Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Lancaster and Morecambe Regional Planning Scheme (1927)

Lancaster and Morecambe Regional Planning Scheme (1927)

Contrebis 2019 v37

LANCASTER AND REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME (1927)

Gordon Clark

Abstract This paper reviews the Regional Planning Scheme for Lancaster, Morecambe and the surrounding area that was published in 1927 during a period of major economic and cultural changes and when the profession of town planning was in its infancy.

Introduction Traditionally we think that town planning started after 1947 when the Town and Country Planning Act was passed. In fact it was Part II of the Housing, Town Planning &c Act of 1909 that first empowered – but did not compel – local authorities to make town plans (Bentley and Pointon Taylor 1911). These early plans focused on housing and on ensuring that new houses were sanitary. It examined their design and ventilation, road widths and adequate connections to municipal drains and sewers. Section 43 of the Act banned new back-to-back housing. However, the 1909 Act was hamstrung by limited finance to meet potential compensation claims by property owners, and also by local-authority indifference and inertia, limited powers and slowness in plan compilation and approval – partial criticisms of the subsequent Housing, Town Planning &c Act in 1919 (Megarry 1962). It was not until the Town Planning Act of 1925 that town planning was separated from housing concerns and became a professional activity in its own right, staffed by the members of the newly emerging Town Planning Institute (Royal Town Planning Institute n.d.).

It is against this national background that in 1924 a Joint Town Planning Committee was set up to prepare a ‘Regional Planning Scheme’ for the wider Lancaster area under powers in the 1919 Act (s42). The area had a population in 1921 of 77,328 – it was 142,500 in 2017. The Scheme was ‘Regional’ to distinguish it from the more detailed local schemes in the five authorities that combined to form the Joint Committee – Lancaster Municipal Borough, Morecambe Municipal Borough, Urban District, Urban District and Lancaster Rural District. Together they covered the area of the present-day Lancaster City Council that was established in 1974. The Scheme was approved in 1926 and published in 1927 (Forshaw 1927 and Endnote 1). By the standards of modern planning documents it was very concise, just 60 pages and two fold-out maps. Patrick Abercrombie, one of the ‘fathers’ of British town planning and then at University, wrote a Foreword. The Plan focused on two areas – communications and a basic system of land-use zoning. At that time such regional planning for these topics was novel.

Communications The section on communications had little to say about railways. The local network was then much more extensive than it is today with stations to ; at , , Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands; and up the Lune valley (Nuttall and Rawlings 1980). The Report noted that ‘...the opportunities for railway development in this field seem now to have disappeared.’ (Forshaw 1927, 31) and the cut-backs locally before and after the Beeching Report (1963) validate that judgment. Buses were the preferred mode of local public transport: ‘...the accessibility of the Region as a result of its motor-bus services, is remarkably good.’ (Forshaw, 1927, 30).

The major focus was on roads. A few years earlier, Lancaster and Morecambe boroughs had united to build what are now Morecambe Road (A589; see Endnote 2) and Broadway, opened in two stages in 1922 and 1923 to cater for the rapid growth in car ownership, including car-borne holiday- 34

Contrebis 2019 v37 makers to Morecambe (Forshaw 1927, 20). The coastal road from Morecambe to Hest Bank (A5105) opened in 1933. Many other new or enhanced road schemes were proposed, broadly grouped into circumferential and radial roads (Forshaw 1927, 15–27). Among the circumferential roads were one from Glasson eastwards to Galgate and and then north to Caton; and another from Halton via Slyne to Hest Bank. There would also be a route around Carnforth from Hest Bank via the Kellets and Yealands to Silverdale. There were also to be radial roads such as improvements to the Carnforth, Silverdale and link and a new route to Heysham that avoided Morecambe. The proposed route for this link was to have been west of the new Bay Gateway (A683), closer to the eastern edge of the built-up area of south Morecambe and Heysham. The justification for this new road – removing from the busy streets of Morecambe the growing road-based traffic to Heysham Harbour – was similar to that used for the Bay Gateway 80 years later. Although there was some data collection on traffic flows, the evidence base for these proposals was weak in terms of flows and traffic speeds, and there was limited recognition of construction costs let alone cost-benefit analysis in even its simplest form.

On surer ground was the identification of bottlenecks that needed easing, such as the bridge over the at Thurnham, the skew bridge at Galgate on the A6 and congestion on Bridge, the only road crossing of the in Lancaster. The Thurnham and Galgate issues remain unresolved in 2019 but recent proposals for a new Junction 33A west from the M6 to the A6 near may bring relief to those in Galgate. The solution proposed for congestion on was to widen it to four lanes, probably cheaper than a complete new bridge but questionable in conservation terms (Endnote 3). Nonetheless a plan for its widening was approved in July 1939 and shelved (permanently, as it turned out) in September on the outbreak of war (Lancaster Guardian A and B) The local solution to congestion on Skerton Bridge came 45 years later in 1972 when Greyhound Bridge was converted from railway to road use.

Traffic within Lancaster had already become an issue, with all north-south traffic between the A6 at Penny Street Bridge and Skerton Bridge being funnelled through the town centre – ‘traffic impeded by narrow streets, difficult gradients and unexpected turns’ (Forshaw 1927, 47). The discussion of solutions in the Report is interesting. The possibility of using King Street, China Street and Bridge Lane as part of a one-way route was dismissed on cost grounds due to the need to build a new bridge near the line of the former medieval bridge, and height differences between the Lancaster and Skerton riverbanks. Concerns were also voiced about a busy new road in the ‘quiet neighbourhood of the old town’ (Forshaw 1927, 48). Eastern and western by-passes around the city centre were also dismissed. The western one was summarily rejected without explanation. ‘The steep gradients to the immediate East of the town will not allow of the construction of a bye-pass within reasonable distance of the centre of the Borough and even if it were possible, it is not considered that such an undertaking would be desirable or in the interests of the Borough.’ (Forshaw 1927, 16). Nonetheless, discussions of various western and eastern inner by-pass routes continued into the 1980s with land reserved for an eastern route as a series of car parks.

The Report’s preferred solution was road widening in the town centre. Three options were given. Two schemes involved widening Thurnham Street, Great John Street and North Road followed by two alternative approaches north to Skerton Bridge. The third option would have required the widening of Penny Street, Cheapside and North Road for north-bound traffic and the widening of Thurnham Street and Great John Street for south-bound traffic. The widening of these streets would have meant the demolition of the buildings along one side and rebuilding set further back from a wider road. This was the solution to the narrowness of China Lane/Street when it was widened in 1895, just 30 years before this report was written. The heritage loss of buildings was not mentioned

35

Contrebis 2019 v37 as a problem, but cost was. The proposals were seen as being spread over the next 50 years. Splitting north-bound and south-bound traffic happened in 1972 with the present one-way system, but by then the M6 around Lancaster had been open for 12 years and so the one-way system had to cope with only local traffic.

The impression one gets reading the report is of an exaggerated sense of how much new road construction would be needed to cope with more road traffic. It was not appreciated how much extra capacity could be obtained by better road management. There was some sense of needing to cost schemes but the effects of the severe cutbacks in public expenditure after 1922 (the ‘Geddes Axe’) did not seem to have affected this Report written in 1925 with its plethora of ring roads, radial roads and by-passes. There were few qualms about demolishing Georgian or Victorian buildings. One should note that some of the new approaches to Skerton Bridge from the south would remove what the map on p49 labelled ‘Insanitary Areas’. This designation (i.e. slums) was used in many cities until the 1960s to justify demolitions for new housing and urban motorways.

Land-use zoning The other novel feature of the plan was how it began a process of designating areas for particular land uses. The fold-out maps at the back of the Report show the built-up areas, and areas to be reserved for new housing, agriculture, industry and open spaces.

Lancaster The main concern for Lancaster was the question of road traffic (see above). After that, the issue was how to separate residential and industrial development. In terms of residential expansion the main area for new housing was to the north of Skerton as far as Barley Cop Lane and . This is what happened between the 1920s and 1970s. The extensive infilling of many parts of Lancaster as far south as Eden Park in the coming decades was not mentioned. This may be because this was classified as being already built up (albeit at low overall density) and so its detailed future was left to more local plans. In terms of industrial development, two areas were designated. One was the northern end of Caton Road as far as the aqueduct: this is now Lansil Industrial Estate. The other was all the land south of Morecambe Road on both sides of the railway from Green Ayre to Morecambe (now a cyclepath). The southern section (White Lund) did become industrial, the northern section became housing 40–60 years later (Scale Hall and Grosvenor Park estates). Overall, land-use planning in Lancaster did not seem problematic given the town’s diversified economy and its many administrative and cultural functions.

Morecambe The Report’s recommendations for Morecambe focused on how to develop further the tourism sector, particularly in competition with rival resorts. A new large car park at the West End was recommended. The town was felt to need a civic centre but not too close to the West End and the major attractions. The new Town Hall, opened in 1932, was a start to what the Report had in mind. More flowerbeds were recommended, as were improvements to the public realm such as along the Promenade. The public realm has continued to receive investment in Morecambe such as the TERN project (completed in stages after 1994), central area re-paving and the design of the new storm- barrier wall in 2014–18. New attractions were called for when it was wet or the tide was out (Endnote 4). The opening of Happy Mount Park in 1927 (a year after rival ’s Stanley Park) was along the right lines as was the Super Swimming Stadium (1936) and the Odeon cinema in 1937. Morecambe should attract ‘successful business people who have retired from the manufacturing centres of and ’ – more Lytham St Anne’s than Blackpool, perhaps. The new spacious houses along the Broadway were what were envisaged. Morecambe as

36

Contrebis 2019 v37 both a bustling tourist resort and as a retirement destination continued to thrive for over five decades after the Report was published. The extensive areas ‘under the 25-foot contour’ were noted as a problem for urban expansion southwards, though more for the difficulty of providing drainage than for the risk of flooding. Such low-lying areas are still a concern. The areas of Scale Hall and White Lund, which straddle the Lancaster –Morecambe boundary, were zoned for industry though ‘...the probability [of an airfield there] is nearer fruition than it is at present possible to affirm’, an aspiration that was never achieved but took decades to ‘die’ (Forshaw 1927, p37; Clark 2018).

Carnforth The Report’s recommendations for Carnforth are surprising. As Abercrombie pondered in his Foreword (Forshaw 1927, iii-iv) , ‘...what must be determined is whether Carnforth is to be encouraged to grow, or to be regarded as an isolated episode, regrettable perhaps, but, being there, not to be interfered with.’ It is, ‘the least obviously suitable of the region’s features.’ He seemed to see Carnforth as not so much a bad place, rather as a town in the wrong place, interrupting one’s approach to the ‘the Fells and beauties of Lakeland’. The Report noted the town’s industrial past and the decline in the railways after the amalgamation of railway companies in 1923. However, the Report said that ‘The future growth of this town is debatable;’ (Forshaw 1927, 39). Any future industrial development should be to the north of the town and residential development to the south. Southerly expansion was checked by its designation within the North Lancashire Green Belt as late as 1991, which prevented the coalescence of Carnforth, Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne with Hest.

Heysham Apart from a new road to the Harbour, avoiding Morecambe, the Report recommended the preservation of Lower Heysham, and stressed the need to ensure that future housing and retailing were ‘not sporadic and indiscriminate’ and had a proper road system (Forshaw 1927, 38–9). More housing eastwards was foreseen. Continuing the promenade from Morecambe was welcomed. More industrial development, aside from around the railway and harbour, was seen as unlikely.

Rural areas The recommendations for the rural areas were sparse because limited development was foreseen. By-passes were recommended for Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne. and the Yealands ‘should be jealously guarded against spoliation’. Silverdale needed a ‘wholesome water supply and a proper drainage system’ (Forshaw 1927 59–60).

Discussion The 1927 Report was the first to review the future of the wider Lancaster area – roughly the extent of Lancaster City Council today –and its then five local authorities with their varying powers. ‘Town planning’ was then a profession finding its feet, the Town Planning Institute having been founded only 13 years earlier. The Report was realistic about its limitations – the power to recommend through plans and maps was settled: the legal and financial powers to implement them locally were very limited. ‘The best means for dealing with Rural Preservation (as also with the planning of Built areas) is not yet definitely settled but a Regional Planning scheme can point out what requires preserving, leaving the method of doing it to be determined later. (Forshaw 1927, iv)’. This was a clear realisation that the means of implementing such plans were lacking, and would be remain so until local authorities had obtained the planning powers in the Town Planning Act of 1947 and other legislation around then. Such reports were paper exercises in the face of public or private opposition. Current actions or aspirations by the local authorities were nearly always praised. Perhaps the real benefit of this plan was that it derived from a joint committee of local authorities, which now had a forum to agree what was in their collective best interests. They might

37

Contrebis 2019 v37 feel more confident to set up other joint committees – the Lancaster and Morecambe committee for a White Lund airfield is an example, albeit unsuccessful (Clark 2018).

The planners’ options were often constrained by topography or technology. They had limited powers of foresight and tended to work with current trends – the growth in car ownership and the growing popularity of British seaside resorts. Some of their ideology is still embedded in the planning system and public discussion 90 years later, albeit in the terminology of the 1920s. Hence, ‘...the valley of the Lune [...] is exactly one of those splendid Landscapes which can be destroyed by comparatively small defacements.’ Similarly, ‘Silverdale, and the Yealand villages require careful safeguarding. All these are assets of definite worth [...] which will be collectively the poorer for their desecration.’ The Report’s Foreword did not approve of ‘sporadic building’ nor ‘ribbon development’ (a common interwar concern) nor ‘inartistic afforestation’. The Report is in places more openly judgmental than modern reports. So, for example, Galgate is ‘Perhaps the most disappointing small community in the Region’ and it is ‘forlorn’ (p58). Overall, reading this Report is an interesting mixture of the attitudes and language of 90 years ago and the area’s enduring planning issues and methods then being pioneered by a town-planning profession in its infancy.

Endnotes 1) A copy of the Report (Forshaw 1927) is available in Lancaster City Library at classmark LD1/FOR 2) The current system of road numbering in Great Britain was begun in 1919 and first published in 1922–3 and so was a recent innovation at the time of this Report (Department for Transport 2005). 3) The listing of buildings of architectural merit began under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which codified wartime procedures and started the lists of graded buildings to be protected that we use today. 4) ‘As the tides cannot be synchronized with the pleasures of the water-front, the Council should endeavour to provide attractions for the amusement and recreation of visitors at low tide, when the Bay does not present the same animated appearance’ (Forshaw 1927, 53).

Acknowledgement The author acknowledges gratefully the insights from the paper’s reviewer.

Author profile Gordon Clark was Senior Lecturer in Geography, Lancaster University. Email: [email protected]

References Beeching Report 1963 The Reshaping of British Railways. London: HMSO. 2 Vols Bentley EG and Pointon Taylor S 1911 A Practical Guide in the Preparation of Town Planning Schemes. London: George Philip https://archive.org/details/cu31924024435764/page/n5 Accessed 21/10/2018 Clark G 2018 Lancaster’s lost airfield. Contrebis 36, 13–19 Department for Transport 2005 FOI request – Road numbering. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090512074359/http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2005/ aug/roadnumbering/etteraboutroadclassification.pdf Forshaw JH 1927 Lancaster & Morecambe Regional Planning Scheme. Liverpool: The University Press of Liverpool, and London: Hodder and Stoughton Housing, Town Planning &c Act 1909 9 Edw. 7 c.44 Housing, Town Planning &c Act 1919 9&10 Geo. 5 c.35 Lancaster Guardian A 28 July 1939 p13; B 29 September 1939 p6 Megarry RE 1962 Town and Country Planning in : a Bird’s Eye View. Case Western Reserve Law Review 13(4), 619–34 Nuttall K and Rawlings T 1980 Railways around Lancaster. Clapham: Dalesman Books Royal Town Planning Institute n.d. About the RTPI. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/about-the-rtpi/ Accessed 25/10/18 Town Planning Act 1925 15&16 Geo. 5 c.16 38

Top View