1. Introductory Matters

1.1.This position statement explains why it is that the City Council, having presented the majority of its evidence to this inquiry have decided to play no further active part in it.

1.2.The Inquiry is fully aware that it is exceptionally unusual for an Applicant for a major scheme which has been supported by the local planning authority and has been called in by the Secretary of State to nonetheless decide not to play any active part in the inquiry.

1.3 That decision has deprived the inquiry of properly investigating the Applicant's case, and has left the local planning authority in an invidious position in presenting its case in support of the proposed development.

1.4 As the evidence has been considered as part of the inquiry process it has become increasingly apparent that there are a series of issues which are problematic, and which in the absence of the Applicant the local planning authority is unable to address. It has also come to light that in certain respects the expectations of the local planning authority as to what had been discussed by the Applicant and other statutory consultees did not include certain matters which are properly considered to be fundamental to the consideration of the application.

1.5 However it is crucially important to note that the local planning authority remains firmly committed to the redevelopment of the CCN site which is fundamental to the regeneration of the City and the delivery of policies in the North West Regional Spatial Strategy and the Lancaster Core Strategy, both of which strongly endorse the growth of Lancaster as a retail destination.

2. The Principle of Development

2.1 The City Council has spent the last 5 years in exhaustive efforts to identify how a major retail led regeneration of the City Centre can be achieved on the CCN site. This has involved hundreds of man hours of officer time as well as the commitment of statutory consultees.

2.2 At the time that the application was considered by committee over two days the City Council was satisfied, on the information then available to it, that the scheme was one that should be firmly supported.

2.3 It remains the City Council's position that it strongly supports the sort of major retail led development that this Application will provide, and it regrets that whilst it has presented a case in support of that principle at the inquiry, that the Applicant has chosen not to show the same level of commitment.

2.4 It is to be noted that the principle of a major retail-led redevelopment of this part of the City is endorsed by all of the major parties at this inquiry. Were such a redevelopment not to happen then it would frustrate the policy aspirations at Regional and Local level and would condemn Lancaster to a future in which its City Centre would continue to under-perform in the retail hierarchy.

2.5 This application sought to address 'head on' the obvious problem of severance caused by the effect of the gyratory road, and did so by proposing a high level contemporary pedestrian bridge. It is inevitable that any development of the CCN site would need to ensure good connectivity with the present City Centre, and the Council remains unconvinced that any other method securing that connectivity would be successful.

2.6 However the forensic spotlight of the inquiry process has identified clear issues in the detail of the proposed development, which need to be addressed in order to permit such a development to come forward. It should be noted that prior to the inquiry process those matters were, for the most part, either not articulated by others or were not available to the City Council. However now that they have come to the fore the Council's professional witnesses have given their views upon them, bound as they are by their duty to the inquiry to provide their views objectively and untrammelled by the party for whom they act. Council witnesses have also reflected upon the much more detailed evidence provided to the Inquiry and provided their opinion upon it.

3.Detailed Issues

3.1 As to the detailed issues which have arisen, it is worthwhile to highlight the following 'problem areas' which have arisen during the inquiry, which would not have been available to members at the time of consideration of the application in October 2008.


3.2 English Heritage have been candid enough to recognise that the detailed representations made in advance of the inquiry had 'gone too far' in conceding heritage assets which could be lost to redevelopment. After consideration of the Council of the Application, English Heritage have substantially revised their position to one of opposition to the demolition of very many of the elements of the townscape that had previously been accepted. The Council has had to take account of that change of position and the reasons for it.

3.3 Reconsideration has also been given to the relationship of the proposed development to listed buildings, as well as the representations of English Heritage as to whether the Conservation Areas require review. It would have been irresponsible and disingenuous for the Council's witnesses not to do so.

3.4 As a result of that reconsideration it has become clear that a number of the detailed parameters need to be revised which cumulatively mean that a fundamental reassessment of the application needs to be undertaken so as to recast the application documentation so as to properly protect the setting of listed buildings.

3.5 In addition it has become clear that without a detailed design for the proposed high level bridge that it would be very difficult to properly assess its effect upon the townscape.

3.6 Furthermore it has also been made clear to the City Council that whilst English Heritage had considered that for the most part the demolition of buildings which make a positive contribution to the townscape was 'justified' that such a view was not formed on the basis of any detailed viability evidence on the part of the Applicant.

3.7 In addition it would seem that the TRL report provided by English Heritage to Centros appears never to have been shared with the County Council.

3.8 Finally it is worth noting that the stance of County Archaeologist that this was a case for predetermination which was not made known until the very latest stage in the process is now endorsed by English Heritage, notwithstanding its previous position that it was satisfied on archaeological issues.

4. Conclusions

4.1 In short through no fault of its own the City Council finds itself in a position in which it strongly supports the fundamentals of the proposed development, but as a result of matters which have arisen since the consideration of the Application by members, there are serious questions about the details of the proposed development.

4.2 The City Council has therefore presented its case in large part to the inquiry to explain those matters upon which the Secretary of State wishes to be advised in order to assist his consideration. However it deeply regrets that no case was properly advanced by Centros which might very well have addressed the concerns which have arisen.

4.3 In the circumstances, having presented its technical case and have had that case tested in open inquiry the City Council does not consider that it can or should play any further active part in this inquiry.

4.4 Accordingly, whilst there remain question marks over the details of the application which need to be carefully considered the City Council nonetheless urges the Inspector to strongly endorse the principle of development – to enable the City to continue to grow and flourish, thereby properly releasing its potential