It’s Our City to host conference on the future of the canal corridor

 It’s Our City will hold a conference in Lancaster later this year to discuss the future of the Canal Corridor North site in Lancaster. The aim of the conference will be to discuss the establishment of criteria for how the site might be developed.    

It’s Our City believes that the most positive way to now move forward is to ensure that the local community is fully involved in any future decisions concerning how the site will be developed.  Local organisations such as the Civic Society and the Chamber of Commerce will be invited to participate in the conference as will local councillors, SAVE and English Heritage, and Lancaster City Council.  

Billy Pye of It’s Our City says “This conference is intended to be a forum where anyone and everyone, including people who supported the Centros plans, can have their say on how they think the Canal Corridor should be developed. We urge all interested parties, including the City Council and Mitchell’s as well as the local community, to now come together to cooperate in order to identify an appropriate, acceptable and achievable vision for the canal corridor”.  

It’s Our City have decided not to participate in a proposed 'independently facilitated discussion’ concerning the canal corridor. The group feel that it would not be feasible to take part in this process for several reasons. Firstly, the process seems to be solely a means to amend the rejected Centros plans.  

Emilie Secker explains: “The Centros plans were rejected at the public inquiry, so we do not see any point in taking part in a process which takes these plans as a starting point. Instead, we should go back to the original 2004 development brief for the Canal Corridor, find out what local people actually want and need, and then find a developer who can deliver that.”  

Secondly, the process is not fully transparent, as evidenced by the continuing discussions between Centros and LCC, away from the process. Thirdly, participation in the process, as we are seeing it unfold, would not ensure influence over any future planning applications.  

Tim Hamilton-Cox says “The process we agreed to enter into before the outcome of the public inquiry was known depended on all parties acting in renewed good faith. Regrettably, the council has failed to do this. It stopped the city centre conservation area review in its tracks last autumn; and has not resumed it even now when the malthouse in Mitchell’s brewery complex has been listed. The council issued two press releases after the inquiry outcome was known which gave the inquiry report the sort of spin which gives PR such a bad name. And, instead of opening up to new ideas on development of the site, the council persists in trying to get Centros back onside (whilst at the same time claiming costs against Centros for the company’s non-appearance at the inquiry) when it could have terminated the development agreement and started afresh.  To continue this dialogue with the deaf is just to waste public money. The council seems stuck in a pre-credit crunch timewarp.”