Despite intense opposition to the proposal, Lancaster City Council is to press ahead with its investigation into a plan to move Lancaster Market to the Museum building in Market Square.
As we previously reported, the Council’s Cabinet proposed an investigation into moving the Market from its current rented location after considering a lengthy report into how it could be better marketed and improved. The Friends of the City Museum, Conservative and Labour councillors have all expressed concern at the proposal to move it to the City Museum, which would mean refurbishing and extending the building and, potentially, moving the Museum out of the building completely, and into Lancaster Castle.
The proposal became the subject of a “call in” by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee (see news story) but an amended proposal, calling on the Council to consider other locations for a Market move, was defeated.
“Unfortunately the resolution was lost by five to three,” Councillor Roger Mace, who felt he was effectively “gagged” when the proposal came to Full Council, told virtual-lancaster.
“[Councillor] Jon Barry’s verbal remarks at the Cabinet meeting on 15th February about potentially using the upper floor of the City Museum as well as the lower floor for re-locating the market tenants were the spark that triggered my question to the [Council’s] Chief Executive,” Roger explains. “I have an e-mail exchange with Jon which confirms that he is expecting the upper floor of the Museum to be included in the investigation (excluding only the Regimental Museum).
“These views were also the basis for Jon’s remarks at the call-in – but are clearly different to the views [Council leader] Councillor Stuart Langhorn expressed – a difference which remains a poor basis for a Cabinet decision,” Roger argues.
“Investigating ‘the possibility of developing and extending Lancaster City Museum, in Market Square, to provide an improved museum and indoor market’ is one idea – and there is nothing against investigating possible enhancement of the City museum’s offering on its present site – but it seems cabinet is doing this in the same report as one designed to solve the problem of the City’s outlay in renting and servicing the Market Building.
“Combining the two issues in this way does not offer clarity of objective to justify spending public money on yet another report from outside consultants,” the Conservative councillor continues, “especially when it is so clearly the case that there is no consensus between cabinet members as to the near term future of the permanent exhibits and temporary exhibition space at the City Museum.”
Commenting on the suggestion that the Museum might ultimately be moved into Lancaster Castle, Roger feels the long term future of the City Museum in the context of the potential for changes at the castle is yet another issue, but points out “The castle is not the property of the City, and changes at the castle are no present justification for assuming that the City Museum building might cease to be used as a museum.”
“A misconceived proposal”
As for plans to extend the Museum building, local architect David Morgan gives the proposal short shrift.
“The mystic thinking of the Council has plummeted to new depths in its attempt to resolve the problem of the market, whose present demise is a direct result of their previous failings,” he feels. “This relocation proposal breaks the golden rules of retailing that you ignore at your peril.”
Mr Morgan notes several problems:
- Pedestrian access has to be an easy transition from pavement to interior and in this instance is simply not feasible
- Open sight lines to the interior are fundamental and this is not feasible with a cellular building. Any alteration to this building would decimate the interior. The present market presents a good example of how, with no control, visual chaos can ruin a building
- Goods delivery and waste could induce more large vehicles through pedestrian areas and create an ‘eye sore’ to the rear of the building.
- Any extension would present a significant challenge to an architect of national standing for it to sit in comfort on such an important site. It would mean the removal of disabled parking to facilitate.
- This is a listed building and as such should be untouchable
“We are presently witnessing the erosion of standards to our historic city and this proposal would make a significant contribution to a failed legacy,” he feels. “It is not necessary to waste more tax payers’ money on yet more consultants’ feasibility studies on a misconceived proposal.”
“David’s advice suggests to me that the idea of extending the Museum Building at the back is unlikely to be achievable,’ feels Councillor Mace, “and if achievable, is unlikely to be at acceptable cost, or suitable for the intended purpose of accommodating market traders.
“Spending more money on consultants just looks like throwing good money after bad – especially if the idea of using the Museum space to house the Market traders is basically ‘a non-starter’, which a desk-top study by officers should be enough to confirm.
“The idea of re-housing the traders somewhere may be a pre-requisite for any sort of significant renovation or improvement to the Market building – and it would in my view be essential to relocate them somewhere if the ultimate aim is to create a ‘white box’ for a single tenant. Hence the recommendations put forward to Overview and Scrutiny for consideration at the call-in.”
“A high risk adventure”
Joining the critics of the proposal is Councillor Ron Sands, whose long involvement in promoting tourism in the Lancaster area gives him a unique perspective on any changes to the Museum’s location.
“An argument that should weigh heavily with the Cabinet is one based on an analysis over many years of the respective success of the museum versus the repeated failure of the market,” he notes. “The museum has a splendid record of high achievement and strong public appreciation. The market has enjoyed neither of these valuable qualities.
“Can we afford to take on a high risk adventure on behalf of the market (with its long established failings) and simultaneously shoulder the burden of relocating the museum with all the perils and uncertainties of replicating that success in a different location?
“Year after year, the museum has consistently performed well whilst the Market has consistently floundered. The public have never convincingly demonstrated that they wish to support the Market. But they have repeatedly demonstrated their strong support and affection for the Museum.
“Why jeopardise the Museum’s success by moving it to an untried, untested and unidentified new location, in return for the dubious hope that an hitherto unregarded Market can suddenly flourish against all the evidence?”
The idea of using the historic museum as a market is completely mad. The potential damage to the museum and area around it by traffic is totally unpredictable.
Typical Tories – whipping up people's fears on something that has only been agreed to be investigated. He should read the minutes of the Cabinet meeting like I have. If you want a better Lancaster then you need a big vision. A pity the Tories have no ideas except move the market somewhere else – but won't say where. At least this idea could allow a flourishing indoor market and improve the museum where it is – as is said it the Cabinet report – read it!
As regards 'Typical Tories' – it isn't just the 'Tories' who object to the idea, it's the Friends of the Museum and other councillors. As Labour councilor Ron Sands says, there's no guarantee this scheme would work.
At this point it's hard to ignore the litany of errors as regards the Market – from the under insuring of the beautiful original which burnt down, which meant it couldn't be rebuilt to the woeful design of the current one (which idiot put the fishmongers on the south side of the building, always the warmest aspect even in Lancaster?), to the shabby treatment stall holders have had to suffer, to the reported strictures on new business moving in which mean you can't sell the same products someone else already is.
But the Council seems to simply be delaying making a final decision – perhaps what some want – by commissioning another report and consultation rather than tackling the problem head on – the huge costs of renting the building. What about asking the owners if they'd sell it and starting a public appeal for a Market Buy Out, for example?
Why is the Council expected to make repairs to 'make good' the building (there are lighting problems for example). They don't own it – surely that's the duty of the owners the Council is paying a huge amount of our money!
Why does it appear that the rent rises not been challenged?
I have a feeling that there are parties who want to see the Market gone and by delaying making decisions they have allowed the place to go to rack and ruin to the detriment of Lancaster. We still haven't seen heads roll over the 'Asco fiasco' – and no-one seems to want to take any responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs that has led to this latest situation.
A market needs:
access roads and parking bays for deliveries of stock and for maintenance workers. The museum is boxed into a pedestrian circuit with practically no vehicle access. The only parking area is a 3 space disabled parking bay at the rear – which they plan to build an extension on. So, in fact, it would have even less access than it currently has.
Also a market selling fish, meat and produce needs refrigeration, ventilation, decent plumbing and reliable drainage. The amount of infrastructural work required to provide these amenities is such that I can barely imagine a building less suited for it. You can hardly even get the maintenance vehicles in as it is.
The deal the council struck with the market building owners is so bad that everyone who was involved in agreeing it should be sacked. It is appalling that this town should be perpetually shackled into handing over massively excessive rents each year for a building that isn't fit for purpose. It's an abuse.
Have you noticed how often the council says "we're thinking about it and investigating" when they *really* mean "we've already made up our minds"?
How do the council propose to fit the market into the museum. Do they possess a top-secret shrink-ray? Surely it would require somewhere the size of the old Co-op building between Market Square and Church St, which is no longer available.
When considering whether developments in Lancaster are a good idea, I use one main criteria to make my judgement-Is Lancaster City Council involved? If the answer is yes, I fear the worst. How many years will it take to learn the lessons of past mistakes. Blobbyland, Centros,the western bypass etc. Please please keep your clumsy hands off the historic city centre that is one of our main assets.
The trouble with "keeping your hands off the historic city centre" is that the town centre is going to the dogs at the moment due to total inaction. We seem to have a raft of cheap pound and fashion shops and not much else. Everything looks run down. I don't even bother going into Lancaster centre any more because there's nothing there for me. Some sort of long term development plan is needed. Surely somebody on the council could come up with some sort of vision for a vibrant, historic, visitor-friendly town centre that could be an asset rather than the turn-off it is at the moment?
Back in 2006, the Council commissioned a report on the state of the city centre, which recommended two new food super stores for Lancaster and Morecambe, more quality shopping and careful consideration of "edge of town" retail developments are among the findings of a 106 page report on Retail Needs in the Lancaster and Morecambe area, which was updated in 2009 (see http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/planning-environment/forward-planning/local-development-framework/ldf-evidence-base/economy-and-transport-evidence/retail-monitoring/ for links.
The 2009 update appears to call for any new developments to take into account sustainable development and climate change impact, and the last Government was working on ways to support town centres. Previously, and to their credit it was Tory minister John Selwyn Gummer who called a halt to rampant out of town development which has damaged city centre retail.
The major problems for big retailers appear to be matters of infrastructure – the fact that they can't have a huge lorry deliver right to the door of their town centre business (even if that lorry just has one box in it, and we've seen Sainbury's lorries do that in the past!) means they don't see city centre shops as 'viable'. The Canal Corridor plans addressed that 'problem' by hoping to improve access – but the proposed development would also have killed the existing town centre and handed over a large art of our city into private hands in terms of guaranteed rights of way etc.
Bigger thinking is needed: creating Park and Ride could also open up the opportunity for a Lorry Park (a system used in Germany, I believe?) so large lorries could be unloaded nearer the motorway and smaller vehicles take goods on the final leg of their journey.
There's also the matter of rising rents and rates, and other costs imposed by the Council (their waste removal charges are much higher than private companies in some cases, for example). It's my understanding that charity shops don't pay a lot of these costs and landlords get rate relief, which is why there are so many of them. But those charity shops also don't pay for stock and undercut proper businesses. One charity shop manager in Lancaster took great delight in telling a new bookshop owner how his shop had put others (Atticus, for example) out of business. This seems insane to me.