I apologise for the length of this but having authored two major reports on the Weymouth Town Centre you will understand my interest.
The general aspirations for a revitalised Town Centre are admirable. However many of the ideas and ‘visions’ are beyond reasonable expectations.
2.9 I fully endorse the concern over the adverse effects of much of the recent Town Centre highway and traffic alterations. A major review is necessary. Pedestrian safety and convenience has been compromised by the removal of safety barriers King Street and on the Esplanade in the interests of “improving the streetscape”. Barriers are well-established safety features and many designs suitable for conservation areas are available. Useful pedestrian destination signs have been removed.
It is vitally important that whatever development is proposed for the “peninsula” the facilities and prospects for any future ferry service must be kept open.
2.15 the suggestion for a minimum of 600 dwellings as well as employment and retail provision in and around the Town Centre is probably totally unrealistic and unachievable.
Such a huge increase in residential properties within an already densely developed area will bring increased traffic movements. Generating a minimum of 3 private vehicle movements per person per day gives some 1800 additional car movements, to which has to be added servicing, delivery and other associated trips.
2.17 The Swannery Car Park should not be regarded as the main car park to serve the Town Centre. It is essential to maintain its present use as a longer term park for use by visitors to the wider area including the beach and Radipole Lake. It is well used especially in the peak seasons and there is no scope for designating it for additional purposes. For many people it is much too long a walk to most of the Town Centre shops. Obviously there is scope for additional landscaping and visual improvement but that will cost.
2.18 There is clearly some scope for the redevelopment of the so-called peninsula especially the terminal buildings, but this is by far the best place for the town’s theatre. Diminishing public parking in this area can only threaten the viability of all existing and future facilities in the area including the theatre. This area is not appropriate for housing.
A “landmark building” has been suggested for many years and appears to be nothing more than an undefined aspiration. External embellishment of the existing pavilion building could make that a more attractive visual landmark. There is no need to go to the enormous expense of demolition and rebuilding on this site. The existing Pavilion has much potential. The council failed to make it pay so it’s hard to conceive how the authority or any developer could possibly fund a brand new theatre on another site.
2.19 The Westwey Road and North Quay areas are ripe for redevelopment, and if sensitively designed will produce a major enhancement of the inner harbour waterfronts. However the current building on the former fire station site is arguably out of scale, designed with no regard for the amenities of all the interesting older properties behind, hiding them and obliterating their views. Fortunately that issue should not arise with the other frontage sites.
As with all contemplated developments adequate car parking must be provided. It is a fallacy to think that depriving residents and businesses of convenience car parking will increase cycling, walking and public transport. 30 years of attempts to implement such policies have failed to do that.
2.20 The attraction of Lodmoor is its rich natural state (I query the use of the strange term “gateway” here and elsewhere). New building development on Lodmoor, other than to complement the existing reserve and facilities, should not be permitted under any circumstances whether or not it is “high quality”.
2.21 This seems to indicate some sort of trade-off between a loss of habitat in one area against an intended gain elsewhere. This is too vague and it would be virtually impossible to recreate long-established natural areas, even if alternative wetland sites were available, which are not. Expansion of the reserve on the rising ground to the north-west would be welcome but this would be of a different character.
3.3 See 2.15 above.
Objectives
3.7 and 3.8 If more pedestrianisation can be achieved whilst maintaining essential access for deliveries and services, then that should be pursued. This is precisely what was aimed for, and substantially achieved, in the Town Centre Enhancement Schemes of the 1980s. However it is hard to see in which streets vehicular access can be significantly reduced without compromising deliveries and essential access. A major problem with existing pedestrian/vehicular conflict is lack of enforcement which should be addressed.
3.9 Aspirations to improve all harbour waterside facilities and 24-hour, year round experiences are excellent. They repeat exactly what has been said in several past reports. How that can be achieved remains a mystery.
3.10 When Westham Bridge was closed as a traffic route the idea was that it should be used as a quality public space and an attractive part of the pedestrian routes (as I stated when I made the Highway Stopping-up application to the magistrates court for the Borough Council). The reasons this has not been fulfilled are its usefulness as a car park, and the cost of further enhancement work.
3.11 3.7 & 3.8 above explain the difficulties of further pedestrianisation. How can additional ‘high quality public open space’ be provided in such a densely built-up area without demolition or taking over car parks?
Some highly valued hard and soft landscaping features formed with the enhancement schemes of 25 years ago have been subsequently removed with no public consultation. It will be good to see features such as flower beds, decorative street furniture etc. reinstated.
4.4 Reduction of traffic in King Street was a major issue with the Weymouth Transport Package. I made a detailed criticism to DCC in 2010/11 as that plan perpetuated this as a main traffic route and did not achieve the traffic reduction which it could have done. The Jubilee Clock junction would have been far better as an improved roundabout rather than traffic signals. The removal of pedestrian safety barriers for aesthetic reasons was a huge mistake. In such busy streets segregation of walkers and vehicles is important. Pedestrians are more relaxed when they don’t have to constantly watch out for traffic.
Reduction in ‘traffic dominance’ in Westwey Road will not be possible until the Western Relief Road is built.
There are straightforward pedestrian links from the railway station to all parts. Additional signage may be of marginal help, but there is little scope for new pedestrian routes.
Most Park and Ride schemes have proved ineffective in reducing traffic and nearly all require heavy subsidies. P&R is unlikely to be viable at the Swannery Car Park and Lodmoor (which has been tried).
Car parking alongside Commercial Road is essential for the viability of the Town Centre and should not be reduced. Lots of new residential units will bring lots of additional cars.
Regarding a ‘transport hub’ at the station: Contrary to popular belief the railway station was specifically conceived as a transport interchange, with space for buses and taxis. It failed simply because bus operators saw no benefit in using it. The obstructive signals at the Queen Street/King Street junction in the WTP have brought no material increase in public transport interchange, and the Masterplan suggests no way of improve this.
Public Realm Strategy
4.8 This boils down to further major physical enhancement work which will be excellent if it can be afforded. Unless more restriction on vehicular access is imposed, the pedestrian/ vehicle mix will remain much as at present. Good pedestrian routes exist between all points so how can a ‘pedestrian circuit’ or defined routes help? People rarely want to walk in a circuit anyway, they want to browse and get to destinations.
The previous Enhancement Schemes introduced high quality paving material and features of coherent design throughout the Town Centre. This has since suffered from inadequate maintenance and the ill-considered removal of very well-designed and popular flower planters in St Thomas Street and St Mary Street.
5.1.2 & 5.1.5 A harbourside pedestrian walk was proposed many years ago but could not be fully achieved due to practical and land ownership issues.
Westham Bridge is already a public space. Repaving and some physical enhancement would be welcome.
To introduce new residential units above ground level will be extremely difficult and expensive to achieve. None of this should be at the expense of public car parking.
Commercial Road fronting Debenhams etc. was specifically designed as a bus pick up and drop off point. It has never reached its full potential due to the bus companies continuing to regard the King’s Statue as their hub.
If the suggested “cultural building” means a new theatre, short of a massive windfall this could never be afforded. In any case it should not be regarded as a replacement for the existing Pavilion theatre which is in the prime optimum site for a seaside theatre at the end of the Esplanade.
5.17 Relocating existing buildings such as the Angling Centre would be expensive and would achieve very little advantage. (Incidentally it is Cosens not Cozens). I cannot see the point of relocating the very successful and convenient bowling green to another site.
5.18 Commercial Road of course is dominated by traffic, made worse by the WTP which forced all traffic from the A354 destined for the southern Esplanade, the port and Pavilion areas to take that route and Westham Road. This was one of several major mistakes in the recent Town Centre traffic scheme to which I strongly objected to DCC.
5.19 This acknowledges that car parking is “vitally important to maintain the viability of the Town Centre”, but goes on to say that there is an overprovision of parking. I do not agree with this. Parking is at a premium and any reduction is bound to affect the accessibility of the Town Centre for many people. Past intensive studies into parking requirements in Weymouth Town Centre should be studied. The needs of shoppers, businesses and visitors have not materially changed in recent years. Convenient parking is essential. It should be recognised that the Weymouth Town Centre does not only comprise shops, offices and public spaces; there are very many residenses. All have parking, delivery and servicing needs which cannot be dismissed.
5.1.11 Coach parking is very space intensive as it is doubtful whether there is room for this near Commercial Road without severely impacting on other uses. Coaches park up and can occupy valuable space all day. It is doubtful whether coach operators would want to use that space-restricted area.
As elsewhere physical enhancement can improve the pedestrian environment, but the actual routes are already established.
Past negotiations with hauliers and delivery firms have shown that restrictions on delivery times, other than in the pedestrian zones, cannot be achieved
5.1.14 & 5.1.15 As above, the pedestrian routes mentioned already exist.
Parking can be removed from Westham Bridge to enhance the pedestrian space there, but that would increase pressures elsewhere.
5.2 Harbourside
It would be good to realign a major part of Westwey Road create space for a harbourside walkway (plans for this were drawn up years ago), but this would be an extremely expensive scheme. Considering the nature of the filled ground and known contamination it is doubtful that any developer would be able to fund such a project, and the council certainly could not. Car parking for the Marina would be good, as would the creation of public open space – a square or a small park – on the western side of Westwey Road.
If shops and cafes are to be provided here adequate public car parking must be provided too.
The only way that Westwey Road can be “less traffic dominated” will be by the construction of the Western Bypass which will take all A354 traffic to and from Portland.
5.3Lodmoor
Park and Ride has been tried from Lodmoor but it proved unviable. There is scope for enhancing the existing amenities in the area, but no building should encroach further into the natural undeveloped area. If ‘consolidate the parking area’ means reducing it, this would be a retrograde step. This is not the place for more houses.
Coaches need to drop off and pick up from the Esplanade.
Lodmoor does not “require the consolidation of uses and refreshment of the public realm”. The very diversity of this mostly natural area is part of its attraction. The built-up areas will inevitably change and evolve with time. The large car parks there are essential to serve the wider area but there is no way that this can have any significant role in relieving traffic congestion in the Town Centre.
If the car and coach parking areas around the Premiere Inn are unattractive this should be addressed by further landscaping, not by squeezing cars out and building houses or flats. As above park-and-ride has proved unviable from Lodmoor and this almost certainly will remain the position.
5.4 The ‘Peninsula’ (Pavilion, Pleasure Pier and Port).
The ferry terminal buildings were mainly constructed in the 1970s and certainly could do with redevelopment or visual improvement. The Pavilion theatre can and should be enhanced. With imaginative architectural treatment it can be made into a very attractive building. The Pavilion must remain where it is, and it needs all the car parking it currently has. To reduce the parking area would compromise the viability of this and other new facilities in the area.
Public art, sculpture hard landscaping etc. are all worthy accessories but they should not be paid for by selling parts of this public land for private development.
This area is utilised to its full and there is no way that changes can contribute to reducing traffic flows on the Esplanade. It is totally the wrong place for housing.
Residential development on this major public site would be totally inappropriate.
Despite the Flood Risk Management Strategy this area and much of the Town Centre itself is unlikely to suffer increased flooding for generations, if ever. The jury is still out on the degree of rising sea levels.
Custom House Quay is long overdue for physical enhancement with new paving and surfacing. It is important to retain the rail lines for any future tram service which would be a unique visitor attraction. There is no need to ban all parking on the quayside to improve the environment.
The statement in 5.4.10 that “the parking area draws high levels of visitor traffic along King Street Esplanade and into the Town Centre” is not correct. Firstly King Street does not currently provide access to the Esplanade south. Secondly cars access this area because that is where people want to go; for the Town Centre, for the Pavilion and for all the other attractions and facilities in the southern part of the Town Centre. It is a fallacy to think that parking can be reduced without impacting on footfall for the vital businesses in the area.
[The Masterplan report contains many repetitions in different paragraphs]
The suggestion in 5.4.17 that the peninsular should have a ‘sizeable proportion of residential units, retail and office uses in addition to cafes restaurants and leisure’ is not justified. It seems the first three of these are simply means of raising money to fund the latter. This is a dubious approach and is reminiscent of the time when the great public park to the north of the Town Centre was sold off for private housing development, now known as the Park District. Future generations would forever condemn such a decision.
A high quality pedestrian ambience is essential whatever is proposed but outdoor dining on this extremely exposed site would be a problem, unless the building development is on such a scale to include enclosed quadrangles.
5.5 Railway Station area
It has long been an aspiration to relocate the incongruous bus garage away from the Town Centre. This would free up a potentially valuable site for redevelopment.
There is no indication of how the Key Objectives in 5.5.2 could be achieved.
The railway station layout was specifically conceived as a transport interchange, with space for buses and taxis. It failed simply because bus operators saw no benefit in using it. The Weymouth Transport Package tried to achieve this, but has failed spectacularly. There has been no material increase in bus and rail interchange, and nothing in this report suggests how this can be achieved.
[Paragraph 5.5.3 does not make sense].
The Esplanade subway was created to cater for pedestrians the vast majority of whom who cross the top of King Street. Peak summer time counts showed that far more people move in that direction than go across to the beach in that vicinity. Ideally this subway should have also extended across the Esplanade to the beach side but that proved impracticable and too costly. The effective signage highlighting the pedestrian route to the beach and town was removed in the WTP scheme.
5.5.6 Again a reduction in car parking in Commercial Road is suggested. That is incomprehensible. It is also not clear what is meant by repeated references to improved pedestrian links to the Town Centre. Does this mean wider pavements or some undefined new route?
5.5.7 The suggestions for moving B&Q, Kwik-Fit and the petrol station are verging on fantasy. Apart from the impossibility of finding alternative sites which are commercially viable, the cost would be astronomical. Neither the council nor any developer could possibly fund it.
5.5.8 The design of the Weymouth Transport Package did not achieve the reduction in traffic in King Street which I felt could have been achieved by traffic management. An attempt to reduce the number of vehicles using it was made by diverting southbound vehicles along Commercial Road and Westham Road, which only increased conflicts in those roads.
5.5.10There is clearly scope for redeveloping the under-used railway land, east of Jubilee Close. The repeated references to improved pedestrian links are vague. The routes exist but the existing footways can generally not be widened. They are surfaced to a reasonable standard so what is now being suggested?
5.5.11 The wholesale redevelopment of the King Street North side frontage is unattainable.
5.4.14 [the paragraph numbering has gone awry]. The Swannery Car Park is designated for replacement railway station parking, a ‘key arrival point’; the main car park to serve the Town centre and the beach; and as a Park and Ride site. This would not work. This car park is barely adequate now for peak summer use.
Finally evidence of actual increase in sea water levels around the Town Centre should be assessed before embarking on any of the extremely expensive and possibly unviable flood prevention measures suggested. Many of the historic building have cellars, and the subsoil throughout is to a degree porous.
Stuart Morris
