So farewell then Andy Farrell

1st May 2007

Rare as hen's teeth may have been the times when I have found myself agreeing with the views of columnist Bob Clough Parker, but this week I considered his analysis of the regime of Chester's Head of Planning, Andrew Farrall to be absolutely spot on- and very much closer to the truth than that of City Council Chief Executive Paul Durham, whose laughable comments in the same edition of the Chronicle pay tribute to such aspects of Farrall's "tremendous legacy" as,

• The Old Port (largely comprising yuppy flats of indifferent quality, loss of valued public open space, years-long battle to save at least a portion of the historic Electric Light Building)

• Canalside (many more 'luxury' apartments, soon to be added to when that inconvenient infant's school is got rid of)

• The Amphitheatre (international embarrassment and ongoing muddled mess: a court house/office block built, to the fury of many, over part of the ancient monument, Dee House continuing to rot away over much of the rest. Appeals for full excavation repeatedly rejected by Farrall and most councillors).

• The Culture Park (whatever that may be)

Also notable in Mr Clough Parker's article were mentions of the West Cheshire College farce, the 'get what you're given and like it' Northgate Development (including, naturally, even more yuppy flats), the disgraceful plot to destroy our valued and handsome Northgate Arena to make room for yet another hotel, the God-awful HQ megastructure where the police station used to be- and, of course, that infernal 'Glass Slug'...

This writer could also make mention of such as the needless destruction of the Royalty Theatre (its site then sitting empty for over five years), the Gateway Theatre, the imminent demise of the Odeon Cinema, the threatened removal of the Grosvenor Museum, the proliferation of facilities catering to late night drunks, and the years-long battle over the ludicrous CDTS 'Guided Busway'- how many millions of pounds of our money was squandered upon this latter alone?

Chester, as is well known, has existed as an important cultural, military and economic centre for all of two millennia, evolving and growing slowly to meet the needs of the times. During the last fifty years or so, however, a succession of smart young 'improvers' have emerged who, impatient with seemingly un-ego stroking concepts such as 'history' and 'heritage', and largely indifferent to their raw materials (Harlow New Town? Warrington? Chester? What's the difference?) - have seen fit, in harmonious partnership with landowners and profiteers who give not a jot for such foolishness together with an ever-compliant rash of clueless and easily-overawed councillors- to rush to mould the old city into modernist visions of their own fevered imaginings. They who smashed an ill-placed Inner Ring Road through her ancient circuit of defensive walls, who needlessly demolished her wonderful old Market Hall facade, who erected a mult-storey concrete car showroom in a medieval streetscape, who eliminated a vast and well-preserved Roman bath house complex- potentially as fine as Bath's- in order to build the Grosvenor Precinct, who built an office block on a Roman amphitheatre, who, by their greed, saw fit to outprice and see off centuries of family businesses in the city centre to be replaced by bland chain outlets, exactly like those elsewhere in Anytown UK- and now, an ever-growing collection of empty shops...

A recent example- not long since thankfully departed, but not easily forgotten- was 'Conservation Officer' Peter De Figueredo, whose wooden bollards and some, at least, of his equally-pointless flagpoles- not to mention his utterly crass and historically-irrelevant roof and graffitti-covered perspex window on Thimbleby's Tower- continue to plague our townscape today.

But all this was small fry compared to Head of Planning Farrall's contempt for all that makes our city unique, for the needs and opinions of its small businesses and the ordinary working people who make the place tick (in contrast to the orgy of 'luxury' apartments, where was the corresponding programme of building desperately-needed new homes for them?) side-by-side with his fawning admiration for, and ecouragement of, all things corporate.

That all of this destructive social engineering was carried out without, to the best of my knowledge, a single murmer of opposition from councillors speaks volumes for the quality of our elected representatives of all parties.

Yes, indeed. Mr Farrall's thirteen-year reign has been little less than a disaster for this most unique of English cities and Warrington is welcome to him- though, frankly, I can't imagine her sensible, plain-speaking folk putting up with his particular brand of elitist nonsense for very long...

Mr Clough Parker describes Farrall's departure as 'puzzling' and, indeed, the question must arise, did he jump or was he pushed- or, at the very least, nudged? Radical future changes in local government may have played a part in it, but could, perhaps, the ongoing scandal of Quinn Glass at Elton- where a vast industrial plant was erected without any form of planning permission or environmental certification- and in the full knowledge of our Head of Planning and Chief Executive- have some small bearing upon the matter?

And what for the future? We can only hope that, with the welcome end of the disastrous reign of A Farrall Esq, lessons have at last been learned and that those who are charged with choosing his successor take great care to appoint someone who actually understands and loves Chester, someone who can foster a new agenda of sensible and sensitive planning for the future in genuine consultation with the people who live here, as opposed to those who merely extract profit from it. Then, perhaps, an era of greater social equality and of true excellence in new architecture may be at last be permitted to dawn in our very special, but very much abused city.