fact that the council has a strong financial interest in the scheme is another reason why it should be decided by an inquiry.

Call-ins are hard to get - the more fuss made the better, the more letters the better. These need to be there very soon - there is a time limit.

Reasons for a call-in can include:

The decision is of “more than local importance”
the decision has “caused public controversy”
the decision conflicts with national and regional policies.

http://www.itsourcity.org.uk/index.html


This is the info from the IOC group so far:

23-10-08 Explanation GONW


There are three reasons why the Secretary of State should call-in the decision made by Lancaster City Council.
The decision is of “more than local importance”
the decision has “caused public controversy”
the decision conflicts with national and regional policies.


More than local importance.

The applications are contrary to the recently adopted RSS in several important respects.

RDF1

Spatial priorities : Lancaster is in the fourth group in terms of priority for development.

W5 “Any retail investment made should be consistent with the scale and function of the centre, should not undermine the vitality and viability of any other centre or result in the creation of unsustainable shopping patterns.”
This development will impact on the viability of retailing in Morecambe and Kendal.

W6 names Lancaster as a destination with emerging potential for heritage related tourism development, where tourism supports and compliments its status as an historic city. Centros will damage this potential through the demolition of 25 buildings which contribute to the historical significance of Lancasters' built environment and its Georgian city character.

EM1 states “schemes should protect,conserve and enhance the historic environment supporting conservation-led regeneration in areas rich in historic interest”. The Centros scheme proposes to demolish parts of a conservation area as well as the loss of much of the existing street pattern.

CNL4 wishes to”harness opportunities for sustainable growth in Lancaster in line with RDF1, the spatial principles DP1-9 and the criteria in W2 and W3 having due regard to the historic character of the city.” The Centros proposals show no due regard for the conservation of the historic city.

RT2 seeks to ensure “that major new developments are located where good access to public transport already exists backed by effective provision for pedestrians and cyclists to minimise the need to travel by private car.” The provision of an 800 space car park is in direct contravention of this policy.

The decision has “caused public controversy”

The scheme has been strongly opposed locally , as witnessed by the number of objections to both the 2007 plans and those of 2008, the local and visitor petitions, and the ousting of the previous leader of the council(because of the Centros scheme). The scheme has also been opposed nationally by SAVE Britain's Heritage, the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society, English Heritage and Building Design .
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3125200&c=1&encCode=000000000184dcc9


The decision conflicts with national and regional policies.

Apart from the regional policies cited above the scheme conflicts with national policies.

PPG13 Transport objectives are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level to promote sustainable transport choices. The Centros scheme seeks to attract visitors from a wide catchment area; the 800 space car park is directly contrary to PPG13.
PPG 15 Links conservation with economic prosperity. The scale and mass of the proposed buildings are inappropriate to the site which straddles two conservation areas and combines this with demolition within a conservation area.

PPS23 and the Northwest Regional Spatial Strategy policies DP7, DP9 and CNL4.
The upper assessment thresholds specified by Air Quality Standards regulations 2007 have been exceeded on at least three out of the previous five years for both particulates (PM 10) and Nitrous Dioxide (NO2) the exclusive use of modelling rather than measured data may breached 13(3)(c) of these regulations. The development, if approved, will add to air pollution problems in a designated AQMA and worsen the situation for local people in terms of health issues. Lancaster City Council has done nothing of a tangible nature to improve the health of local people.
PPS1.states “plans should be drawn up with community involvement...” Lancaster City Council has failed to conduct extensive and genuine consultation in direct contravention of PPS1. The only consultation that they have done has been after the application was submitted.

PPS 6 defines a sub-regional shopping centre as 50000 sq.m.: the developer is proposing 46314 sq.m. gross floorspace in this scheme alone. The total net comparison shopping space of the existing city centre plus the new scheme would be only 5000 sq.m. less than Preston currently has (62000 sq.m. according to Drivers Jonas’ updated retail study for Preston BC). If you add in other existing edge-of-centre net comparison floorspace in Lancaster, the total would be greater than Preston’s existing city centre. It is clear from these figures that the development would have much more than local significance. Indeed the assumed catchment for Centros’ scheme overlaps significantly with those of Preston, Blackpool and Kendal.

Also you may wish to add something along the lines of ;
Lancaster City council has a strong financial interest in these planning applications. It is not in the public interest, nor the interest of good governance for the planning applications to be determined by the same organisation (Lancaster City Council) that has entered into a commercial contract and will benefit from the granting of planning permission.

Centros is also involved in York - another city which doesn't need spoiling, but you can't fight 'em all.

 

[shelli]

thanks Nem - the 11th November is deadline

 

[Nemesis]

Anyone needing any clarification, I have spoken to Ian Garland and I usually find government regional offices helpful.

Also remember:

Conservation Area consent is being sought for the demolition of a number of unlisted
buildings recognised by the Council as being ‘key townscape features’ or buildings that make
a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. These
demolitions are required to realise the development proposals. The criteria contained within
PPG 15 in respect of the proposed demolition of unlisted buildings that make a positive
contribution are addressed within this report. The proposals also entail the demolition of
unlisted structures outside the Conservation Area, buildings which the Environmental
Statement (ES) identifies as being of local cultural significance.

- How can they think that this is okay?

They know it's not OK, they just hope no-one will argue against them. That passage is worth quoting too. It seems the local authoritry has simply relied on Centros (Montagu Evans hiss boo) historic buildings report, which is hardly unbiased.

But the local authority has signed a pact with Centros and just hopes no-one will look too carefully at the details.

 

[shelli]

I got immediate email auto response back from letter sent as follows- hope that means that there have been a lot of letters in - justifying setting up an auto response

Dear Ms Smith,

Thank you for your email below.

I can confirm that your representations will be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to call-in this application. We will inform you of the decision once it has been reached.

Yours sincerely


I Garland



Ian Garland
GONW
12TH FLoor
City Tower
Piccadilly Plaza
Manchester, M1 4BE
Tel: (GTN 4301) 0161-952-4337
Fax: (GTN 4301) 0161-952-4106

 

[Nemesis]

I know SAVE has asked, Vic Soc I talked also to, I think Geo Group and EH...

The more people who write the better, and the more 'national' you are the better also - to show this isn't simply local.

Even if all that is cited is the stuff I said above re PPG 15 and the fact the council has a financial interest will help. An Article 14 will mean that nothing can happen on site until things are more sorted.

Regeneration isn't the problem - it's the insensitivity of the proposals, and there seems to be no overriding public interest which could justify demolition. The buildings could be retained and repaired, the historic street patterns retained also, not some clone town shopping mall with a private 'piazza'.

 

[Tom]

Steve Green 16 October, 2008
Conservation areas are overrated. ! People deserve to live and work in buildings that are built to modern standards. We should be encouraging new developments all around this nation

Where do people like this numpty get the idea that we 'deserve' anything? Why do we? We should be bloody grateful that there are still buildings standing today that represent enormous building skills and design from the past. Fortunately, the monstosities they throw up these days won't last half as long!

As for ruining Lancaster, I was 'watching' (well, it was on the tele) Booze Britain last night and they were in Lancaster. I was shocked. Being born and and spending 27 years in Blackpool, I always knew Lancaster as a sedate and safe place. God, it's changed!! It seems Saturday night is like any other large city; chavs everywhere, people spewing up in the street, fighting, swearing, t*t flashing etc etc. And the drain on the authorities is unthinkable :shock: It seems Lancaster is well on the way to being ruined by the very people who live there :evil: :evil:

I vote we create huge sanctuaries for like-minded people. Then we can all be happy :wink:

Jaqy

 

[shelli]

As for ruining Lancaster, I was 'watching' (well, it was on the tele) Booze Britain last night and they were in Lancaster. I was shocked. Being born and and spending 27 years in Blackpool, I always knew Lancaster as a sedate and safe place. God, it's changed!! It seems Saturday night is like any other large city; chavs everywhere, people spewing up in the street, fighting, swearing, t*t flashing etc etc. And the drain on the authorities is unthinkable :shock: It seems Lancaster is well on the way to being ruined by the very people who live there

Its not the city of Lancaster per se thats changed - it's society at a certain level

 

[plumbers mate]

People are in a bit of a cleft stick when it comes to shopping centres like this.
If they don't opt for it, one will be built out of town somewhere where the population will agree to it - it's a form of Blackmail.
Tesco has planning application in for a large supermarket on the General Hospital site in Newcastle (a street away from me). Now, Tesco will also give financial support to a Uni Research into Ageing Centre or something. So, if they don't get permission, funding for that will go, presumably, and the rest of the very large area will become --- well, what? not housing at this period in time.
So does the Council choose to have a large, unproductive wasteland with the social problems an inner city wasteland brings or a megamart with jobs and finance for a research programme?
To be honest, the area needs a supermarket - we have a Co-Op and a new Somerfields (the one owned by John Lewis??) in the city but nothing else accessible apart from M&S unless you have a car. The many, many students round here all seem to get Tesco delivery vans calling at all hours during the evening so there is a need for something. The local shops are the sort which sell old stock at high prices. I would welcome such a store for my own convenience - but not so big and not so Tesco. (Sorry, I don't count Netto - went in once, walked round and walked out. It was a shambles)
If it's not built, it will go somewhere else in the city or surrounds anyway and the area will become an unofficial car park and joyriding facility.
Blackmail.

 

[Nemesis]

News report followed by Ptolo interview from TV last night:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/northwesttonight/latest_stories/index.shtml

 

[Nemesis]

Report and then Ptolo interview 12 mins 20 secs in to last night's prog - will be on until this evening to watch again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northwesttonight/content/articles/2008/10/20/201008_congestion_feature.shtml

Link at top right.

 

[Nemesis]

Ptolo is really getting his teeth into this one:


http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3126940&c=2&encCode=0000000001872383

 

[Craig]

Similar article by him in Country Life

 

[Nemesis]

Ah - thanks. Must buy it then!

He's really working hard on this...

 

[shelli]

it'll give him something to do until people can afford hire architects again :wink: seriously - he's saying some very sensible things - i wish folk would listen !

 

[Nemesis]

I don't think Ptolo is ever short of work!

 

[Moo]

I can't remember the title, but Terry Pratchett wrote a book about a nightmare shopping mall. All fantasy, of course, but it rang very true in a terrifying kind of way.

 

[MdB]

Reaper Man....

 

[Nemesis]

Just read Ptolo's excellent piece on Lancaster in Country Life.

It should be required reading for every daft councillor who is taken in by the promises of developers regarding 'jobs' and 'investment'.