The Inquiry into the Centros plans for Lancaster’s Canal Corridor closed last week with a final decision on the proposals due in the next few months.
Most of the Inquiry time in the final week was taken up by personal statements from members of the public and from local councillors arguing against the plans.
Reflecting the level of interest in the proposed development, the City Council details over 70 people who had their say, with 66 members of the public made personal statements against the plans eight Green Party councillors either spoke in person or submitted written statements also against the plans.
Just one member of the public spoke in favour of the plans and, despite the Council’s overall support for the scheme, no councillors from any other political party took advantage of the opportunity to speak in favour.
Councillor John Whitelegg, who represents Bulk Ward which will be primarily affected by the development if it goes ahead, spoke about his disappointment that the whole plan was imposed by the council. He was also concerned that Centros with no attempt to involve the public in a thorough participative exercise to develop their own ideas for this part of the Bulk Ward.
He also referred to the irresponsible behaviour of the city council in promoting a development that made air quality worse when as a council it had, in his opinion, done little to deliver our statutory duty to improve air quality.
(Last week, research being carried out by Prof Barbara Maher of Lancaster University into current pollution levels in the city has revealed the alarming extent to which people are already being exposed to lead pollution from vehicles. Acknowledging concerns, backed by its own monitoring station, the city council says that over the next two years, with the help of the Energy Saving Trust, it would implement a climate change action plan. View its Air Quality and Pollution page here).
Councillor Maia Whitelegg emphasised her concerns for children and the need to protect children in Bulk Ward from additional traffic danger in line with the “Every Child Matters” agenda.
County Councillor Sam Riches said she was deeply concerned about the proposed demolition of so many historic buildings, especially in view of the designation of conservation areas in the vicinity. She argued the loss of buildings in Stonewell in particular would do irreparable damage to a street plan and its associated elements, including vistas from further afield, which have taken centuries to develop. Lancaster is incredibly lucky to have such a complex built heritage, and whilst a number of the buildings in the Canal Corridor area are clearly in a poor state, it would be completely iniquitous to destroy them in order to develop the site.
Councillor Jude Towers raised several concerns about the proposed development, including the accelerating trend in developments of this type to remove public space into the hands of private developers, giving them the freedom to impose rules and regulations on that once publically owned space as they see fit.
“The Inquiry was a huge success in that all the objectors were able to present detailed, robust evidence as to why this development should not proceed,” said Councillor John Whitelegg, reflecting on the whole three-week Inquiry.
“Day after day at the Inquiry showed that the Council’s case was weak and incomplete and that its defence of this damaging development was based on poor judgement, poor data, a poor understanding of planning policy and a disregard for historic buildings.
“The high point was undoubtedly the unprecedented amount of public involvement in the final week and the passionate arguments made in favour of an alternative to Centros that would enhance Lancaster’s special character and sense of place rather than producing more traffic, pollution and boarded up shops in the city centre.”