13/03922/FUL 350 bed student accommodation, TOWER WHARF, Chester

Appeal APP/A0665/A/14/2217039

Submission by John Herson, chair, Chester Canal Heritage Trust on behalf of CCHT and Inland Waterways Association (Chester and Merseyside Branch)

  1. The Chester Canal HeritageTrust exists to foster an awareness of the Chester Canal, to monitor developments affecting the canal and to participate in schemes to safeguard, promote and enhance the canal. The IWA is the national organisation that has promoted the regeneration and beneficial use of the waterway system since 1946.Both the Heritage Trust and IWA are partners with CWAC and CRT in the development and implementation of the Chester Waterways Strategy. The Heritage Trust is also a partner with CWAC and Cheshire East councils inthe proposed designation of the Chester Canal Conservation Area. This is currently going out for public consultation.
  1. The Heritage Trust and IWA fully support the LPA’s decision to refuse Miller Developments’ proposal for student accommodation at Tower Wharf. Our objection to this development is on the grounds of the damage it will cause to both the character and heritage of the Conservation Area and to the employment and economic regeneration value of the Tower Wharf locality.
  1. The character and heritage of the Conservation Area.
  1. Tower Wharf is includedin the Chester City Conservation Area and also in the proposed Chester Canal Conservation Area because its character has long been recognised as very valuable. Most of the buildings are Grade II listed. The appeal site istherefore not just an ordinary brownfielddevelopment opportunity on a featureless stretch of canal. It lies at the centre of a unique and nationally importantlocalityin the canal networkas well as being a major and distinctive element in the heritage of Chester.Tower Wharf is perhaps the best surviving example of a traditional canal port in the country.Its conservation value lies in its combination of unusualand attractivefeatures:

4.1.The different levels of canal in the main line of the Shropshire Union Canal and the descending branch to the River Dee. These create a visually rich water environment with terraced water areas providing views of interest when seen from both within and outside the area.

4.2.The graving lock and other locks on the Dee Branch. Thesecreate the differences in levels and are visually attractive in themselves.

4.3.Taylor’s Boatyard. Thisis the best surviving example of a traditionaland still operational canal boatyardon the whole canal network. Its slipway area andancillary boatyard structures are under active restoration and are classic examples of traditional, functional, canal architecture.

4.4.The operational sandstone, brick and slate-roofed graving (or dry) dock. This is a classic and nationally significant canal structure. Its importance for the visual ensemble lies in its relationship with the other water areas, the wharf side, lock and boatyard.

4.5.The elegant and unusual iron roving bridge adjacent to the graving dock which carries the towpath over the canal.

4.6.Telford’s Warehouse and the adjacent canal offices. These are nationally significant and listed examples of Thomas Telford’s elegant canal architecture dating from the 1790s.

4.7.The North Basindevelopment. Thispresents a modern but generally sympathetic referencing of the warehouses that used to be on the same site.

4.8.General use of Chester’s characteristic red-brown brick, with stone detailing and some white render, on both the historic structures and in the modern North Basin development. These give unity to the Tower Wharf ensemble.

4.9.The large expanse of water and adjacent grassed areas, particularly at the upper level. This gives an open feel to the area unusual in an urban canal environment and it is emphasised by the generally limited height of the adjacent heritagebuildings and structures. These prevent a potentially overbearing feeling when the area is viewed from below on the west side. The appeal site itself was always a wharfage area whose only permanent building wasa modest one-storey stable block. There is no historical precedent for a very large structure on this site.

4.10.The wharf crane and slipway arevisually significant period features integral to the historic canal environment.

4.11.Tower Wharf’s attractive setting is completed by the backdrop of Chester’s sandstone city walls, the Water Tower, the elegant line of the canal down to the River Dee and the late-nineteenth century terraced housing on Whipcord Lane.

  1. Tower Wharf’s heritage value has long been recognised by in local planning and conservation policy documents, culminating recently in the Chester Characterisation Study, the One City Plan, the Chester Waterways Strategy and the Chester Canal Conservation Area Appraisal document.
  1. Design criteria and the inadequacies of the appellants’ scheme.
  1. Any new development at Tower Wharf should therefore respond to the character of the Conservation Area and fulfil the following criteria. It should:

7.1Generally respect the canal environment and actively seek to address it. The appellants’ scheme was essentially an ‘off-the-peg’ design that has been subject to tactical, but substantial, modifications in response to widespread objections. The latest version (December 2013) apparently derives its inspiration arbitrarily from radically different developments in Lincoln and Copenhagen; their attempted synthesis in the Tower Wharf site is unsatisfactory.[1] There is still no clear attempt to derive inspiration from the existing character of the locality. The appellants’ scheme disregards the canal frontage on the ground floor of Block A and, indeed, turns its back on it. From north to south the building presents a dull facade accommodating a gym, cycle store, switch room and plant store, an administrative office, toilets and then the student common room – in other words, a completely uninteresting and even ugly set of uses. A golden opportunity to address the canal frontage has been ignored.In doing this the appellantshave disregarded the NPPF’s principle that schemes in Conservation Areas should enhance or better reveal their significance.

7.2Be in scale with open nature of the visual ensemble and particularly with the adjacent Telford’s Wharf and old canal offices. Avoid dense massing and overdevelopment. Space should be left to frame the historic and proposed new buildings and offer open amenity space to reference the historic nature of the site. The appellants’ scheme does not respect the open nature of the Tower Wharf area and particularly the development’s immediate surroundings. Instead, it overwhelms its neighbours and amounts to a substantial overdevelopment of the site. The height, massing and site density is far too great. The lack of recognised open space and car parking standards in student accommodation has incentivised the developers to cram as much as possible on to the site. This design solution fundamentally conflicts with, and undermines, the historic character of the Conservation Area at Tower Wharf.

7.3Present a coherent visual progression between Telford’s Warehouse and the North Basin development. The latest incarnation of the scheme in Block A makes some attempt to address Telford’s Warehouse and the space in front of it but the effect is neutralised by the continued excessive height of the proposed structure and the unsympathetic mix of materials used. The relationship with the North Basin development remains poor.

7.4Avoid an overbearing appearance from both levels of the canal and from the Whipcord Lane area.The excessive height of the latest proposals inevitably means the frontage to the canal remains overbearing, particularly when viewed from below the site in Williams’ Moorings or Whipcord Lane.

7.5Present a harmonious ensemble when viewed from above on the city walls and adjacent roads. The appellants’ scheme will dominate the view and destroy the harmonious visual balance of the existing waterscape at Tower Wharf.

7.6Use materials in keeping with the characteristic and harmonious palette contained in existing buildings. The proposed mix of brick (unspecified), metal cladding, glass and ‘natural timber cladding’ is overfussy and introduces two materials that are generally alien to the area. The inspiration derived from incompatible schemes in Copenhagen and Lincoln does not succeed in Chester. Furthermore, the cladding cannot be expected to weather well unless high quality of materials is ensured in line with the concerns of English Heritage.

7.7Preserve and respect the historic artefacts of the site. The appellants’ scheme creates two problems in relation to the canal infrastructure. Firstly, the historic slipway is destroyed. It dates back over 200 years and may have been builtpartly as horse steps when this was a working wharf. To conserve the historical heritage the original position should be retained and the slipway must be useable since it will shortly be the only available slipway in the Chester area. Secondly, it is unclear what is proposed for the wharf wall adjacent to the canal in front of Block A. If it is too high and has no suitable bollards or mooring rings boats will be unable to moor against it. This lack of moored boats will accentuate how the ground floor of Block A essentially turns its back on the canal and demonstrates again that the appellants have ignored the inherent nature of the living canal environment.

  1. Regeneration and the problems of the appellants’ scheme

8.1.The Urban Land Institute report, the Chester One City Plan and the Chester Waterways Strategy have all identified an important role for Tower Wharf in Chester’s economic regeneration.Chester Canal Heritage Trust and the Inland Waterways Association support this perspective. We positively wish to see suitable and harmonious development at Tower Wharf.The objective should be to develop the tourist, leisure and economic regeneration potential of this focal point in the canal network – to make it a ‘must-see’ destination with good commercial and employment potential. The site’s character, attractiveness and location makes it fitted for prestige commercial and residential development. We believe the appellants’ proposed use as student accommodationwill fundamentally undermine – indeed, blight - the area’s regeneration potential. It is the wrong use in this locality.

8.2Occupation by a shifting population of students (or other short-term renters) will make no contribution to the objective of attracting tourists, boaters, businesses and shoppers to Tower Wharf – in other words, to the economic regeneration of the area. The proposal will therefore undermine the Waterways Strategy objective of making Tower Wharf a visitor destination in its own right.

8.3 The proposed blank frontage to the canal in Block A will destroy any possibility of making the canalsidefrom Telford’s Wharf to the North Basin a vibrant location for shops, restaurants and other commercial uses that will attract boaters, tourists, shoppers and related uses.The commercial units in the flats surrounding the North Basin will be cut off from activity around Telford’s Warehouse. They will be permanently blighted and are likely to remain unoccupied – a failed scheme through no fault of its developers. Tower Wharf’s commercial offer will be restricted permanently to a public house.

  1. Conclusion

9.1.Tower Wharf is a vital heritage asset at the focal point of the canal system in Chester. It will become even more importantif proposals to improve navigation between the Dee and the canal (outlined in the Waterways Strategy) are implemented. Tower Wharf would be at the heart of Chester’s re-emergence as a Waterway City.

9.2.The objective at Tower Wharf must therefore be to maintain and enhance the character of the Conservation Area whilst encouraging sensitive schemes that promote its contribution to the city’s overall regeneration. The appellants’ scheme conflicts fundamentally with these planning objectives and it is for these reasons that the Chester Canal Heritage Trust and IWAurge that the appeal be rejectedon two grounds:-

9.2.1On design grounds because of its unacceptable damage to the Conservation Area.

9.2.2On planning policy grounds because it conflicts with regeneration policy objectives for Tower Wharf.

[1]Miller Developments, GS1000(3.15), 20th December 2013