As we rejoin the course of the old Mickle Trafford railway to resume our stroll, here's another view of the neglected ex-builder's yard
just off Liverpool Road.
Due to extensive new housing developments, the population- and resulting congestion-
in this area are set to increase rapidly over the next couple of years. Despite
this, there exists no public recreational open space at all in the vicinity. It
occurred to us that this derelict site would make a superb new park, and could possibly
host an educational/ visitor/ bike hire centre which would compliment perfectly
the old railway's conversion to an urban greenway.
Fat chance- in January 1999 we heard of a city council planning application
for the relocation of their bus maintenance & storage depot to the site! This was apparently intended to replace the existing facility on City Road and
would initially accomodate 89 diesel buses, access to be from the mini-roundabout
on Liverpool Road and from Parkgate Road.
The builders merchants- Travis Perkins- occupied the site of the old
Liverpool Road railway station until 5 years ago when they relocated to the
Sealand Road area, but retained ownership of the land. Since then several planning
applications for housing developments have been turned down as the city council
claimed that they wished to retain the site for 'light industrial or commercial'
use for understandable employment creation reasons. The owners had, until recently,
been unable to find such a purchaser so the site has become vandalised and left
derelict.
In November 1998 a planning application was made by agents acting for Kwik
Save founder and multi millionaire Albert Gubay for the construction
of a prestigious fitness/injury rehabilitation clinic on the site, under the Total Fitness banner, which would,
it was claimed, provide at least 150 jobs. Surprisingly to some, the city council's
response was to oppose this major potential investment in the area, and indeed
to promptly submit its own planning application, through its wholly-owned subsiduary, Chester City Transport for a bus maintainance and storage yard- that
would create very few, if any, new jobs. This on land designated for employment
creation, remember.
The present bus facility on City Road is situated close to a prestigious new
housing and office project on the site of the former Cinderella's nightclub
at the Bars- an area where other major new developments are also on the cards. It's
likely to have occured to someone within the Town Hall that the site could be
put to much more profitable use than merely for parking and fixing buses.
But another possible reason for the council's otherwise unfathomable application
was of course the site's close proximity to the disused Mickle Trafford-Shotton
railway, intended route of their ill-conceived and financially unviable CDTS
Busway. In fact, the site provides one of the very few access points to and from
the planned busway that does not require major engineering works and was one
of only three possible access points indicated on the original so-called 'consultation'
leaflet.
Without control of this land, the council's busway plans would be threatened.
By securing the site for a bus depot- that may or may not ever get built- future
access for the busway's construction and operation are ensured and they would be willing to
go a long way to see that this happened. But this unfortunate application to
build a gym there seemed to have forced their hand, threatened to
put the mockers on their widely-opposed plans.
Unfortunately for the council, the intending developers of the gym complex were
equally determined to have their way. Their planning application was due to
be heard on 3rd February 1999, but, suspecting that it was unlikely to receive
anything resembling a fair hearing- the council, of course, being both planning
authority and rival bidder for the site- they withdrew their application until
a later date in order to further investigate the circumstances involved.
The council had actually received four objections to the gym scheme by this time-
from the Queen's Junior School next door, from the Nautilus Gym located off
nearby Brook Lane, from the Chester Civic Trust and, of course, from themselves. Nevertheless, the agents for the gym developers told us that they were determined
to pursue their application- they felt that they had fulfilled all necessary
criteria for developing the land, and, should their application be 'unreasonably'
refused they would not hesitate to take their case to appeal.
So what of the council's rival claim? The fact that access to the site was onto some of the
most congested roads in Chester did not deter them, anymore than the
locating of a bus depot, with its associated noise, smell, vibration, congestion
and pollution, in a residential area adjacent to a school apparently did. That
it was also in the middle of a residential area- much of it newly built- surely
provided conflict with any number of Government policies?
It was assumed that the depot wouldl be equipped with storage facilities for whatever
"green" fuel is eventually chosen for the CDTS buses in addition to large quantities
of conventional diesel. As the propulsion for the CDTS had not yet been chosen,
presumably the plans did not specify the nature of such storage. Perhaps nearby
residents had a right to know if they were to be living next to a CNG or LPG
gas storage facility? The reason the Council gave for turning down plans for
a Calor Gas storage depot in Lightfoot Street, Hoole was the proximity of residential
housing- and who can forget the horrifying Pickford's fire that so recently
occured there?
 True to council form, the original objection period was over the Christmas
holidays and many of the most affected residents were not informed. However
they seem to have gained an extension with new notices to be sent out. The more
objections received by the planning department the better, but probably more
useful were objections to councillors on the planning committee, a number of
whom appear undecided. For example, Councillor Jean Garrod has said she
had "grave doubts about the plans for the bus depot, as do my colleagues", even
though she was not sure how much, if any, input mere councillors would be allowed
to have in the matter.
If this application were refused it would be a major blow for the Busway planners- who knows, possibly fatal.
Beyond the trees behind the derelict sheds in our picture are the grounds of
the Queen's Junior School. The government's recently-announced 'Safe Routes
to School' initiative would seem to indicate that the development of a traffic-free
greenway along the old railway would be of immense benefit to this and the other
schools that adjoin the line. The school objected fiercely to both
planning applications on grounds of increased congestion on the already-busy
Liverpool Road, and additionally to the council's bus depot plan because of
well-grounded fears of increased pollution from stinking diesel buses and the
completely unacceptable risks associated with the storage of dangerous fuels.
Then,
on
19th
February 1999, we
learned
that
Chester
City
Transport
Ltd
had
temporarily
withdrawn
their
planning
application. As a response to the first wave of objections from local schools and residents,
the council-owned company first produced pathetic assurances about the provision
of soundproof fencing and suchlike and then absurdly proposed banning vehicles
leaving the site from turning left onto Liverpool Road. This was in response
to a report by Highways Development Officer Dave Roberts, who claimed that the
solution to obvious potential problems of noise, congestion and pollution would
be to build a bigger roundabout! Why didn't we think of that?
Chester City transport managing director Stuart Hyslop commented "While we do
not agree with all the points in Mr Roberts letter, we accept that we need to
demonstrate to Mr Roberts and concerned neighbours that the access to the proposed
garage site would operate safely".
And off they trotted, planning application under arm, to try and dream up
some further flannel in order to keep the neighbours happy.
A couple of letters to the local press. From J F Spall:
"I write concerning two planning applications, currently pending, submitted
for the former Travis Perkins builders merchants premises on Liverpool Road,
Chester.
The site is currently derelict since precious planning applications for housing
developments, have been refused by Chester City Council on the grounds that
they wish the site to be retained for employment purposes, although at its peak
the builders merchants only employed 14 people. All such employment considerations
did not apparently apply to the former Heywood Williams site situated across
Liverpool Road or the nearby Brook Lane industrial estate both of which provided
far more jobs.
In
November,
a
planning
application
was
submitted
for
a
prestigious fitness
and
injury
rehabilitation
clinic on
the
site,
which,
it
was
promised,
would
provide
150
jobs.
Chester
City
Council's
response
was
not
to
support
this
major
investment
in
the
area
but
to
submit
its
own
planning
application
through
its
wholly-owned
subsidiary,
Chester
City
Transport.
This
amended
application
was
for
a
bus
maintenance
and
storage
depot
servicing,
initially,
89
diesel
buses.
It
was
intended
that
this
site
was
to
replace
the
existing
facility
on
City
Road,
therefore no new
jobs
would
be
created
by
the
scheme.
The site is in a residential area, surrounded by houses and a school. In addition
the main access is on to one of the most congested roads in Chester. It would
seem unbelievable that anyone, let alone our local council, would choose such
a site for a bus depot with its accompanying noise, pollution and congestion.
However the real reason for the scheme is not hard to find. The site is bounded
on one side by the disused Mickle Trafford to Shotton railway, the route of
the proposed CDTS busway. Furthermore the site offers the only level access
to the line in the Chester area and has connections to both Liverpool and Parkgate
Road.
It would seem unlikely that the potential value of this site to the busway has
been overlooked for so long by its proposers, which include Chester City Council,
so it can only be assumed that it has been deliberately kept derelict in readiness
for the busway scheme. The fitness centre application, however seems to have
forced the council's hand, hence the apparently hasty application for the bus
depot.
In dealing with planning applications on sites in which it has an interest itself,
the city council should not only act fairly, it should be seen to act fairly.
I believe that in regard to this site it has failed on both accounts".
And from D H and G L Morrison:
"The location of such a depot within a residential area is totally inappropriate
and the amended plans are not much better than the previous ones. Having read the application we are sure that pollution from diesel fumes has
obviously not been taken seriously into consideration; 20 or 30 buses will start
their engines at once at maximum peak times: 7 to 8am, 4pm to 5pm and 6pm to
7pm. Other peaks will be 9am to 10 am, 11am to 12 noon, and 2pm to 3pm. All
this next to a primary school full of young children who will be breathing carcinogenic
diesel fumes every time they come out to the school playing fields- no doubt
every parent of children in the Queen's School will picket the site if this
application is granted.
Then there is the noise pollution, seven days a week. The timetables submitted
with the application show that buses start running at 5.30am and finish at midnight.
At what time will engines start warming up every morning? "Sound absorbing fencing"
seems a hopelessly inadequate measure to counteract the level of noise generated
by this number of buses.
Traffic in Liverpool Road is already heavy without buses turning "south towards
the city centre"- which means right into Liverpool Road across the northbound
traffic, including during rush hours. Chester City Transport want to leave their
"congested site on Station Road" and congest the traffic in Liverpool Road instead!
As for "creating employment," How will moving the depot from City Road to Liverpool
Road create jobs?
The proposed development should he refused on the grounds of environmental and
noise pollution and traffic congestion unacceptable in a residential area, next
to a school".
 On February 25th the gym application was once again submitted to the
the city council planning sub-committee and once again was rejected on 'policy'
grounds- in other words for failing to conform to their definition of 'employment'
usage. Should the application have been for an office block or 'light industrial'
development, it would have conformed to the terms- and then how would the council
have wriggled out of it? But that it is for an employment-creating health and
leisure facility means that it apparently fails to do so. The aspiring developers
disagree, and therefore intend taking their case to appeal. Can our cash-strapped
council afford to contest the case? Given the strategic importance of the site
for the future of the CDTS, can they afford not to?
However,
in May
1999 as
part
of
a
correspondence
to
a
reader, Cllr
John
Price said
"You
will
know
that
the
planning
application
for
a
bus
depot
at
Travis
Perkins
has
been
withdrawn.
It
is
unlikely
to
be
made
again".
What
could
this
mean?
Three months later, August 12th 1999, at the commencement of appeal
proceedings against the rejection of the gym plan, it came to light that Chester
City Council had misinformed the public regarding the date when the appeal
would take place. A press notice had given the starting date as the previous
day, Tuesday, August 11th while 'interested parties' such as councillors, press
and local residents had received letters informing them that proceedings would
commence on Thursday, August 13th!
Many felt that one such 'mistake' could possibly be put down to a typing error
or such like, but two? Principal planning officer Sally Cuncliffe told the hearing that she had made
attempts during the evening to telephone all those who had written expressing
an interest to inform them of the correct date, "but had not managed to contact
everyone".
Consequently, only a handful of annoyed residents actually managed to attend
the hearing. Government planning inspector Philip Goodman, with considerable
restraint, described the council's apparent double cockup as "unfortunate" and
added, "I am sure Chester City Council will apologise to council tax payers".
After expressing his difficulty in weighing up the interests of both parties
as a result of these events, the inspector nevertheless decided to press ahead
and started hearing evidence from the council and aspiring developers AEW Architects
and Designers Ltd.
Those residents who actually made it to the hearing expressed the view that
the fitness club may be "the lesser of two evils", in light of the council's
expressed plans for the site: "We prefer this development to the bus depot,
but I'm not 100% sure we want this either".
A council spokesman described the
planned fitness club building as "like a large shed"- totally unlike their planned
bus depot, which would have looked like a... large shed. Quite.
 Total Fitness won their appeal. their appeal rthe city council, despite failing to follow the inspector's advice and "apologise to council tax payers", made at least one small crumb of comfort, for they demanded- and obtained- from Total Fitness the sum of over £230,000 as a 'contribution' to the public transport (CDTS??) fund as one of the conditions for their granting planning permission...
Surely there's a word for that sort of thing... I forget what it is for the moment....
And
here,
photographed
on
a
stormy
day
just
one
year
later,
in August
2000,
was
a
graphic
illustration
of
the
outcome
of
that
appeal!
The
council's
ludicrous
bus
depot
plans came
to
nought
and
construction
of
the
new
health
gym-
much
larger
and
uglier
than
anyone
had
expected-
was
well
advanced...
The
building
would
contain
two
'state
of
the
art'
25
metre,
six-lane
swimming
pools,
an
aqua-aerobic
pool
and
a
'standard'
pool
as
well
as
squash
courts,
a
full-scale
gymnasium
and
physiotherapy
facilities.
Alongside
it
runs
the
newly-laid
SUSTRANS
cycletrack.
 (While on the subject of swimming pools,
in December
2000,
a
letter
in
the
local
press
from
City
Councillor David
Challen made
the
suggestion,
referring
to
Chester's
much-loved
City
Baths,
that
perhaps
"it
is
time
to
say
goodbye
to
an
old
friend?"-
and
that
the
listed
building
(by
John
Douglas
and
occupying
a
site
doubtlessly
of
great
potential
interest
to
developers)
should
be
replaced
by
a 50-metre competion
pool
at
the
Northgate
Arena... The
City
Baths
celebrated
their
centenary
in
September
2001)
 A
final
couple of views,
showing
the
health
club
adjoining
the
cycleway
in
its
final,
inelegant,
form
in Summer
2001. Actually,
the
enormous
brick-built
structure on the left
is
entirely
devoted
to,
of
all
things, two floors of car
parking.
No
effort
has
been
made
to
blend
this utilitarian
structure
into
its
surroundings
or
provide
any
form of landscaping.
On
our
frequent
journeys
past
it,
we
have
rarely
observed
more
than
a
handful
of
vehicles
actually
making
use
of
it,
but
nontheless,
it
would
appear
that
the
building's architects
considered
the
club's
users
as being of
too
delicate
a constitution to
be
allowed
to
risk
getting
their
hair
wet
between
leaving
their
cars
and
entering
the
gym...
At the end of June 2002, we received this from reader Clive Buckler:
"Whilst I'm not an objector to the CDTS scheme, I have taken a great deal of interest in the whole thing.
I have cycled many times to Queensferry along the Sustrans cycleway. I am, however, very cynical about the Fitness centre and its car park at Liverpool Road. Having cycled past many times my friends and I have questioned not only the car park but the very large doors at the Blacon end (seen on your final photograph on the virtual tour).
It would be wrong to suggest that the building, which was built very quickly, is a speculative venture anticipating the CDTS scheme being approved, but!!!! As this site was earmarked for bus garage/maintenance faciltiy, it begs the question if this facility has already been partly been built with the possibility of large profit, when it has to be (compulsory) purchased for the CDTS, for the existing owners of the Fitness centre. Look again at the outside of the large doors/gates too".
Top
of
Page | Site
Front
Door | Site
Index | Railway
Stroll
Introduction | Liverpool
Road
1 | Parkgate
Road | Chester
Walls
Virtual Stroll
|