Thurs 25th Jun, 2009

A single scene told the story; a place set for Centros Miller at the Council team table...the chair, empty.  With the Council’s position statement hanging in the air, Inspector Gray was greeted by a much fuller house this morning.  It made the absence of the applicant all the more poignant.

Paul Tucker announced that Centros had been sent the Council’s position statement.  Subsequently, the Company had phoned to express their dissatisfaction with it.  “My client feels badly let down by the applicant” said the Council barrister.  It was like “presenting a case with one hand – or both hands – tied behind their back.”  He concluded his opening address by informing the Inspector that the Council will submit its Air Quality evidence and maintain a “watching brief” throughout the remainder of the Inquiry.  Apart from that, he said, “my instructions are that we have a clean break.”

Chief Planning Officer, Andrew Dobson then approached the chair from which he had expected to give evidence.  24 hours had proven to be a long time.  His job now was to read out the Council’s position statement.

Setting out why the Council had decided to play no further part in the Inquiry, he said ‘the local authority cannot address problems that have arisen in the absence of the applicant.’  He stated, ‘the Council remains committed to retail development,’ and went on to claim that all parties recognised that Lancaster was “underperforming in the retail hierarchy.”  Murmurs of dissent erupted around the room, catching the attention of the Inspector.  It was something he came back to.  Observing that none of the parties had in fact opposed development, the issue he said, is what kind of development people want to see and what “quantum of retail” would be appropriate for the site?   

Indeed the Council appear to have learned very little.  Standing by its evidence and its formal position unaltered, in the aftermath of meltdown the Council was always likely to embark on a ‘face saving’ exercise.  It was no surprise when blame shifted squarely onto Centros.  Paul Tucker later described the applicant’s conduct as “the top end of highly unreasonable.”  The Council was clearly distancing itself from its ‘preferred bidder.’  It had nothing left to lose except more taxpayer’s money. 

The Council will not be making closing submissions and will not cross examine the other parties.  English Heritage, SAVE, and IOC, however, remain anxious to present their evidence before the Inspector reports to the Secretary of State.  SAVE barrister, Andrew Deakin was “extremely keen” that heritage aspects of the Canal Corridor are properly presented.  “Request with force” was the way he put his appeal to the Inspector that architects, Ptolemy Dean and Richard Griffiths, have the opportunity to speak at the Inquiry.  Regarding Andrew Dobson’s written evidence, IOC representative, Billy Pye, reminded the Inspector that it had not been tested under cross examination and sought assurance that it would be treated accordingly.  The Inspector reassured the relevant parties that he understood their evidence and that it was only “fair” that each should have the chance to put its case to the Inquiry.

It is now hoped that the September extension will be unnecessary and that the Inquiry can be concluded at the end of this three week period. 

Mark Rotherham