REBUILDING LANCASTER AND MORECAMBE: CLONE TOWN BRITAIN?
Story first posted: 27/6/02. Updated 19/5/06
Written by John Freeman. Photos: John Freeman
Please note: while this feature is regularly revised, some external links may have changed. Please let me know if you find broken links!

JUMP SRIAGHT TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STORIES ON THIS SITE:
ON THIS PAGE: LANCASTER
• Lancaster Canal Corridor • Kingsway • Recent Development History

MORECAMBE
See: Morecambe's West End "Degeneration"

An indicative sketch illustrating how the Stonewell entranceway to the new £100 million development planned by Centros Miller for Lancaster's canal corridor area might look. Click on the image for a larger picture, or click here. Current businesses, including the Stonewell Post Office would be relocated. Opponents claim such a development would destroy Lancaster town centre.

Click the image or here for a larger version of this graphic outining Centros Miller's initial ideas for the Canal Corridor area, published in February 2006. The larger image will open in a new window. Click here for some of your vierws on the plans. This will also open in a new window.

Lancaster's streets and unique appeal, which has made it so attractive to many people down the years, is again under attack, part of the seemingly relentless "big box" development that has transformed almost every British town into mirror images of each other, where high rates and bad planning decisions leave city centres with nothing but big chain stores and high street names you can find anywhere, at the expense of independent local retailers and services.

There has always been development in Lancaster, but ever since the old Victorian market burnt down in the 1980s (see separate feature), one council administration after another seems to have pushed through development plans which have slowly destroyed Lancaster's heritage. As "regeneration" fever hits Morecambe, it seems similar mistakes might soon be made there, too.

This page seeks to outline the current state of play of various city centre developments and some of the history behind them. Corrections, additions and comments are always welcome.

LANCASTER CANAL CORRIDOR
13/5/06: Centros Miller unveiled its initial plans for the Canal Corridor, which include shops, a department store and some green space. The Musicians Co-op would have its own new building and both the Dukes and the Grand could see additional features. A multi-storey car park is also part of the scheme.

Local campaign group It's Our City is worried at the affect the plans will have on local residents, which include a multi-storey car park to replace current provision on Edward Street, advocating research into Park and Ride. On 11 May, they presented a letter to Council leader Ian Barker identifying several areas of concern, which we reprint here in full:

Traffic: Will the new development cause more traffic chaos in Lancaster?

• It’s Our City are concerned about the impact of the new development bringing more traffic into Lancaster. This will add to the current congestion problems, in particular on Bulk Rd, Caton Rd and Ullswater Rd. How do the Council and Centros Miller plan to deal with this problem?
• It’s Our City would also like to see the justification for proposing a new multi-storey car park rather than a Park and Ride.

Physical Design: Will the development ruin the existing city centre?

• It’s Our City would like further details of the height of the new development and the effect on the skyline and views of the city.
• It’s Our City feel that the green space is far too small and that the current plans display an unimaginative approach to the inclusion of public space.  
• It’s Our City is requesting future public rights of access, public accountability and ownership within the development as they do not want the whole area to become privately owned and controlled.
• It’s Our City would like to know why the proposed new bridges over Stonewell and the canal are necessary.
• It’s Our City are also concerned about the potential release of buried contaminants from the site during the construction process.
  

Economic Impact: One in five local shops are empty, so do we need any more?

• It’s Our City are concerned that this development will attract trade away from the existing city centre, and that this will have a negative impact on local retailers, resulting in more empty shops in Lancaster. Despite the recent report that one in five shops in Lancaster are empty, Centros Miller has claimed that the number of empty shops will not increase. What evidence does Centros Miller have to support their bold assertion?
• Centros Miller has also claimed that development will bring new shoppers to the city. It’s Our City would like further details on who these shoppers are and where they will come from.

Public Participation: Why don’t the plans reflect what local people want?

• To date, the City Council and Centros Miller’s consultation has been inadequate for a development which will radically alter the heart of Lancaster for decades to come. It’s Our City feel that the City Council must guarantee a full and unbiased consultation in order to achieve genuine public participation in the planning of this development.

"People are worried that these plans have not been properly thought through and that the impact on local businesses, residents and traffic will be huge," feels local resident Carol Gale. "The City Council and Centros Miller have a duty to ensure they do not destroy the heart of Lancaster.”

“When people were consulted two years ago they said that they wanted housing, green space and a cultural quarter, and that any shops should complement existing retail in Lancaster, not compete with it," adds local man Billy Pye. "Instead, Centros Miller proposes to build a huge shopping centre and a multi-storey car park. Why don’t they build a Park and Ride? The proposed green space is tiny and there is no extra space for cultural activities”.

"The main issue that 'It's our City' has identified-- the concern about traffic -- will be the major subject in this next round of consultation," Centrps Miller's Associate Director, David Lewis responds, "and also much further consultation in the months leading up to the planning application.

" Other fears they are raising -- including aspects of the actual design and their worries about the impact of the development-- are simply premature at the moment as we are still only at the masterplanning stage of this project. Therefore speculation about such issues at present is unnecessarily negative and really only serves to raise some quite unfounded fears in the minds of the public.

"In the next few months, we expect to start all the detailed design work with the aim of submitting a planning application early in 2007. That process will involve at least another six months of consultation and a huge amount of work on the economic, transport and environmental aspects of the development. This will all be part of the public planning process during which we aim to fully engage in discussions with the public - so 'It's Our City' really has nothing to fear about there not being enough consultation." (You can read a full response to It's Our City's objections from Centros Miller here - PDF format document)

The Lancaster Guardian (24/2/06) reported that the plans had the support of Alan Young, postmaster of the Stonewell Post Office (which would be demolished and relocated); and an "anonymous" group of tennants also said they supported the scheme.

Once again, despite clear and easily accessed opponents to the scheme in its outline form, the Guardian chose not to include any dissenting voices in its coverage of reaction to the plans, although it did publish a letter from Lancaster resident James Wood expressing conern at the unelected nature of developers.

20/12/05: Lancaster City Council announced Centros Miller had been selected by the Council as preferred developer for the 10-acre (4-hectare) Canal Corridor North site in April 2005 (see CM's April press release), which is principally owned by the council and Mitchell's Brewery. A consultation about the project began in December 2005. In February, the company published its initial ideas for the site (see story).

Centros Miller have opened a web site, Castle View (www.castle-view.info), which they intend to be a reliable up-to-date source of information on Lancaster's Canalside project.

You can also contact Centros Miller to give your views or suggestions in three ways.By email: comment@castle-view.info; by telephone: 01242 256805; or Freepost: Halogen, Freepost, 227 London Road, Cheltenham GL52 6BR.

The proposed mixed-use development is intended to extend the city’s retail and leisure amenities. A new Debenhams department store is likely to be part of the proposals. The City Council is currently (as of late 2005) undertaking a study to asses the need for further retail space

The plans will mean businesses on Alfred Street will have to be relocated, as will community facillities such as the Musicians' Co-op.

Council leader Ian Barker has described the Musicians' Co-op as a "a valuable resource. That's why we want to incorporate it in any development plans."

In May 2006 local organisation SCN Consulting reported some one in five local shops were empty, costing, the grop estimates, over £1million in lost business rates last year.

"The council want to oversee a major new development of the city centre here in Lancaster, but these findings raise major questions," feels Dr Joel Harman, who carried out the research in Lancaster. "The council will need to take a good hard look at the impact of the plans before giving the go ahead.
"The number of empty properties is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed. Nothing short of well thought out economic policies to support local businesses will stop Lancaster becoming yet another identi-kit clone town."

Some of Centros Miller's developments in other towns have caused much controversy, mirroring concerns that are beginning to be raised in Lancaster. In Bury St. Edmunds, Centros Miller employed media consultants Halogen, a public relations company, and successfully convinced the local press to argue for their vision for the future of Bury St Edmunds and promote plans (read a February 2005 CM press release outlining those plans here) for their re-development of the Cattlemarket, which have now received planning permission from the local council.

Opponents of the plans in Bury St. Edmunds say the proposals will fundamentally ruin the character and lay-out of the town (Read Virtual-Lancaster's November 2005 news story), and the plans were rejected by the public on a number of occasions.

Centros Miller have responded to these claims. Steve Bryson, who works for Halogen, CM's PR company, told Virtual-Lancaster: "In Bury St Edmunds, we organised four stages of consultation for Centros Miller over a four year period -- using everything from workshops with local interest groups, focus groups drawn from the general public (via random selection from the electoral roll) and from schools, public exhibitions, email, telephone and Freepost feedback and a specially commissioned scientifically representative opinion poll of local people by NOP World.

"Good communication was also essential and throughout we sought wide-ranging publicity via the local media as well as producing household leaflet drops, 4-page advertorial wraps (around the local freesheets), posters on site and a comprehensive project website to explain the scheme and how public feedback was being used to good effect. Full reports of the consultation were also made public at each stage and were submitted to the council as ancillary documentation in support of the planning application. And Centros Miller’s open approach to consultation on this project was even endorsed by the Government watchdog CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment).

"Obviously, appreciation of development and architectural design is very subjective and no matter how hard you try, there will usually be some people who will never be happy with development proposals. You are of course already aware of the “Knights of St Edmund” cult. This recent anti-development and somewhat occult campaign has been dreamt up by a small number of people in the town who, having not participated in any of the public consultation, have decided nevertheless to issue a curse wishing harm on all of us who are involved with the project." Steve describes the Knights campaign as "strewn with factual errors, misrepresentations and libels".

"Despite this curse, we all remain very well and Centros Miller has since gone on to win an industry “Gold Award” for its development in Boston, Lincolnshire (where it moved a listed medieval building some 30 metres and restored it for continuing use). We are of course ignoring the curse (though it still takes up some of my time responding to media inquiries), while at the same time working very closely with the council in Bury St Edmunds on a joint communications plan aimed at explaining everything to visitors once construction work starts in autumn next year.

"As a part of this pre-construction activity, we are currently producing a website promoting the whole town centre. While unfinished at present, you may be interested in taking a look at this: www.moreheart.info."

The Canal Corridor Plans
You can find out more about the current plans for the Canal Corridor on the City Council's web site (PDF documents):
• The Canal Corridor North Brief
• The Canal Corridor South Brief

KINGSWAY

Bridge House, part of the area being considered for redevelopment. Bridge House is not under threat of demolition as far as we are aware.

Kingsway Baths - to be redeveloped by the Council in association with Liberty and Crosby.

Lancaster Musicians' Co-op: under threat

The old Kenneth Gardner warehouse -- one eyesore that needs dealing with. But how?

Last updated 26/2/06: Work to redevelop the Kingsway Baths site in Lancaster -- the final development will include new shops and a tower block of flats -- began in January 2005.

PC World was one of the first stores to open on the new development, a 65,000 sqft unit. A Pizza Hut resatuarant is also part of the new development, which will open in early 2006.

Work has yet to begin on the block of flats planned for the development.

Although Labour Bulk Ward councillors -- including Council leader Ian Barker -- previously voiced concerns at some aspects of the development, the plans could not be changed because the deal had already been done before the current council came to power.

Owners Liberty Properties plc were granted planning permission for the construction of a 75,000 sqft mixed residential and retail scheme, costing over £1 million regeneration of the former bridge houses and baths. The residential element will be carried out in conjunction with a residential partner.

• City Council Kingsway Development Brief (PDF)

LANCASTER'S RECENT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Updated 26/2/06: After the battle to stop Carillion-Chelverton from building a huge supermarket on Bulk Road, the local Green Party revealed in December 2003 that it had serious concerns about the development plans submitted by Liberty Properties for the old bus station and swimming baths site at Kingsway, Lancaster. Members called for the planning decision on the former Kingsway Baths site to be deferred from late January in order to allow for effective public consultation on the plans. However, that development is now on course for completion (see above).

Local Labour councillors also voiced concerns about the plans but outline permission was granted to Liberty because the current council elected in May 2004 found it had to honour agreements made with Liberty by the previous council, run by the Morecvambe Bay Independents.

The plans for the site involve a new 10-storey tower block of flats, destroying fine views of Lancaster. Hundreds of car parking places are also part of Liberty's design that many local residents felt could have instead provided much needed green space, play space and space for young people. (Read the Green Party's objections to the plans here)

In December 2002, Lancaster City Council joined local residents in massive opposition to a quite separate plan from developers Carillion-Chelverton for a new supermarket off Bulk Road and canal side link road through Lancaster, which, it was argued, would effectively cut the town in two.

The council's opposition to the plans for a massive "big box" retail scheme in the Bulk area of Lancaster had it was hoped signalled an end to that kind proposed development in favour of a mixed retail and leisure scheme. It would appear that many of Centros Miller's current plans echo those of Chelverton, rejected in a public surevy carried out by Real Planning in 2003 (read the results of that survey here, PDF format).

The Carillion "Big Box" Plan
Local residents spoke out to protest at development group Carillion's plans for Kingsway, Bulk Road and Mitchells Brewery at a public meeting organised by Hilton Dawson MP on 26 September 2002. Subesequent protest saw Carillion put all their plans on the back burner.

At the 2002 meeting local ward councillor Ian Barker -- now leader of the current City Council -- condemned Chelverton's plans for a new supermarket on Caton Road and link road. "It will ruin the city centre," he decried, fearing some councillors were seeking to overturn a recently-agreed strategy for urban renewal, which includes a new Arts Quarter for the city. "This is a development totally without soul or respect for the city."

Green councillor Gina Dowding urged concerned residents to write to both City Cabinet and Planning members to ask them to support the adopted City Centre Strategy calling for housing and "Arts Quarter" development.

Carillion (previously using their company CR Chelverton) revealed their £40 million proposals for a new supermarket and other developments for Lancaster earlier in 2002. The plans, announced at a packed meeting of Lancaster Chamber of Commerce in June 2002, proposed a new supermarket on land owned by Chelverton on the Kingsway site and the relocation of the Sunlight Laundry; and further retail and leisure developments on the old Mitchells Brewery site.

The proposals affected Kingsway and land between Moor Lane, Alfred Street and St Leonardgate.

The proposal, fronted by Carillion following Chelverton's finanicial difficulties (see right column), also included a new version of the controversial inner city relief road plan -- once known as the Eastern Relief Road -- which Carillion believed would improve traffic flow. The building of such a road was dependent on a high income retail development CRC says only a major new food store could provide.

The supermarket interested in the proposal was not named, but was belived to have been Tesco.

If accepted, the plans would have seen the building of a 63,000 square foot store with under-store car parking provision for some 420-plus short stay spaces. It was expected such a store would generate about £50 million a year and create something in the region of 200 full-time jobs. 25 per cent of the store would be devoted to non-food goods.

The plans proposed suggested that the supermarket would be fronted by some residential development along Parliament Street together with single floor retail units. The Tandoori restaurant, which is a listed building, would have been retained. New houses would also be built on Gladstone Terrace, on the old K-Shoes site.

As part of Carillion's grand plan, the Mitchells site would have featured a combination of large-scale retail units and leisure development, and some accommodation. (These ideas also feature in the Centros Miller plans). The location of the Grand and Dukes theatres mean a major supermarket could not be built on this site.

As of December 2003, Carillion owned the old Crown Inn, the Nether Lune Works opposite Gladstone Terrace, Falcon and Earnshaws and had "options to buy" on the Mitchells Brewery site, the Spiritualist Church and the Sowerby familly's garage and land.

"The whole approach is to show we can develop a complementary scheme with Liberty," claimed Simon Morgan, CRC's UK Development Director, who in June 2002 was also keen to emphasise that all proposals were at a very early stage and discussion was very welcome. "We believe there's a need for another quality food store -- not only a need, but also one that's more accessible."

According to Carillion, most cities of Lancaster's size now have three major supermarkets and it's believed that the plans, which aimed to improve city access with the relief road, would also prevent what planners call 'leakage' -- shoppers going elsewhere for their needs, not just food. Centros Miller have also voiced concern about 'leakage' to Preston and Manchester. Their research and surveys of local residents indicated many people travel south for non-food shopping.

CRC claimed the development would benefit all retail businesses in Lancaster, not just those on their development sites. Based on their own research, they said they were"astonished" by just how many consumers go to Kendal or Preston rather than shop in Lancaster. They said south Lancaster residents often felt they didn't have good access to the city.

Morgan told Virtual-Lancaster.net in June 20002 that any plan for the building of an inner city relief road -- considered vital if the supermarket is built -- would include provision for pedestrian crossings in an effort to make it fully "permeable" -- a major cause for concern in the past from local opponents to the 1980s Eastern Relief Road proposals.

Building new roads to facilitate a supermarket has of course happened elsewhere in the UK on many occasions. (Putting large scale developments in the wrong place that only cars can get to is one reason our roads have become so crowded). In December 2002 SchNews reported that Brighton Council had approved the controversial development of the old Brighton Station goods yard site. The scheme includes just what Brighton did not need more of - two posh Hotels and a Sainsbury's supermarket.

The only reason the Brighton schemewent ahead is because Sainsbury's agreed to fund "infrastructure improvements" (i.e. roads) which will increase traffic in an already congested area. The new Brighton Sainsbury's is nearly twice the size of its current store in London Road, and despite the council planning department saying, "There is no quantitative need for additional food retail in the area", they decided to give it the go-ahead anyway.

Carillion claimed it recognised that a new supermarket would cause major problems for the existing road system on Caton Road and through Lancaster. Building a new road is an expensive option but planning regulations mean that traffic solutions are a necessity to counter an increase in traffic when the developments open. "The food store has to be big to justify the development cost," said Morgan.

Individual Chamber of Commerce members seemed supportive of a link road plan at the time, but called for any relief road, which would run across the council-owned car parks, roughly in parallel with Lancaster's canal, to be two way.

Another claimed aim of the road improvement was that it would reduce inner city traffic in places such as Dalton Square and accelerate pedestrianization plans. In 2002, there was a reservation on land beside the now completed Crosby Homes development near the Town Hall, which means a relief road could still be built through Lancaster.

"We believe there's a need for another quality food store in Lancaster," said Simon Morgan, CRC's UK Development Director. "Not only a need, but one that's more accessible."

Morgan believed the scheme would also benefit local businesses by providing a major retail draw -- a claim made by many major supermarkets when justifying their planning applications. "A food store reinforces other retail and bolsters the city, bringing more business in," he claimed.

In actual fact, major supermarket developments ultimately only benefit that supermarket, to the detriment of local businesses, as most recently evidenced by Tesco's antics in 2004 in Withernsea, Yorkshire, when the company's arrival was followed by a determined effort to undermine local supermarket, Proudfoots. The Guardian reported (6/1/05, registration required) how Tescos poached staff and then mailed money-off vouchers offering an £8 discount on a spend of £20 to 6,000 local households; that equates to a saving of 40%, unheard of in the supermarket game. (Tesco turns just 3.5p in every pound into profit; offering 40% off was a guaranteed way to lose money). This tactic saw Proudfoot's takings drop 35% below their pre-Tesco levels, threatening the store's viability.

Local business reaction to Carillion's plans was mixed. "It's a clever proposal," commented Jerry North, Retail Chair of the Chamber of Commerce, who also runs the St. Nicholas Arcades shopping complex. "I can guarantee people will be talking about it." They certainly were.

The local Green Party imediately urged the Council to save the local Musician's Co-op from destruction. Read the initial story: that campaign, taken up by musicians across the country who had benefited down the years from the Co-op's facilities, seems to have saved it from extinction. Friends of the Co-op have express their opinions on the situation on its own web site here, and on the Virtual-Lancaster site.

Since initial concernes were raised the City Council wrote to the Co-op indicating it had no immediate plans to force the closure of the community amenity, which has seen numerous bands go through its doors and on to national fame. However, they are unable to assure the Co-op the amenity might not be relocated in the future.

STICK TO YOU GUNS!
Lancaster City Council was urged to stick to its guns and proceed with its Local Plan when dealing with proposals from C R Chelverton and on 11 December 2000 voted overwhelmingly against selling council property for "big box" reatil development. (See story)

Labour councillor Ian Barker, who represents Bulk ward and is now Council leader, the area most affected was among those who urged the Council to resist the proposals. In a letter at the end of July to council cabinet member James Airey, Councillor Barker identified eight major departures from the Local Plan and its associated development briefs.

"The Council has just adopted an interim Local Plan after public consultation and a major public inquiry," said Coun Barker. "The C R Chelverton proposals would throw that Plan in the dustbin.

"I think their proposals would be bad for residents, bad for the environment and bad for the established traders in the City Centre. The Council should stick to its Plan and not roll over when developers come offering wads of cash for Council land."

Councillor Barker said he believed the proposals for a new relief road were much worse than previous proposals for an Eastern Relief Road in the 1980s. Carillion's proposals would have taken traffic right past people's front doors in St Leonard's Court and Alfred Street.

"The Local Plan quite rightly deleted the old proposals for an Eastern Relief Road, " said Ian. "The arguments for a relief road were tested at the public inquiry and found wanting. Such a road would sever pedestrian routes to Freehold; it would cut off residential areas from the town centre.

"What is needed is a short stretch of road to improve access the car parks and nothing more. Beyond that we must improve public transport, introduce park and ride and bus priority."

KEEP IT MIXED
Coun Barker added that the plans for development on the Mitchell's Brewery site ran totally contrary to the planning brief.

"What the Council has asked for is a mixed development of a new "Brewery Quarter" including residential, commercial, cultural and open space uses. Particularly exciting were plans to develop the region between the Dukes and the Grand as a cultural quarter. Instead, C R Chelverton are offering an agglomeration of 'big box' retail units.

"It is hard to see something less in keeping with the vision on which the Council consulted the public."

Councillor Barker also said that he feared the scale of the C R Chelverton proposals would impact unfavourably on City Centre businesses.

"We do need more shops to add to the retail vitality of the City. But we must be careful not to add so much retail capacity that the City Centre is hollowed out by new developments. The Council's own retail consultants identified a need for more capacity for bulky goods on the edge of the centre. They did not think there was capacity for another huge food store.

"That is of course precisely what C R Chelverton are proposing.

"These proposals are a try-on. They have nothing to do with good planning. They must be resisted."

Since Coun Barker made these comments the Real Planning for Lancaster group conducted a survey of residents (in 2003 - the copy hosted on this site as a PDF) and created an alternative proposal for the canal corridor area that includes work shops for local businesses, affordable but quality homes, preferably with gardens so people are encouraged to spend time outdoors looking after the local environment. A copy of that surevy was presented to Centros Miller during their round of talks to residents and "stakeholders" who would be affected by their plans in February 2006.

What do YOU think about the Centros Miller proposal? E-mail us your views at john@virtual-lancaster.net

Web Links

• • Castle View
Centros Miller's web site about Lancaster's Canal Corridor development. As of March 2006, includes everything shown during the company's last round of consultation meetings. They will also add more information to this site as it becomes available – including the minutes of the various workshops the team is having with the various council officers.

• Clone Town Britain (PDF)
The New Economics Foundation's fascinating insight into the way Biritsh cities have all turned into the same place...

• Supermarkets to carve up high street
Sunday Times, 19/2/06:
Britain's leading supermarkets are preparing a new wave of expansion from their out-of-town bases into the high street in defiance of MPs’ warnings that their growth is destroying the fabric of local communities.