Last month, along with supporters of Parkstarter, I went before Manchester City Council’s planning committee to object to the proposed use of the Dobbins site as as car park. Here is (roughly) what I said:

The story so far

The Dobbins building caught fire on April 11th 2013. By May 21st, 6 weeks later the steel framed building had been demolished, buried in on itself, the surface compacted and mounds of black MOT compacted granular fill had been delivered. Parking signs and meters were installed and a few days later it was open for business. It is now almost 8 moths since the opening of the car park.

As you no doubt already know we have an alternative vision - that of developing the site into a small park.

Sustainable development

The report prepared by the planning department makes reference to the “National Planning Policy Framework” in its arguments for approval of the change of use. However I think it is worth reminding the committee that the framework is not talking about any-old development. It is talking about sustainable development.

I’d like to quote from it again:

“Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations.”

“Development means growth.”

“Sustainable development is about change for the better.”

Our historic environment – buildings, landscapes, towns and villages – can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers.

It goes on to say that there are three, mutually dependent, dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. Let us look at the proposal as it stands in terms of each of these three themes and see if they hold up.

Economic

The direct benefits are to the operator and the landowner. Sure it’s better than an empty site. There are are doubtless some minor knock-on benefits to some of the local businesses from increased footfall.

The economic effects of a park would be uplift to property values. Provide a venue for events, markets and retail activities. Attract inward investment in the surrounding properties and businesses, creating jobs.

Social

The car park represents a mild convenience for car users - it’s a more visible place to park than the adequate multi-storey facilities on Tib St, the Arndale Centre and Shudehill. Has no benefits to pedestrians. It accidentally provides bike parking.

Another design problem is one of access to the site - there is inadequate one-way signage and very narrow maze of streets. The plans specifically say that no changes are made to access of the site, pedestrian or vehicular.

Crime and security considerations are not well handled. There has been no additional lighting provided and the dark and puddly site. The site attracts drug dealing, litter including medical waste, car crime, other anti-social behaviour.

A park would improve community cohesion - reduced crime, improved public health, educational outcomes. A focal point, a place to play, a place to socialise, to have lunch, a place to sit and think.

Environmental

Creating additional car parking capacity is in direct opposition to the council’s own Transport Policy Objectives Core Strategy of encouraging modal shift away from cars. The claims that this forms part of a “balanced” transport strategy seem weak.

Increasing the number of carparking spaces will encourage more people to travel by car. Build it and they will come…

Air Quality Increasing car traffic will increase air pollution

The surface consists of somewhat compacted rubble and a coating of “MOT compacted granular fill” which according to your own Head of Neighbourhood Services is not a recommended surface finish for a car park. Puddly, uneven. The Crime Impact Statement also had things to say in that the surface should be solid tarmac and not be a source of potential projectiles.

Ironically, from a groundwater perspective it is probably a better surface than some in that it is porous, not explicitly connected to the drainage system and therefore is slightly better than hard run-off from an impermeable.

There has been no investigation of what may lie underneath the site.

Conclusions

Is this proposal ensuring the vitality of town centres? Could this proposal be considered well designed? I don’t think so.

Local authorities have the power to reject retrospective planning applications for car parking when they are contrary to Transport and Environmental policies and I urge the committee to make use of this power.

By granting this application the council is putting its stamp of approval on another zombie development which is not sustainable, does not meet the objectives of the city, its people, its commuters, its children and its environment.

We have an alternative vision, one which would meet all of these objectives in a sustainable way - in short the site should become a park.