\\ Chester Market // View the Many Shops and Stalls

To the Inspector, Northgate Development

Re: Chester City Council Compulsory Purchase Order

Discontinuance of Chester Market Hall

Stopping up of Highways

Witness statement by Tom Barker on behalf of Chester Green Party. This is a supporting statement to the submission of Vic Button, Market Trader.

I am Tom Barker, a research environmental scientist. This statement is on behalf of Chester Green Party and opposes the Northgate Development, not in principle, but in its purpose and attitude to considerations not deemed profitable to the developers and the council. The design is old fashioned, unimaginative, too encompassing and destructive of unique heritage sites and open space.

Chester Green Party has a history of providing constructive evidence for City and County Council development plans, which have often been incorporated into the final plans e.g. Cheshire 2001 Structure Plan EIP, and Chester Pedestrianisation Inquiry. This statement is subdivided into topic areas, but all are underpinned by the principle of sustainability, a term which the City Council uses but the definition of which the City Council is apparently unfamiliar.

1. Sustainability

We are living in ‘interesting times’. The planet is a big place but there is now overwhelming evidence that humanity is consuming more than the earth can sustainably provide, is producing emissions at rates above those at which the biosphere can assimilate them, and is releasing environmental toxins which can either only be broken down into constituent parts after many decades, or cannot be broken down and whose half-lives are of many hundreds or thousands of years. The warning signs, and warnings from far-sighted people, have been evident for decades. Scientists have repeatedly warned of the impending dangers of ignoring environmental considerations in diverse fields, and today empirical evidence can be seen in extreme weather conditions around the globe. The word ‘extreme’ will soon lose its present meaning in this context. Indeed it has been calculated by the re-insurance industry that, based on the observed rate of increase, by 2065 the cost of global repairs for weather damage will equal total global $GDP (GCI Meyer 2000).

No longer is it just scientists and ‘greens’ who are saying this. Many political leaders around the world, including our own, now admit that Climate Change is the single most serious threat to the future of human life on this planet. It is thought that we are not, however, helpless (not yet at least) because there are mitigating measures which, if implemented immediately, will reduce the worst effects of Climate Change. It is in this context that we must look at the proposal for the Northgate Development, and see it as it really is: just another attempt by a construction company to make a large profit with a short-term gesture of ‘regeneration’ for the city. The City Council is unable to see true nature of this project.

The City Council, according to the submission of Mr Andrew Farrall clearly does not understand the concept of ‘sustainability’. In common with numerous other words it has changed its meaning, and no longer means ‘ability to be sustained for a period’; it now means ‘ability to be sustained permanently’, and has consequences for environment, economy and social responsibility. The International Institute for Sustainable Development defines a sustainable society as “one that is far-seeing enough, flexible enough and wise enough to not undermine either its physical or its social systems of support” and has declared that ‘Physical Sustainability’ requires that a society’s material and energy throughputs meet three conditions: the rates of use of renewable resources do not exceed rates of regeneration; the rates of use of non-renewable resources do not exceed the rate at which sustainable renewable substitutes are developed and; rates of pollution emission do not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment. In its Northgate Development, Chester City Council and ING fail all of these criteria resoundingly. The development plan is absolutely inadequate in terms of sustainability.

The UK government’s declared aim is to reduce by 60% the UK’s atmospheric carbon emissions by 2050. By 2100 there is expected to be another 6 billion people on the planet, which means that we must, according to the same criteria, reduce emissions to 10% of what they are now by 2100. This means that new structures must accommodate much more strict environmental considerations for such things as resource use, embodied energy of construction materials (this means ‘brick miles’), energy consumption for heating and services, waste production, and longevity.

Current estimates are that humanity has destroyed 25% of the planet’s natural resources in the last 50 years. Buildings produce around 50% of atmospheric carbon emissions. Construction is one of the largest consumers of raw materials and the largest single generator of landfill waste. Within the present building site, The Forum is 40 years old and now being thrown away. When it was built it destroyed unique Roman archaeological heritage 2000 years old. This is the heritage which makes Chester the city it is. Chester Green Party fears that the new development will do the same again, only on a scale even more vast.

Research by Strathclyde University has found that running costs of a building become paramount when the owner plans to occupy the space for a long time. Generally this type of cost is passed on. Construction industry professionals generally want to know how profit can be maximised, but are now being forced through legislation to take a greater interest in energy efficient design. In recent years, zero-emissions designs for new buildings have been built e.g. Beddington Zero Energy Development housing development in London and the International School in Harare. The development of zero-energy emissions buildings is a growing sector (e.g. Arup,), and likely to become very important in the future. Such a development would make a very positive statement about Chester and be much more in keeping with the City’s distinctive heritage than just another concrete and steel construction beloved of architects.

2. What we would like to see.

The present proposal puts the interests of the developer first, the financial benefits to the City Council second and the interests of the people who live, work, shop and holiday here joint last. It is sited in an area which is in need of attention and investment but the plan was clearly conceived for the purpose of making money. It is vital first to ensure that the existing historic character of the City is preserved, then that the historic features that are presently hidden and partially destroyed are restored and presented, so that the unique Roman heritage that has attracted millions to Chester in the past, continues to do so.

The area of the proposed development occupies approximately one tenth of the total area of the city within the ancient walls. Presently some is wasted and in need of regeneration of some sort, but within it are some old buildings, particularly the old Masonic Hall and the City Mission but also some in Hunter St, that should be preserved and incorporated into the design. The Roman strong room, presently hidden behind glass, with no access and minimal information, should be made a feature, and the rest of the ancient site that was not destroyed by the Forum development should be presented as an important tourist destination in Chester, particularly the unique Roman Elliptical Building, and the Barracks Buildings. We can improve this area without destroying that which makes Chester a beautiful City and which provides a glimpse of history and a sought after tourist destination.

There is also green space which has value in itself and would serve a useful function as part of a modern design. We do not oppose per se redevelopment of this area but consideration should be given to the actual requirements of the people who live in, work in and visit Chester, and not solely to the profit motives of the construction firm. There is a lot more to quality of life than shopping, and Chester is already endowed with a wide variety of shops, a proportion of which persistently lie empty.

We would like to see proposals for individual units and larger constructions designed and built according to the principles of sustainability, and fitted within the area as it exists, or perhaps even restoring to pedestrian traffic some of the roads and links that were lost in the Forum and Gateway development, so that a human scale can once again be achieved in this part of the city. Most importantly, there should be open space within the development area, so that people can sit and walk in an uncluttered and open environment. A new and bigger theatre, and a concert hall of appropriate size could be incorporated sensitively into such an area.

Where buildings must go, we would like to see controlled deconstruction, as is becoming commonplace, and not mere demolition, so that building materials can be recycled where appropriate, with Life Cycle Analysis used across the project to minimise environmental impacts.

3. Poor thinking

There is a hint of elitist thinking in this proposal in that several consequences seem to impact on the lower socio-economic groups while the obvious advantages go to those with greater disposable income. In this rather insidious element, the relocation of the Chester Market has been planned so as to permanently exclude some stallholders and greatly inconvenience the rest, the result being long-term damage to the market as an important part of Chester’s social and economic life. As a minimum requirement, the new Market Hall should be of sufficient capacity to house all present stallholders and, since the location is to be moved, be completed before the deconstruction (or demolition) of the present building. Continuity of the market is essential for this element of the retail sector in Chester and very important for the people who use it. In addition, the bus exchange is to be closed, and its replacement will be of reduced size. Both of these things predominantly affect the same socio-economic groups, and this lack of concern is worrying.

4. Negative impacts

In their rush to embrace the new development, the City Council appears to have neglected to consider the impacts, on existing traders in the city, of greatly increased retail capacity. There are clearly insufficient small traders able to compete successfully with the might of multinational chains in Chester, or there would be fewer empty retail premises. The result of building more is likely to be a steady movement of the wealthier shops to the new premises, thus leaving an increased number of vacant shops in the existing Chester streets. Nor is this a local problem, on

21^st October 2005 Keith Vaz MP raised the question of the effects on existing small scale shops of the increased spread of very large shops and called for a review of the matter. There are well known negative effects on local economies as the proportion of local shops reduces in favour of national and multinational chains. The Northgate Development plan intends to build one site for a very large shop and new retail premises for many smaller shops, only affordable by the most successful existing shops i.e. the multinational chains.

If the Council assumes the new development will attract to Chester new shoppers who normally shop elsewhere, an increase in car traffic will follow. An increase in lorry traffic is, of course, inevitable if more shops are able to locate in Chester. The downgrading of public transport facilities will add to the likely rise in car traffic. All these things have implications for Climate Change and damage to stone buildings through NOx emissions from vehicles. New thinking is needed to overcome these problems.

5. Scale

The sheer scale of the proposed project reflects the profit imperative. To be sufficiently profitable, the development must be big enough to generate large sums in rent and rates. This results in designs of large concrete and steel structures entirely inappropriate for a city which is essentially Roman. Of course we want to see new and innovative designs but they must be sympathetic to the character and identity of the city, or it will lose those things. Part of this is scale. Massive concrete and steel structures should have no place in Chester and are no longer appropriate in the 21^st Century except for special circumstances. Buildings that necessitate the loss of streets e.g. Hunters Walk, and the rearrangement of others are probably too big. Ideally this project should reinstate the direct links between Watergate St. and Princess St. which were lost in the inappropriate constructions of the past. The road closures which are part of the scheme must not be permanent. In addition, concrete structures require substantial groundwork, and this inevitably destroys archaeological heritage.

6. The City Council position

The City Council claim that this development will enable Chester to compete with other large scale schemes in Liverpool and Manchester. I point out that we are not Liverpool or Manchester, both large cities and, though they both have many beautiful buildings, Chester is not like them and nor should it seek to be. It is a small city with a character which, until recent years, was entirely defined by ancient architecture and archaeology. In recent decades our councillors and planners have sought to make Chester exactly like any other town in Britain, a so-called Clone Town and, it seems that they are keen to complete the transformation. There is to be yet another large scale retail development in Pepper Street.

Tourists are already complaining that Chester is not what it used to be. An American who has visited the city periodically for 30 years told me that Chester was losing its identity and appeal, and becoming rather like numerous other places.

The obliteration of Chester’s historical identity is being achieved incrementally by councillors and planners who lack the decency to be honest about their proposals, the foresight to see what there are really creating and destroying, the ability to discern what is important for the future, and the imagination to envisage life not permanently bound to ever increasing consumption (itself an impossible scenario).

The world watched in amazement and horror as the ignorant Taliban rendered the Statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan into rubble, but the same process has occurred here: the old Chester Market frontage destroyed in 1967 for a concrete shopping centre frontage, the original Cavern Club in Liverpool for a car park, and the Roman remains that now lie under the Forum area. Great public opposition met the attempt to further ruin the amphitheatre (by car park), and the plan to destroy the meadows (by building a massive Olympic rowing lake), and there we were lucky. Here they are being more careful with their plans and are in danger of destroying forever ancient treasures which could be used as a great asset, in order to merely build another shopping centre which might last another 40 years, and will be to the detriment of Chester people.

It follows that building costs will increase per unit and total profits will reduce if considerations are given to the people who live and work in Chester, and to the many people who visit the City on holiday each year, by rejecting this Northgate Development plan, because the scheme as currently envisaged is not designed for these groups, but for the developers. Nobody spends £283 million (recent estimate) in order to improve the quality of life for the people in a city like Chester. They spend it in order to reap large and ongoing profits, in other words, they seek to take out far more than they invest. When the needs of the local people are taken into account, schemes like this become less attractive because they do not serve the people or the local economy.

If there is to be a new development, it is very important that it fits in with the character of Chester. The city has already lost much that makes it special, this plan must not increase the problem; we do not want a ‘Clone Town’.

References.

Meyer A. (2000) Contraction and Convergence – the global solution to Climate Change. Green Books, Totnes.

Arup, 13 Fitzroy Street, London W1T 4BQ.

Strathclyde University Zero-emission buildings laboratory can be reached at www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/02-03/zero_emission_bldgs/