The Story of a Townscape Disaster
In redeveloping the Leases Bowl site, Boots Properties Plc was faced with the most demanding architectural / townscape challenge in the City since Millburngate I. The challenge, by coincidence, was actually similar to that of the earlier project - a central site occupying the foreground in one of the classic views of Durham, of river, medieval bridge and peninsular acropolis, a World Heritage site.
Whilst Millburngate I was awarded a Europa Nostra award, the Land of the Prince Bishops scheme, in Trustees' opinion, is a townscape disaster, both in terms of size and scale and in style and detail. In years to come, it will be spoken of in the same unlovely terms formerly reserved for the National Savings Centre building. Its more prominent position, however, means that, unlike the Savings Centre, the new development can hardly be avoided. Along with the BHS logo, it is henceforth destined to greet residents and visitors to our city.
The significance of the project and its disappointing outcome in townscape terms is justification for the present discussion. Attention will focus on the major external elevations, not that of the streetscape in the enclosed High Street. There will be no comment either on the retailing element, about which Trustees have consistently expressed strong concerns.
Trustees raised many objections at the planning application stage. Their submission disappointed the Planning Officer, since he had generously devoted time to present the project to a special meeting of Trustees. Their views were deemed "negative". Trustees were considered "no longer open to the powers of persuasion". Apprehension during construction turned to disbelief at its completion, such that Trustees felt impelled to list their specific criticisms to the Planning Officer. The official response on this occasion regretted the "entrenched views" and took exception to what was seen as assumed "intellectual superiority". Interestingly, the Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC) - which presumably might warrant the claim of intellectual superiority, and which at the application stage had considered all elevations to be unsatisfactory - was equally dismayed at the outcome. In the words of their Secretary, he was relieved to be able to say that the RFAC had not approved the plans.
Negative reaction has not been confined to those who might be deemed elite; on the contrary,
it has been near-universal. In the letters column of The Advertiser, for instance, the only
voice in support of the Scheme has been that of a councillor of the ruling party. On the ITV
newscast after the official opening, the response of those interviewed was hardly
complimentary. Private Eye added its own pennyworth. Among the many comments passed to
Trustees was a letter from a non-member, a Durham man born and bred who used to be a gas
lamp-lighter in the City - hardly an elite voice. I quote:
"I got onto Elvet Bridge and what I saw made me shudder - that new Boots Complex that had come round from the Market Place to Brown's Boathouse. What an unearthly sight! Who on earth said yes to this? It made me feel sick at the sight of it. First reactions - pull the damn building down! The town is once again saddled with rubbish. Have they ever stopped to think just what the future generations will say about it?"
The question, then, is how exactly did the commercial version of the Land of the Prince Bishops come to be?
The present size and appearance of the Scheme would not have been possible without
planning permission, permission from an Authority which was not only keen to see a major
central retail development, but which also exchanged the site for land on the former carpet
factory, belonging to Boots, so as to enable the developer to proceed. The Authority also
abandoned its own Design Brief for the site, which recommended "scaling and massing step
down from Saddler Street and Market Place towards the river." The recommended retention
of "the fine row of mature riverside trees" was also progressively abandoned.
A significant feature appears to have been the relative lack of response to criticism of the design element in the critical period prior to submission of the planning application in the second half of 1995.
At an initial presentation to the RFAC in February 1995, reservations were expressed on all elevations, and a closer study was advised of the general character of the city, which the project failed to reflect. At a second presentation, in June 1995, the RFAC repeated identical views and requested to be kept informed about the progress of the Scheme. When they learnt at the beginning of July that the application was to go to the City's Development Services (=Planning) Committee within a week, the RFAC replied that they "would not wish to give a general endorsement to the proposal as it stands." English Heritage also were unhappy about the riverside elevation and rectangularity of the LRU.
However, on 11th July, the Development Services Committee duly considered the application and were minded to approve pending the Secretary of State's consideration. When the latter saw no reason to intervene, the application was approved on 18th September. The following month the RFAC inquired of Benoy how matters stood, to be informed that the Scheme was already approved, but that they would send meaningful plans to the Commission within the month. There is no record that they were received.
A puzzle for Trustees is how the Government Office for the North East (GONE) could have advised the Secretary of State that they were satisfied there were no grounds for intervention. That is to say, they were satisfied that government guidance had been followed and that cases had been made on retail impact and for quality of design. It is the last point which baffles.
In March 1995, GONE had informed the City Planning Officer that the forthcoming planning application should include the "final views" of English Heritage and the RFAC. Yet, as has been shown above, it can hardly be claimed that the latter's "final views" were available. What GONE did receive in this critical period was detailed argument over matters of design from Benoy, hinging on particular space requirements of the developer and the LRU.
A final chapter in attempting to unravel this townscape story must refer to the numerous subsequent changes to the elevations included in the planning application accepted in September 1995. None of the changes was ever brought into the public domain.
The Trust, which inspects every single application and amendment, knew nothing of negotiations and choices which continued for another three years. 
It is somewhat puzzling that the boatstore could change location, that the row of riverside trees could be whittled down to a single mature specimen, that verandahs could change in number, length and storey height, that the number of windows of the LRU storey could change, that the turret design could vary, that the 'central circulatory stair' could be opened up and then its brick changed to the atrocious turquoise glazed variety.
All of these changes appeared after the original September 1995 planning application. The single additional application for the riverside and Leazes Road elevations concerned the illuminated signage for the LRU, then revealed as BHS. The planning department agreed to grant permission on the basis that BHS would not otherwise locate in the Scheme. At the time there were a mere six months to the projected opening of the Centre. The Development Services Committee approved the application on 1st April 1998, it being simply listed among those applications recommended for approval without further detailed comment, despite the fact that all external signs, whether illuminated or not, are contrary to the established practice of the Council. Established practice was resumed for the dozen or so subsequent applications by incoming tenants of shops in the High Street for basic illuminated fascia signs. In every instance a page of discussion justifying rejection has accompanied the Development Services agenda papers.
The townscape disaster is with us for generations. In time locals may turn a blind eye to it but this will never be possible for visitors or returnees or for any students of architecture / townscape. Its overwhelming riverside elevation could be tempered to a small degree if the Boathouse were assisted in a sympathetic restoration. (The recent application for its replacement must be resisted at all costs). Very mature trees should also be planted. Trustees have already urged the Authority to reduce the amount of fluorescent glare emanating from the carpark windows (a simple task to rectify an elementary error). They have also asked the Authority to take discontinuity action against the illuminated advertisements of BHS.
Additionally, there is a need to do away with the turquoise brickwork, to redesign the "modish coved metal roofs on stilts" as Private Eye called them, to bring order to the verandahs and to open up the top storey blind windows
For the immediate future there are two key lessons to be learned. One, in any new development (currently, the Millennium Scheme) the first townscape principle, that context or place comes before building, must be respected. The other, that the detailed planning application stage should be as the name implies - detailed, with an accompanying transparent openness.
DCDP