|
Subject: Re: So, URBED, do you REALLY want a dialogue? - from
a BUDD member
Dear
Sara
Thank
you for your email last week. As I said in my other email I
wanted to leave it a few days before replying because it deserved
a considered response. However I have been tied up in work elsewhere
and it has taken me longer to reply than I had hoped. You raise
a number of points that I wanted to respond to. In the spirit
of your email this is a personal response:
You
say that we sounded defensive. If we were it was because we
are unused to being set against a community group and it is
a position that we don't feel particularly comfortable with.
However this does not mean that our arguments are 'fictions'
constructed to justify our position. We believe in working in
partnership with the community and do so in virtually all of
our other work. This does not however mean that the community
has a monopoly on being right. If we believe that the community
view is mistaken we will argue our case. This is normally a
very creative, even enjoyable process in which arguments on
all sides are tested and more often than not a consensus will
emerge. Our frustration in Brighton is that it has not really
been possible to develop this dialogue either at the CPE or
the working group. We would therefore welcome the opportunity
of a direct dialogue with BUDD.
You
accuse us of being hired guns parroting the Sainsburys line.
If this was URBED's approach we might have made some money over
the years - however it is not. Our position is that we have
an agenda - the one set out in our book. We make clear to clients
that we will not argue whatever line they want to put forward
(which is what many consultants do). We always make clear that
we will walk away from a job if it contradicts our central philosophy.
In answer to Ben's question we would have loved to work for
BUDD and would have done so for very little money. However our
only income is fees and we can't work for nothing. You might
argue that we should not be working for developers. However,
as I said at the working group, our concern is to change the
way that towns and cities are built and there is no more effective
way of doing this than to influence directly the organisations
who have done the damage in the past.
As
to our characterisation of BUDD's position. I am not sure that
I want to defend Nic's comments about other opinion because
I am always suspicious about appeals to what the vast majority
think. I don't doubt the support that BUDD has. However it was
clear from the discussions that I had with many BUDD members
at the CPE that opinions have become entrenched. Such is the
feeling against Sainsburys that pro-supermarket arguments are
dismissed and those putting them forward branded as 'sell outs'
(as indeed you do to us in your email). This does not seem to
me to reflect what is a complex argument or indeed make it easy
to engage in the dialogue that you seek. Of course I realise
that this is how community campaigns work but it does raise
the issue faced by all such campaigns - when to compromise and
when to hold out for everything and risk losing all. My point
was not, so much, that you should compromise now but that you
had got yourself into a position when any form of compromise
seemed inconceivable.
The
real issue is not however about URBED or BUDD but about what
happens on the site. I have said that we are involved because
we believe that the scheme is in line with our core philosophy.
Let me take a moment to describe why I believe this and to highlight
the areas where I agree with you.
First
of all the easy bit. I hope that you agree that most of our
scheme has been developed in line with the briefing material
that BUDD prepared - that was certainly what we tried to do.
We have developed a dense, mixed-use urban scheme that ties
in with, and continues the character and feel of North Laine
and London Road. This may raise small areas of disagreement
but the issue that divides us is the supermarket.
I
agree with you that North Laine is a tremendous area and that
its character is formed by the small independent shops and cafes
that populate the area. Aside from the traffic issue (which
I will come back to) I do not believe that the scheme threatens
this character. London Road is dominated far more by multiples
and while it is not doing that badly - compared to shopping
streets elsewhere in the country - it is clear that it is declining.
It may be unpalatable but it is true that the decline of streets
like London Road is because they no longer attract the main
car-borne food shopping trade from an increasing proportion
of the community. I even spoke to BUDD members at the CPE who
admitted that they drove to an out-of-town supermarket once
a week and only used London Road for top-up and convenience
shopping. This is bad for all sorts of reasons. It generates
car use leading to congestion, energy use and pollution, it
harms independent businesses in traditional centres and it excludes
all those people without a car who have to put up with higher
prices and poorer quality in declining centres.
What should we do in the face of these problems? We could take
a dark green line and argue that supermarkets shouldn't exist
and that people shouldn't use their cars. This is all well and
good on a personal basis but is unlikely to happen nationally.
We have therefore argued for smaller supermarkets in locations
where they can reinforce local centres, where they are accessible
to public transport and can be used by people without a car.
Furthermore we have argued that they should not be single use
developments with large car parks but integrated into mixed-use
schemes with housing and other uses. In this context it is difficult
to see how we could argue against the current scheme. You will,
no doubt, argue that Sainsburys should therefore stay where
they are but the fact is that that store has not attracted people
away from the out-of-town stores whereas the new store will.
Turning to the traffic issue. Here you have a valid point and
one that needs to be addressed. Traffic would be generated by
a number of uses on the site as well as the existing commuter
car part at the station. The situation on New England Street
is also exacerbated by the scheme to take traffic off London
Road and yet the loss of this traffic has seen a drop in London
Road's trade. The issue of traffic is open for discussion and
we are very interested in forms of traffic reduction for all
types of development. The following is a list of some of the
things that might be possible:
•
Home zone: A traffic scheme that turned the whole of North Laine
into a Home zone - 20 mph limit, local traffic only - no through
routes, pedestrian priority.
•
Constrained parking: The parking standards in our scheme are
about half what the council would normally insist upon. The
supermarket has 200 places presently where as a store of this
size would normally have 350-400. The same is true of the housing
and hotel.
•
Car share schemes: We are working with AMEC in Manchester to
develop car share schemes in mixed-use developments. These would
be run by car hire companies and would mean that residents would
not need to own a car but could get access to a vehicle at short
notice including electric vehicles and bikes.
•
Home delivery schemes: whereby people can drop off their shopping
from both the supermarket and London Road at a kiosk for delivery
•
Public transport: A free hoppa bus between London Road, the
supermarket and the station. This would allow public transport
to serve the whole site without taking the main bus routes off
London Road.
• Bikes: Bike parking and hire (as part of the car share
scheme)
My
feeling is that together these measures could start to address
the traffic issue although a lot more work needs to be done.
You
also raise the issue of development phasing and the guarantees
that exist of the whole scheme not being completed once the
supermarket is open. While I am sure that the developers do
not intend to do this you are right to be concerned. It is important
for this to be tied up in the development agreement, and planning
permissions (assuming we get that far!).
My
guess is that I won't have convinced you but I do hope that
we can at least continue the dialogue. By all means put this
onto your Web site and lets draw other people into the discussion.
I would also be happy, if you think that it would be useful,
to come and speak to BUDD and to debate these issues with members.
I hope that we are not as far apart in our positions as it may
seem.
- David Director URBED (The Urban and Economic Development Group)
•
TOP •
|
