Tithebarn plans are lacklustre (From Preston and Leyland Citizen)

Tithebarn plans are lacklustre

4:18pm Friday 12th December 2008

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)

Regarding Planning Application 06/2008/0750 Tithebarn Project Preston, South Ribble Civic Trust would like to make these observations on the Tithebarn planning application.

We’re concerned about the security, servicing and maintenance of the proposed public areas of the Tithebarn Project. How will the streets be policed? The Tithebarn area is bisected by the notoriously disreputable Church Street.

It is inevitable that anti-social behaviour may spill over, especially if the Project offers more places for drinking alcohol.

The chief executive of Preston City Council, Mr Carr, wrote a letter to the Lancashire Evening Post saying that the developer’s security staff will not patrol the public spaces.

However, in the larger Liverpool One, Grosvenor-managed development, private security staff patrol the public areas. What will be the arrangements for Tithebarn?

Our concern is reinforced by the lack of a published draft Public Realm Agreement between the developers and the Council, included with the planning applications. We feel this should be published on the City Council’s web site, after a period of public consultation.

We oppose any extinguishing of our ancient public rights of way, some of which date back many centuries.

By seeking to remove rights of way in a proposed PRA, the Council and developers may limit our civic rights of access, assembly and religious and political expression, which are guaranteed us, as citizens of the European Union, under Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The City Council is no longer the Highway Authority for Preston. These powers reverted to the Lancashire County Council recently. Any plans to extinguish Public Rights of Way will need to be agreed with the County Council before the applications are submitted to the High Court.

Who will be responsible for cleaning and maintaining the public areas? Remember the City Council isn’t the Highways Authority. Will there be published maintenance quality standards? Who will pay for these services? Will they be charged to our Council Taxes or will the developers contribute and by how much?

Will photography, without permission, be banned in the PRA area? Will cycling, skateboarding and roller blading be allowed in the PRA area? Will exercising dogs and other pets be banned?

For how many years will the PRA be agreed? What mechanisms will there be to alter the PRA?

Design quality Although we appreciate that the digital sketches used in the PTP publicity are indicative and that that design details haven’t been decided yet, we are disappointed by the lacklustre quality of the designs shown in the sketches. The unimaginative and mechanical-looking 1990s “developers’ vernacular” style which has swamped parts of other cities seems to be on its way to central Preston.

We are dismayed by images of canyons of seven storey apartment blocks finished in grey cladding and other weary 1990s clichés.

It’s even more painful when we consider the noble quality of the adjacent Longridge stone Harris Museum, Town Hall, Sessions House and former Police Court in Lancaster Road as well as the dignified classical terraces in the same road.

There seems to be little recognition of the historic architectural context of the Project area except for some reluctant token conservation of listed buildings and the Old Dog public house.

The TPT should visit Lancaster or Carlisle to see how it can be done properly. Please would someone in the design office read Gordon Cullen’s The concise townscape book [Architectural Press, 1961: £22.99].

A basic design fault is that the Liverpool Street axis lies east-west along the direction of the prevailing wind, from the Irish Sea, in Preston. A tall, high density layout will funnel wind and rain into John Lewis’s.

If sympathetic and contextual architecture is impossible then let us have a striking landmark building of international quality by a reputable architect. We are to loose one of the very best modern buildings of the 1970s, recognised as such by English Heritage, when the Bus Station is demolished so let its replacement be of equal quality.

We would like to see avenues of trees and green space. Grosvenor conceded green space at Liverpool One, following the destruction of Chevasse Park, so why not in Preston? We suggest that there’s a public competition for a quality public area hardscaping scheme such as Martha Schwartz’s or Tado Andau’s designs in Manchester. Perhaps Cooper Partnership’s ill-conceived scheme for Winckley Square would work better in the Tithebarn area? We would like fountains and tranquil spaces.

We would also like to see some popular public art. Copenhagen has its charming mermaid; Blackburn enjoys its hurrying grandmother and child; Preston should have a figurative statue of, say, a ‘Lancashire Lass’ celebrating the enormous contribution of the city’s women textile workers in the past and today in jeans sewing workshops. A popular statue like this could become an ‘iconic’ image for the Project.

We don’t actually mind some abstract public art but we know the refined tastes of the city’s arterati too well.

A clock tower or similar vertical feature would work well and would be a symbolic echo of the much missed Town Hall clock tower.

A public art work celebrating the city’s engineering, especially aerospace, heritage would be popular too, we feel.

Conservation of historic buildings Listed buildings in the PTP area are rightly to be retained. We feel the 1960s-style comprehensive redevelopment approach goes too far when it means the demolition of the ancient Black-a-Moor’s Head pub, an important part of the city’s Black History dating from the time when Arabs and Moors were feared but respected allies or enemies of England.

At a time when diversity is being encouraged it seems singularly insensitive to destroy such a historically important building. It could easily be retained as a corner feature in the extended Liverpool Street; demolition would be gratuitiously clumsy.

It’s also ironic that the Tithebarn pub, after which the scheme is named, is to be demolished. Since the listed warehouse next door must be conserved, it should surely be straightforward to also include the Tithebarn pub in the proposed olde worlde square being planned.

The Old Dog on Church Street is to be retained so why not a renovated Tithebarn pub too.

The demolition of the charming art deco Lancastria House is to be regretted. Again we feel this is unnecessary and fails to recognise the national importance of the architect WA Johnson whose Co-op store in Bradford is rightly listed Grade 2.

Once again, Preston City planners reveal their lack of sympathy for good quality twentieth century architecture.

Like the majority of Prestonians who have been surveyed or expressed their views, we mourn the wilful and wholly unnecessary destruction of our fine Bus Station. Its loss will be regretted for decades and its demolition will haunt the Tithebarn Project and its schemers. The people of Preston do not forget.

We object to the demolition of perfectly good flats in Carlisle Street simply because the designers are reluctant to accommodate the flats in the plans.

We welcome plans to emphasise the importance of Preston’s ancient markets. We hope that plans to transfer the market to a renovated Outdoor Market Hall will not sterilise the liveliness and character of our markets especially if stall holders’ rents are increased and their tenancies are tightened.

The reconstruction of Bolton market hall resulted in a timid parody of a market; this mustn’t happen in Preston. It is important that the ancient Charter Market Rights of Preston are respected. They date back to 1127 and some of them are still in force.

We would like to see our markets developed to emphasise Preston’s local distinctiveness and especially its central place in the Lancashire agricultural and food economy. We want to be able to buy locally sourced foods. We welcome the promotion of farmers’ markets and outdoor street stalls. We regret the over-tidy sweeping away of the Used Goods Market which we suspect is caused by control-freakery, middle class distaste and the desire to maximise rental revenues.

There are lots of poor people in Preston and they depend on cheap, second hand goods sold in the market, especially childrens’ toys at Christmas time. But, of course, they bring little revenue to property developers. This is another example of Tithebarn’s reinforcing social inequalities.

Toilets and public comfort Like many UK local authorities, Preston City Council has neglected its public toilets although some recent renovations are welcome. This shabby practice must not continue into the Tithebarn area. We would like to see clean and well-maintained toilets and comfort facilities. We recommend that a Local Toilet Agreement, like the one negotiated with local traders in Richmond, should be considered. We also draw your attention to the McClean chain of commercially-operated toilets in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe. See www.mcclean.ch for details. It’s time we had something like McClean toilets in the UK; why not start in Preston?

Carbon footprint and environmental issues PTP seems to be rather quiet about its carbon footprint. Creating a retail destination which will attract many thousands of cars seems to be environmentally short-sighted (assuming the drivers can afford the fuel). What plans are there to deal with CO2 emissions? Will Tithebarn be carbon neutral or even aspire to this? Schemes like the Trafford Centre and Bluewater, attracting millions of car miles using cheap energy, now seem to be symbols of ‘grey’ 1990s dinosaur economics. Will Tithebarn be another ‘grey’ Project? What plans are there for energy conservation, rainwater harvesting, renewable energy sources?

Transport and traffic We’re unhappy with the planned location of the small new bus station in Church Street, a most unattractive location for elderly and female pedestrians especially.

Safety and security are real issues for public transport users trekking down to the new bus station and they must be addressed properly.

The plans to send buses through the PTP area, with stops near John Lewis’s, are welcome. We suspect that the Lewis’s stops will be the new de facto bus station [like the present Black Bull on Friargate or Waterstone’s on Fishergate] and it’s important that shelters are plentiful, convenient and well-maintained. Lancashire County Council is responsible for bus shelters so they need to be consulted. We want quality bus shelters conforming to DDA standards. A special bus shelter area, outside John Lewis’s, similar to Peter Eisenman’s 1996 shelter in Aachen, Germany, should be included. The Tithebarn area seems to relate uneasily with its surrounding districts. It’s an island surrounded by some of the poorest wards in Lancashire. Thousands of low-income families live within short walking distance.

The glossy PTP displays seem to be unaware of, say, a mother with her child’s buggy trudging across the ghastly Ring Way to Kwiksave or Wilkinson’s. The poor are invisible in Tithebarn. What plans are there to create attractive walking routes across the PTP area to Deepdale, Avenham and other inner-city wards?

Cycle routes along Lancaster Road are welcome but what about east-west cycle paths? We agree with Sustrans that an east-west cycle route across the Tithebarn site is needed. Will cycling be banned in the PRA area? We welcome extra parking provision for cyclists if it is secure and well-lit.

More Park + Ride services are needed if Tithebarn attracts regional shoppers. Park + Ride buses should access the bus spine road through the PTP zone. We doubt very much that Network Rail would allocate paths on the very busy West Coast Main Line to allow a service of driverless pods on the freight railway line from Riversway.

Sustainability We have doubts about the sustainability of the Tithebarn project as it’s planned now. Like many 1990s shopping centre schemes, such as Bluewater and the Trafford Centre, it’s predicated on cheap credit and cheap energy. We’re moving rapidly into a major recession and credit is tightening globally as the over-stretched US economy counts its chickens. The boom in property is over and house prices and construction are declining. Apartments – often buy-to-let ones - are increasingly difficult to sell. Some developers are off-loading their unsaleable portfolios to social housing trusts. Banks and building societies are wary of offering mortgages for buy-to-let properties. It would be ironic if Tithebarn apartments eventually were rented as social housing.

The age of cheap oil is over. Although the recession has lowered the price of oil this is not likely to last in the long term. We can expect a sharp rise in motoring, energy and other costs. Real disposable incomes are likely to decline or, at least, stagnate.How may this affect a scheme based on attracting and increasing car traffic? Are the long-term economics of Tithebarn realistic for the 21st century?

Community resources Where are the children’s play areas, climbing frames, swimming pool, community centre, arts centre and mosque? Inevitably the residents of the apartments will have families. Where’s the nearest primary school? Where’s the doctor’s surgery or health centre? Will there be a police station too? What happened to the plans for a new city central library? Are most of the profits to be exported to global property companies and retailers? Even the car boot market will be closed down. What practical community benefits will Tithebarn bring for ordinary local citizens, especially the many low-income families who just can’t afford to shop at John Lewis’s?

Aidan Turner-Bishop Chair: Preston & South Ribble Civic Trust

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)