CATHEDRAL PUBLIC REALM
11/04546/FUL Chester Cathedral: Phase 1 works including new Cathedral Square etc.
OBJECTION BY CHESTER CIVIC TRUST
20th OCTOBER 2011
Although there have been some improvements to the Cathedral Phase 1 proposals since their first appearance last year, Chester Civic Trust believes that fundamental issues raised in earlier observations have not been resolved. We are therefore forced to make the following objections to the current application:-
1. The illustrations recently published in the press show the Cathedral Square as a pedestrian area without vehicular traffic. This is seriously misleading. The scheme is still fatally undermined by having to accept the current traffic and parking arrangements in St Werburgh Street. The locality’s traffic flows and parking (including disabled parking) need to be resolved before a satisfactory solution can be reached (conflict with Chester District Local Plan Policy ENV10, Parking).
2. The treatment of the West Front of the Cathedral remains fundamentally flawed. The space between the Town Hall Square and the West Front is a square in its own right, not a road through to the main square round the corner. We cannot understand why a clear road line with granite setts has been introduced when everyone agrees the ultimate solution should be traffic-free (apart from local servicing). No convincing explanation has been given as to why this solution was adopted. Indeed, it has proved impossible to have any effective dialogue about this issue during the consultation process; points raised have been consistently ignored.
3. The ‘pinch point’ at the corner between the West and South Fronts remains unsatisfactory – even dangerous. Widening the pavement on the other, colonnaded, side of the road will force the traffic line across to this corner area.
4. It has become apparent that the potential removal of grass in the vicinity of the war memorial is widely disliked by the general public. It is a popular and well-used part of the existing area. The purpose of the large paved area has never been clear, and the consequent problems for the War Memorial remain unresolved. It may be open to disrespectful behaviour and might ultimately have to be protected. We think it will look stranded in a sterile paved space. There is conflict with policies ENV2 Respect for Surroundings, ENV3 Public Open Space and ENV6 Legibility.
5. The design of the fence bounding the path to the Kaleyards seems bizarre, out of character and susceptible to damage. It conflicts with policies ENV7 Regard for Historic Character and ENV47 Regard for Special Qualities.
6. We still fail to understand why the existing, natural, south-east pedestrian route from the Walls past the Bell Tower will be blocked off, thus reducing footfall and rendering the area a potential anti-social backwater at quieter times of the day. This conflicts with policy ENV11 Safe and Secure Environment. No convincing explanation has been given as to why this access will be removed. It has proved impossible to have any effective dialogue about this during the consultation process; the point has been steadfastly ignored.
7. Overall, we believe the proposals lack a feel for the city. They still bear the hallmarks of an externally-produced scheme that lacks overall unity and sensitivity to local character. These problems bring it into conflict with Local Plan Policies ENV2 Local Setting and Context, ENV7 Regard to Historic Character, ENV37 Development in Conservation Areas, ENV41 Very High Quality Design and ENV47 Regard for Special Qualities.
Click Final Presentation – Feb 24th To see Presentation Document.
Click On Cathedral Gardens Planning Objection-FINAL
Chester Civic Trust welcomes the opinions of others but no links to external sites and no comments by the General Public posted on this website should be read as being endorsed by, or are supported by, the Chester Civic Trust unless specifically stated.
I wholeheartedly endorse all the findings of the Chester Civic Trust. I have sent a second letter of objection to the scheme to the planning Committee and urge you to send your objection, if you have not already done so, to the Cathedral Fabrics Commission for England, for the attention of Annie Nickell. I do not have an email contact for her but it should be on their website. Also Frank Field MP is a good person to send it to at the House of Commons. Good luck, we must fight this appalling plan. Judy Davies
Objections to the Church of England Fabrics Commission should go to allie.nickell@churchofengland.org
We endorse your comments on this bleak and bland, dull and impractical, inappropriate and unpopular proposal, which seems to pay no regard whatsoever to either the public or professional comments and objections on the last application or to the character, charm and scale of Chester and its Conservation Area or to the fact that there is a highway running through it.
We trust that you have seen Phil Hunt’s green alternative (on the council’s website) for the south west part of the site. This is far more appropriate for our city and retains the green space which has always been a major attraction to tourists and visitors, not only because it is a beautiful and natural setting for the building, as capitalised upon by both amateur and professional photographers, but also because the garden is such an attractive, peaceful and safe place in which individuals and families can relax and picnic.
The proposals do not give us confidence that the design team have properly studied or understand the characteristics that make our city a unique special place, the Conservation Area, the site and its sacred and community significance, and they don’t seem to have listened or gained knowledge from the comments of local people and professionals.
As a result, this latest application has all the serious defects and flaws of the last one, indicating to us a continuing and uncaring failure to grasp the fundamental point that the public deserves and demands the skillful and imaginitive long term ‘preservation and enhancement,’ of its Conservation Area and cathedral setting, and does not wish to see the insensitive wholesale demolition and desecration of it that would be the consequence of the implementation of their bland, unsafe and windswept wasteland of a proposal that would inevitably attract misuse, anti-social behaviour, vandalism, and tree planting failure, as is the case on the same design team’s similar scheme in Manchester, photographs of which were shown to us at the recent demonstration.