{"id":3527,"date":"2016-10-17T10:41:24","date_gmt":"2016-10-17T09:41:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/?page_id=3527"},"modified":"2017-12-22T10:39:30","modified_gmt":"2017-12-22T10:39:30","slug":"sheep-market-car-park","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/the-place\/sheep-market-car-park\/","title":{"rendered":"Sheep Market Car Park."},"content":{"rendered":"

.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"sheep-market-toilets-and-chestnut-tree\"<\/p>\n

One of the most contentious and divisive of events in Launceston\u2019s recent past is that of the building of the multi-storey car park on the town council\u2019s only car park, known locally as the Old Sheep Market car park which held spaces for up to 75 cars. As the name alludes to, this was once where the market for sheep was held before the construction of the market<\/a> at Race Hill. Before that, the area was known as Noah\u2019s Ark<\/a> due to small paddocks located there being used for a menagerie of animals.
\nThe idea for building a multi-storey car park wasn\u2019t a new one, for at the meeting of the town council in January 1939, and with the second world war looming, it was suggested by \u00a0councillor Sydney Fitze<\/a>, that a double-decker parking ground embodying an air-raid shelter, accommodating 200 women and children. He suggested that such a scheme would relieve the then parking congestion in the town, incorporating a bus station, whilst also providing work for the towns unemployed. However, it was felt that the cost of adding a bomb-proof shelter would be prohibitive. And so the idea lay dormant for the next 30 years.<\/p>\n


\nIn 1957 three properties (below<\/em>) positioned on the corner of Westgate Street and the Dockey were purchased and demolished. This was to enable better access down the Dockey whilst also freeing up further car parking spaces although this did little to improve the towns parking issues on the busy market days, although when the redevelopment of the Northgate and Tower Street area in the early 1960\u2019s was finished, there had been \u00a0three more parking areas were created which did help in alleviating the problem \u00a0somewhat. The suggestion of building a multi-storey at the Sheep Market was resurrected but after some initial planning it was deemed to expensive.<\/p>\n

\"Cornish
Cornish and Devon Post article on the removal of No’s 22,24 and 26 Westgate Street.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It is not without irony that the impending closure of the Cattle Market<\/a> in the June of 1991 was to help in resurrecting the idea of the multi-storey. Plans were passed in 1990 but with the country in recession and the very high cost of borrowing at that time, it was shelved as being too costly. However, one move that was to signal the beginning of the discourse, occurred at the beginning of 1991. In January of that year, the town council commissioned a report on the 100 year old horse-chestnut tree that stood by the public toilets on the Westgate Street side of the car park. The county forester concluded that it\u2019s root system had been severely damaged by recent excavations by one of the supply companies, and would either have to be felled or reduced in size. The town clerk, Philip Freestone said \u2018the council was disappointed that the tree had to come down, but it was necessary to safeguard lives.\u2019 \u00a0It was earmarked to be felled in March of that year, however, as Philip Freestone was quoted, \u201ca fly in the ointment\u201d had delayed the act. A separate report commissioned by the \u2018Old Cornwall Society\u2019 contradicted the earlier findings by the county forester. The survey by Tavistock Tree Specialists claimed that although three of the main stems of the tree had a number of cavities from the loss of minor branches, and limited decay at the base of the main trunk, it was not enough to make it a danger. The report concluded that the tree was definitely worth retaining, although certain remedial work was necessary to prolong its life. Philip Freestone countered by stating that \u201c people are taking it as gospel. There are so many experts here who do not accept they are not the real experts.\u201d \u00a0He continued \u201cWe have to go on the report of the county forester who were called in because we had had a report that the tree was on the move.\u201d<\/p>\n

The delay in its ultimate fate, was for the council to check its legal situation. In the meantime, great consternation was raised in the letters column of \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post.\u2019 Even Joan Rendell lending her support to keeping the tree. A further stay of execution was given at a meeting of the town council finance committee on May 21st with councillor Alan Buckingham saying \u201cI would like to think that if we condemn this tree we have taken the right decision and when we have all the facts I will be willing to make up my mind.\u201d Mayor Derek Bradshaw, told the meeting \u201cthat it was not the council\u2019s aim to fell the tree regardless, and stressed that they had no ulterior motive for considering the move.\u201d Muriel Ardley and Joan Rendell, who between them had collected over a 100 signatures presented the committee with their petitions. Also at the meeting was Captain John Hullock who said \u201cthat to cut it down without looking at the alternatives would be and act of vandalism.\u201d He concluded that \u201cI do not think that anyone is saying it should be removed at all costs, and if it is sick it will have to be removed, but not until all the facts have been fully established.\u201d It was agreed that a site meeting would be held by the town councillors with district councillors and representatives from the county foresters and Tavistock Tree Specialists in the June. Councillor Rob Tremain, who had been a leading advocate of keeping the tree, said after the finance meeting \u201cthat he was amazed by the council\u2019s \u2018turnaround\u2019 since the last time the tree\u2019s future was discussed.\u201d \u00a0He added with what was to be a profound statement for the future, \u201cWe have not yet won the day, but I am sure the change is to do with all the publicity it has been getting.\u201d \u00a0However, despite all the campaigning, at the site meeting it was finally decided that the damage to its roots were such that there was no other course of action left but to fell it, and so at the beginning of \u00a0September, the tree was removed to much sadness to the people of Launceston. To this day doubts are held as to the reasons and decision to fell the tree, particularly in relation to the building of the multi-storey. But the original plans for the development made provision for the horse -chestnut.<\/p>\n

\"horse-chestnut-tree-in-westgate-street-1991\" \"tilleys-coach-departing-the-old-sheep-market-car-park-in-westgate-street-launceston-late-1970s_-photo-courtesy-of-gary-chapman\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"horse-chestnut-tree-being-felled-in-westgate-street-1991\"<\/p>\n

By the time of the horse-chestnuts demise, the closure of the cattle market had taken place and within weeks the district council had contracted work to begin on the removal of the pens. There was much concern as to the district council\u2019s plans for the site, especially the car park which held an extensive amount oft spaces. Rumours were rife that they were keen to sell of the site for development. The local NFU agent at the time, Mr. John Russsell raised the question of the sites future, expressing his concern at the suggested building of a multi-storey car park in which he agreed with the prevailing local opinion that it would be a bureaucratic vandalism of the worst order.<\/p>\n

The concerns to the towns car parking arrangements had indeed become one that the town council sought to overcome. The new mayor, Monty Brown, at his inauguration in June 1991, stated these concerns when he said, \u201cI hope that when agreement between the district council and the auctioneers is reached and the site is developed, as it surely will be, our district council will remember, that at present, we have over 250 free parking spaces, which are used in general by people who work in this town, people who are on low incomes, who would find it a struggle if they had to pay district council charges in order to work.\u201d He added that \u201c we need additional parking to support our small shopkeepers, they are the lifeblood of the town centre.\u201d He said the town council were continuing to look at additional parking capacity on the town hall car park.<\/p>\n

\"old-sheep-market-car-park-in-the-1950s\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"launceston-sheep-market-car-park-photo-courtesy-of-adrian-taylor\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"launceston-sheep-market-car-park-photo-courtesy-of-ian-smale\"<\/p>\n

And so the the wheels were set in motion for what was to be the most ever bitterly fought development in Launceston, dwarfing that of the nineteenth century fight to save the Southgate from demolition. As early as the beginning of 1991 top level talks were taking place between the town and district councils. It was felt that some of the \u00a34 million that had been earmarked for a new cattle market at Scarne, Launceston which had been scrapped, could be used towards the new car park.
\nIn September of 1991, the district council treasurer, Harold Chapman, told the councils policy committee that a provision of \u00a3800,000 should be allocated to help build a multi-storey car park at Launceston. Planning committee vice-chairman, David Viggers, wondered if this would be enough to cover the costs. In October, the town council invested \u00a3100,000 in the Bank of Ireland at a secret session. The cash had amassed through prudent budgeting and through schemes which had been ditched or suspended from the previous year of which \u00a348,000 that had been put aside for the building of the five tier multi-storey in 1990. As the year progressed it became clear that North Cornwall district council planned to turn the market site into a pay and display car park which caused some outrage amongst many from around the town, particularly from the parishes where it was felt that many of the workers who had been able to park free of charge, would now find it difficult to pay the costs whilst earning low wages. It was also pointed out that charging for a car park with such an uneven surface with no clear markings was difficult to justify.
\nThe full plans for the multi-storey were unveiled to the public the week commencing 13th January 1992, and straight away discord was raised with councillor Barry Jordan giving a four point reason as to why the scheme should not get the go ahead (letter to the Cornish and Devon Post below left<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\"barry-jordan-letter-of-janaury-1992\"<\/p>\n

\"Launceston
Launceston Multi Storey Plans released in Januay 1992.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The plans were for a three tier 150 space car-park at a cost of \u00a3650,000 which \u00a3200,000 had already been set aside for. This was a reduction on the previous five tier scheme which already held permission. Councillor Barry Jordan asked how the town council could justify building a car park of that size when, he claimed, the present car park is seldom used. He said \u201cthe burden of the new building, which was a monstrosity, would fall on the rate payers of the town if it failed to bring in the required revenue.\u201d He continued \u201c the only people who would benefit from this are the traders and there are less now than five years ago the market is now gone and there is nothing to draw people into Launceston so we have to get the town centre growing again and then look at the possibility.\u201d He then accused some members of being on \u2018an ego trip\u2019 for resurrecting the proposed car-park which was shelved the previous year after it was deemed financially unviable. \u201cThe town clerk is the one who has kept this bubbling, and it is a big feather in his cap if he gets it done,\u201d he said, adding \u201cno one is willing to listen and consider that there is something wrong with what they are proposing.\u201d Fellow councillor Keith Adams, who was also president of the town\u2019s Chamber of Commerce rejected Barry\u2019s claims and said everyone in business in the town was in favour of the plan. He said \u201cthe Chamber was \u2018thrilled to bits\u2019 with the proposed car park, which he described as \u2018a lovely looking\u2019 building.\u201d He continued \u201cwhen Barry Jordan talks about the car park being empty I don\u2019t know what he is talking about because I never see it empty, and I am getting a little bit tired of knocking Launceston about the car park not being used. Parking is the only thing that people have complained about, and now we are doing something about it he is shouting.\u201d Councillor Adams followed this up with a letter to \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post.\u2019<\/p>\n

\"letter-from-march-1992\"<\/p>\n

The clash of personalities continued within the council chambers at the next council meeting with councillor Barry Jordan accusing the town clerk, Philip Freestone, of running the council \u2018at whim\u2019 after the deposit charges for hiring the town hall were doubled. Councillor Jordan told the meeting Mr. Freestone had adopted a finance committee recommendation to raise the deposits from \u00a325 to \u00a350 without the decision being ratified by the full council. Philip Freestone brushed off the accusations and said it was obvious that the increase would be approved by the full council. He concluded that \u201cit was a unanimous decision and I looked on it as purely administrative.\u201d Councillor Derek Bradshaw supported the town clerks actions as did councillor Alan Buckingham who argued that it was perfectly reasonable for Mr. Freestone to ask for a \u00a350 deposit. Members voted in favour of endorsing the actions of the town clerk with councillor Jordan voting against. It is against this backdrop that Councillor Jordan made an eleventh-hour plea for a public meeting to discuss the proposed development but this was rejected by the rest of the council members. Only long standing member Jim Hughes supported him, and who said \u201cthe elderly residents of the retirement flats opposite the site would be faced with a \u2018horrible building\u2019 when they looked out of their windows.\u201d Councillor Hughes suggested that Launceston\u2019s residence should be allowed to vote for or against the project before it went ahead. He estimated that 80 per cent would be opposed. However, Councillor Alan Buckingham countered by stating that the car park was part of a scheme for the provision for the future of the town. He said \u201cthe council would be \u2018criminally neglectful\u2019 to the people of Launceston if the plan did not go ahead. People who look on this car park in isolation have missed the point.\u201d Prophetically he concluded \u201cI would not like to think that the next 60 years in Launceston could not bring us an increase in business to fill the car park.\u201d
\nThe refusal to hold a public meeting caused an quite \u00a0public furore and the following weeks letter page in \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post\u2019 were filled with letters condemning the decision. In one the car park scheme was felt to be ill-judged saying that \u2018Launceston town council has always expected its consultative position \u00a0within the decision making powers of the senior North Cornwall council to be honoured by that council, but themselves deny us any consultation.\u2019 It ended with \u2018who is frightened of what?\u2019 Another questions why not put car park to the vote?<\/p>\n

\"Letter
Letter to the Cornish and Devon Post from Greta Bird in February 1992.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The outcry was such that the town council relented to the pressure and organised a public meeting that took place on Monday February 17th, with over 400 people in attendance. However, the restriction that the council placed at the packed meeting left most of the public feeling that their opinions were not being taken seriously. In a letter from Wilfred Cocks, Sydney Adams, Connie Geach, John Hodgson, Reg Prout, and Colin Warne asked if free speech was under threat? In particular they criticised the mayor, Monty Brown and his dictatorial attitude. They complained of the manner in the way the meeting was set out, especially when the mayor emphasised at the outset that questions only would be permitted, enabling the council to explain its point of view, but forbidding any expression of opinion by the audience. The mayor flat refusal to allow a show of hands to record the feeling of the meeting they felt, reflected a blinkered \u2018we know best\u2019 stance, in defiance of natural justice and common sense. The sense of injustice was felt everywhere and helped steel the resolve of those that were against the scheme. A petition set up after the meeting soon had over 1,500 signatories and a momentum against the multi-storey began to gather pace.<\/p>\n

A week later there was a claim that an ancient right of way existed running from the top corner by the former Drill Hall down to the opposite corner by the Guildhall, but this could not be proved, even some though early maps did show a track that ran across the site.Further pressure came from a survey conducted by \u2018Orbit Housing Developments\u2019 who ran Westgate Mews opposite the Sheep Market. Over the course of one month they had taken readings three times a day, at 10:30 am, 12:30 pm, and 4:30 pm to examine how much the car park was used. Their findings supported councillor Barry Jordan\u2019s earlier claims that the car park was never full. With 56 readings to hand, they confirmed that the car park was full only twice \u2013once on the day of the Spry\u2019s Garage fire, and on another occasion when five coaches were parked there. The only time the site came close to being full was on Tuesdays when coaches each took up several parking spaces. Simon Graham spokesman for Orbit, said \u201c the motivation to create an eyesore for an unnecessary extra 80 spaces on an already under-utilised site appears odd to say the least.\u201d Yvonne Horn Launceston district councillor was another voice against the scheme. She felt that the car park should remain as it is for a \u2018quick turnover\u2019 with longer stay parking at the refurbished cattle market car park. She confirmed North Cornwall district council\u2019s plan to level, resurface and line the first tier of the former cattle market. She admitted that Launceston members of the district council had had two informal meetings with the mayor Monty Brown, and the town clerk, she added that she would never have gone along with the scheme had she known the finances. She said \u201cbut we cannot recommend refusal of the plan because of public opinion or the fiances as a planning reason, which is ludicrous. The other slight disadvantage is that they were granted planning permission a couple of years ago for a \u2018monstrosity on that site \u2014 how it got through I do not know.\u201d<\/p>\n

The plan came before the North Cornwall district council planning committee on Monday 14th March, and after much deliberation a move for refusal was defeated by just two votes. Instead a vote of 8-6 was held in favour of a full site meeting. English Heritage in a letter to the meeting said that they greeted the scheme with caution, adding that a building which relies on vegetation for disguise must arouse suspicion. Councillors were split over the proposal \u2014 some believed it would desecrate one of the most historic parts of the town, while others argued that Launceston desperately needed additional car parking to cope with tourism and revitalised trade. Yvonne North, repeated her objection labelling it a \u2018terrible plan.\u2019 She was supported by the district council\u2019s vice-chairman Ken White who dubbed the plan \u2018environmentally unacceptable.\u2019 He said he would like to see the application refused because of the effect it would have on the conservation area and residents in the vicinity. Chief planning officer Tony Philp told members that the council had sought an independent \u00a0opinion on the \u2018rather novel\u2019 landscaping proposed by the town council as part of the scheme. South Petherwin<\/a> district member Graham Facks-Martin supported the plan, but agreed that a site meeting should be held to discuss it more fully. He also stated that the authority would be on extremely weak grounds if it rejected the application as the town council already had am outstanding permission for a much larger car park on the site. He continued \u201cbecause the architect has gone to \u2018novel lengths\u2019 to landscape it, it is seen to be something to be desired, but I think it should be congratulated.\u201d Concluding he said \u201cAnyone who thinks that Launceston doesn\u2019t need more car parking in the summer must be around the twist.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is amazing to consider now, but the clamour for further car-parking spaces in the town was such that there was even a suggestion at this time to sell St. Mary Magdalene Church<\/a> and churchyard for retail development and a central car park, however this was very quickly dismissed by Rev. Tim Newcombe.
\nThe ante was moved up when the opponents asked the Department of \u00a0the Environment to investigate the scheme. Wilfred Cocks said a small group of protestors were taking these steps. \u201cThe whole situation is being reported with supporting papers to the Department by a small representative group of Launceston residents\u201d he said.
\nWith the debate falling into two entrenched groups, councillor Alan Buckingham suggested that three people from the No group should meet with three members of the council to discuss the situation across the table at an open meeting. He said \u201ca lot of people that came to the public meeting didn\u2019t come to listen to the real facts.\u201d He continued \u201cI\u2019m not afraid to argue the case with anybody. The proposals concerning the car park we have put forward are financially sound.\u201d Councillor Cynthia Buckingham, Alan\u2019s wife, stated that the council would not change people\u2019s minds.<\/p>\n

\"Multi-Storey
Multi-Storey Car Park protesters in March 1992.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The site meeting was duly held on Thursday March 19th, and as well as the council members and their respective officers, nearly 200 angry residents were in attendance. Launceston mayor Monty Brown described the scheme as a \u2018compromise\u2019 of an earlier plan to build a five-storey car park on the site which was given planning by North Cornwall district council in 1989, but was later shelved after it was deemed to costly. He continued by stating that the true cost of the latest proposal would not be known until tenders for the scheme had been received, assuming that planning and loan consent was granted. Robert Harris, an architect with the Jonathon Ball practice of Bude which designed the building, told the meeting they hoped to introduce a certain amount of soft landscaping in the area. The development would enhance and improve the area considerably, he claimed. This was greeted with jeers from the members of the public. Nigel Bowman, director of the Launceston Steam Railway and another \u00a0prominent opponent of the scheme dubbed it a \u2018disaster\u2019 and felt it would terrify tourists away from the town. \u201cI do not think Launceston can afford this classical toy town architecture,\u201d he said. However, town councillor Alan Buckingham dismissed the objections as \u2018nonsense\u2019 who said additional car parking was vital for the future of Launceston. He argued that there was no logical planning reason for rejecting the scheme had been put forward and added that it was no good attracting visitors to the town if there were no traders to tend to their needs. \u201cNo one can suggest logically that the Cattle Market is an alternative site for car parking in the town \u2014 it is absolute nonsense. Anyone who thinks Race Hill is easy access to the town must be an idiot. We want to clear the Square and people must recognise that the provision of this facility is absolutely vital.\u201d Launceston ward members Peter Hockridge and David Viggers both spoke in favour of the plan claiming it was necessary for the future growth of the town. Fellow member Yvonne Horn continued her opposition arguing that residents did not want the proposed car park, and said the site should be left as it is. After lengthy discussion lasting three and half hours a vote was held by the committee with the decision nine to four in recommending the rejection of the application at the next full planning and development committee on April 6th.<\/p>\n

\"underground-car-park-letter\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"wilfred-cocks-letter-victory-for-sense\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"put-the-council-out-to-grass-letter\"\"put-the-council-out-to-grass-letter-2\"<\/p>\n

Before the full planning committee of North Cornwall district council the application was again debated. In a letter from mayor Monty Brown he stated that the extra car parking was needed in addition to a district council proposal to provide additional cat parking on the site of the town\u2019s old cattle market. Although the estimate for the build had been put at \u00a3600,000, the committee heard that tenders opened by town councillors that day were for less than the estimated figure. \u201cOne was considerably below that figure,\u201d declared planning committee vice chairman David Viggers. \u201cThe larger building firms are falling over themselves to do the job.\u201d Councillor Viggers said the town\u2019s shops were in dire straits and needed the trade a car park would produce. \u201cPlease don\u2019t let us down in Launceston. We need the car park very much so that the whole prosperity of the Launceston area can go forward\u201d he pleaded. But councillor Ken White argued that the landscaped car park would be the \u2018hanging gardens of Launceston.\u2019 He added \u201cwe have got \u00a0a scheme which will more that make up for this with additional car parking in the cattle market.\u201d Yvonne Horn thought the town council were \u2018clutching at straws\u2019 to suggest the car park would help a pedestrianisation scheme for the town. Planning assistant Steve Atkinson said English Heritage felt the site was inappropriate for a car park stating that it was not the answer to Launceston\u2019s problems. Housing committee chairman Graham Facks-Martin claimed English Heritage was \u2018standing on its head.\u201d \u00a0He said it had supported a previous plan for a five-storey car park on the same site which would have had much greater impact on the surrounding area. \u201cThe existing car park was 80 per cent full in the winter and over 100 per cent full in summer. It was also not big enough when functions were being held at the town hall or in Launceston town centre\u201d he said. Concluding, councillor Facks-Martin considered the proposed design to have been carefully and sensitively treated. After all the arguments had been heard the application was put to the vote and the proposal was rejected by a majority of twelve votes to eight.<\/p>\n

\"wilfred-cocks-april-letter-after-planning-rejection\"<\/p>\n

This rejection was felt hard by some with councillor Derek Bradshaw writing a letter to \u2018The Western Morning News\u2019 saying that the council were disgusted by the way opposition was raised, claiming that the the project was stopped due to \u2018little Hitlers.\u2019 The celebrations of the objectors was short lived however, with town clerk, Philip Freestone within days confirming that the town council would be appealing the decision to the Environment Secretary Michael Howard. In the meantime at the next town council meeting the members were told that the lowest tender to build the car park was some \u00a3130,000 less than the estimate and members agreed to call in the two lowest tenders for checking if they were to win their appeal. Philip Freestone told members that the time was ripe for building, and added \u201cBuilders want the work so badly they are tendering very low.\u201d He concluded that with the grant from North Cornwall district council, the council would only need to raise \u00a3318,000 which would not need loan consent.<\/p>\n

The reaction to the town council\u2019s decision to appeal brought a unified response from many who were objecting to the scheme. Greta Bird stating that it was a sad omen that on more than one occasion town councillors who are in favour of the proposed car park have behaved in a very \u2018anti\u2019 fashion towards friends and acquaintances they had associated with in harmony for many years. A regular visitor to the town, Professor Dennis Hardy of Brentwood, Essex said \u201cLaunceston is a town of rare charm, retaining its distinctive character at a time when all too many towns elsewhere are losing theirs.\u201d \u00a0He felt that local residents were fully justified in opposing \u201cthe monstrous plan for a structure that will destroy for all time this delightful part of the town.\u201d He continued \u201cTo read that the town clerk and councillors are persisting with the plan, in the face of public opposition , says much for their sense of public responsibility.\u201d \u00a0Wilfred Cocks labelled the council as being out of sequence stating that the opposers would reserve their comments until the appeal, unless \u201cof course the council at least comes to terms with the wishes of the public and cancel further action.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the town council annual meeting the ongoing multi-storey car park took centre stage. Councillor Alan Buckingham said that the members decided to follow it through to \u2018the bitter end\u2019 after it was rejected by planners. \u201cThe matter was not final when the district council refused it \u2014 that was only stage one,\u201d he said. \u00a0\u201cStage two is to appeal \u2014 we are not doing this just to be difficult, it would be negligent of this town council not to take it to its logical conclusion for the sake of the people who agree with it.\u201d \u00a0He was supported by fellow member John Barnes who said Launceston was \u2018flooded\u2019 with visitors in the summer, and claimed tourism would be lost if the car park was not built. He argued that of the former cattle market site was developed for retail use, up to 100 current parking spaces could be lost. But objectors were determined to have their say urging the council members to carry out a referendum to gauge opinion. One resident, John Coles, asked why poll tax payers money was being spent on pursuing the controversial scheme in view of the outspoken opposition. He continued \u201cI was surprised that in the face of such strong and outspoken opposition from a quiet and well-mannered town, that the town council is so apparently in such a blinkered way that it wants to push ahead with this idea.\u201d Concluding he said \u201cMy point of view might not be that I am against the car park, but I want you to justify building it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"t-chapman-letter\"<\/p>\n

In the May councillor Derek Bradshaw was elected mayor. He had previously served in the role from 1989 to 1991. In his acceptance speech he said \u201cI still support the decisions of this council and the need for the town hall complex, the car park, town hall improvements, balcony, seating, and provision of more facilities to which we are committed.\u201d He stated that there was hard work ahead for the council, a fact that was not always appreciated. \u201cIt is easier or less demanding to be a part-time critic than to give time and effort to serve. The opportunity was there last May but was ignored.\u201d He said.
\nBy mid July \u00a0new designs had been drawn up by the town council and presented to the councils planning and housing committee, but protesters who had turned up branded the scheme as \u2018a folly and a monstrosity.\u2019 Committee chairman Rob Tremain, said \u201cSome councillors who are not on this committee would have liked to look at and discuss this scheme, and I think the plans before us should be referred to the full council.\u201d \u00a0Some councillors hoped that this latest design would be approved by North Cornwall district council in August \u2014 their appeal against the original refusal would then be dropped. In a meeting with North Cornwall district councils planning director Tony Philp, councillor Monty Brown and town clerk Philip Freestone were told that if the design is satisfactory \u00a0he would recommend it for approval. In the new design the roof line was around ten feet higher than the application refused in April, and the \u2018landscaping\u2019 trees and shrubs on the original plans had been removed. The building would be red in colour and hung with natural slate.<\/p>\n

This new design did little to quell the opposition with author Paul Broadhhurst stating \u201cThis structure would encourage vandalism, put tourist off and do our town a great injustice. Wilfred Cocks asked that this being a new application there should be a new public meeting. He said \u201cthe council thinks that altering the cladding will overcome the objections, but the main objection is to the location of the thing itself. We want the whole scheme withdrawn.\u201d The following weeks letter column of \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post\u2019 was filled with objecting correspondence.<\/p>\n

\"Cornish
Cornish and Devon Post letters column from July 1992.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\"m-packer-july-1992-letter\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"wilfred-cocks-letter-from-july-1992\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"yvonne-horn-july-letter\"<\/p>\n

The full council met on Monday July 20th at which after studying the new plan, agreed to putting it forward in a new application. The \u00a0approval \u00a0came despite calls from some councillors who believed the scheme should be shelved because of the extent of public opposition. Jim Hughes told the meeting, which was attended by about 50 members of the public, that at least 95 per cent of people in Launceston were opposed to the plan. \u201cTake a walk around the town and see whether the car parks are full, half full, or empty,\u201d he said. \u201cHas anyone gone to the car park in the last month and failed to get a space? There was also a claim by Barry Jordan that several councillors had had a change of mind about the scheme, and wished to oppose it, but were afraid of being surcharged in the following year\u2019s audit. He told the meeting that he would like the plan withdrawn until the appeal was heard. Town clerk, Philip Freestone was unable to confirm whether or not councillors would be liable to individual. \u201cA lot of money would be wasted unless the scheme was carried through to its logical conclusion.\u201d \u00a0Councillor Alan Buckingham dismissed the concerns adding \u201cthe only issue was whether or not members agreed with the plan.\u201d The vote in favour which was carried by a small majority, was widely lambasted by residents with John Coles describing the revised plan as \u2018totally unsuitable\u2019 and that Westgate Street would be \u2018completely marred.\u2019 The following weeks letters column of \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post\u2019 was almost completely taken over with correspondence from various quarters of the area, all rallying against the scheme. One letter labelled the meeting a farce claiming he felt the meeting resembled a rehearsal by Launceston Amateur Dramatics <\/a>(below<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\"car-park-farce-letter-from-the-july-edition-of-the-cornish-and-devon-post\"<\/p>\n

The decision of the meeting galvanised the objectors, and a demonstration was held in the town square on Saturday August 22nd, just two days before the new application went before the North Cornwall district council planning committee. However, the weather did not co-operate forcing the rally of nearly 300 to the Central Methodist Church school room. Wilfred Cocks (below left<\/em>), Greta Bird, Jane Broadhurst, Yvonne Horn and Nigel Bowman all spoke at the packed meeting. A collection at the end raised \u00a3220 for the Car Park Action Group\u2019s \u2018fighting fund.\u2019<\/p>\n

\"no-campaign-august-demonstration\"<\/p>\n

Nearly 90 protesters wielding placards and posters chanted at planners as they arrived for the planning meeting, before cramming into the council chamber where they waited for about six hors for the application to be discussed. The meeting heard that the latest scheme, which was recommended for approval by planning officers, was opposed by English Heritage which claimed the proposed development would have an \u2018undesirable impact\u2019 on the balance of open space in the town. Altarnun member Ken White described the building as \u2018an eyesore\u2019 which was unwanted by many people, and not needed by anyone. He claimed that all that was needed was for better sign posting to the other car parks in the town. Bude member Brenda Parsons said that the multi-storey car park should not be forced on the people of Launceston. Launceston member Peter Hockridge urged councillors to look to the future of the town and approve the plan. He dismissed as \u2018pie in the sky\u2019 claims that the town boasted sufficient car parking spaces and warned members that Launceston was in danger of becoming a retirement area. \u201cI feel that a lot of people are deeply concerned with the car park with regards to the poll tax and I can understand that in these days when money is tight,\u201d he said. \u201cThe level of car ownership in Launceston is greatly above the national average because of poor public transport and dispersed areas of population. It is important for the future of the town that we should look ahead.\u201d He concluded, \u201clets keep the centre of Launceston living, and not a retirement area.\u201d After nearly an hour of debate the members voted nine to seven to reject the application. The application was then due to go before the full council on October 5th.<\/p>\n

\"jane-broadhurst-hands-out-leaflets-at-the-sheep-market-august-1992\"<\/p>\n

With feelings running high on the matter, the situation took a turn for the worse when an altercation took place between the town clerk Philip Freestone and protester Jane Broadhurst (above right seen handing out stickers at the Sheep Market<\/em>). Jane had been handing out anti multi-storey stickers by the ticket machine in the Old Sheep Market, when she was told to leave by Philip Freestone. The town clerk then went over to the public notice board and ripped down a poster objecting to the scheme. \u201cI was just standing there handing out these things, asking people if they would like one,\u201d said Jane Broadhurst. \u201cOut came the town clerk and said you are not allowed to stand on council property and do that.\u201d \u00a0This came after an earlier incident, also involving the town clerk which led cafe owner Frank Conyers complaining to North Cornwall M.P. Paul Tyler. Frank who owned the \u2018Cornish Kitchen\u2019 in Westgate Street, was furious when Philip Freestone walked in to the cafe and asked why he was displaying \u2018No Multi-Storey\u2019 posters in his window? \u00a0Frank replied that he was worried that the building of the car park could put him out of business. \u201cThe work will take months, and with no coaches parking outside, it will severely damage my trade\u201d he said. \u201cI was very annoyed about Mr. Freestone\u2019s approach.\u201d \u00a0Philip Freestone stated that on both occasions he had been polite. He said of the incident with Jane Broadhurst \u201cI politely asked Mrs. Broadhurst if should would mind handing out the leaflets for the pavement rather than for the car park, which is private and belongs to the town council.\u201d He added \u201cI took down a poster from the public notice board which was provided by the council and is on council property.\u201d<\/p>\n

A formal notice by the Department of \u00a0the Environment was sent out on August 18th, stating that a public inquiry into the appeal would be held in mid September.<\/p>\n

Not every resident were opposed to the multi-story as a letter appearing in late August confirmed. The correspondent stated that the car park protestors were \u2018out of touch.\u2019 He said \u201cLaunceston needs to attract the custom of people living beyond its boundaries if it is to prosper and provide the facilities for trade and recreation in the future.\u201d \u201cOther towns have adapted to the needs of today\u2019s shopper, the advocates against the car park project appear to be out of touch with these needs. Sadly, the failure to have these plans approved will make it more difficult to attract new business in the future.\u201d \u00a0He concluded with \u201cLet us hope that common sense will prevail.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Public Inquiry<\/strong>
\nThe public meeting was duly held over three days with both supporters and objectors airing their views. The Inspector was Mr. Roger Buss a chartered town planner and architect. The designer of the building, Bude based architect Jonathan Ball, told the first day of the inquiry that the structure would be fronted with natural stone , rough cat render, slate, and sawn timber, which would create a framework on which the proposed landscaping of trees and shrubs would thrive. Although the landscaping would be developed in \u00a0troughs, Jonathon was keen to stress that it would form part of the actual structure of the car park. \u201cI believe the wood will create the concept of man and nature in harmony,\u201d he said. \u00a0\u201cOur aim had been to preserve and enhance the area, and soften the impact of a car park whilst restoring the impression of an urban square. Whilst accepting that development in the sheep market area will affect the conservation area, I believe it will enhance it and allow the area to remain alive and prosper.\u201d<\/p>\n

Landscape architect Mark Gregory, who was commissioned by the Jonathan Ball Practice to come up with a suitable landscaping scheme for the building, told the inquiry that \u00a35,000 would be set aside each year for maintenance of the foliage. He said that the landscaping had not been included to disguise the building, but to soften its appearance.<\/p>\n

Launceston district councillor and businessman David Viggars, supporting the scheme told the inquiry \u00a0that he saw the erection of a multi-storey at Westgate Street as part of a mooted pedestrianisation of the town centre. Adequate parking was needed on both sides of the town, as many people didn\u2019t want to carry their shopping up Race Hill to the Cattle Market car park. Launceston town councillors Monty Brown, Alan Buckingham, Fran Casely, Derek Bradshaw. And John Barnes also attended the inquiry to speak in favour of the scheme, as did several traders from the town. Alan Buckingham said he had tried to be sympathetic to the objectors concerns, but found it impossible to appreciate \u2018their aversion towards greenery.\u2019 \u201cPeople don\u2019t sit and look at tarmac, they go and find \u00a0somewhere where there is a bot of greener,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

North Cornwall district council\u2019s solicitor Sally Lloyd-Jones said the authority objected to the plan on design grounds, and had no objection to the principle of a multi-storey car park on the site.<\/p>\n

Opponents to the plan, also refused to be swayed, arguing that the proposed building would attract vandalism, cause noise pollution, and exacerbate already serious traffic problems on Westgate Street and the Dockey. Nigel Bowman, said the open structure would encourage vandalism and scare away tourists. The proposed building he said, was not appropriate for the Westgate Street area, which lies adjacent to the town\u2019s historic Castle. \u201cTo build such a building opposite flats occupied by elderly people is, at the very least, unreasonable, and, I think, a wicked thing to do,\u201d he said. \u201cThe design of the proposed car park is unsuitable because of the open and unrestricted layout envisaged,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n

The scheme was opposed by English Heritage, which contested that conservation areas were not places in which to experiment.<\/p>\n

The inquiry was told that if its appeal was refused that the town council would likely proceed with its approved plan for a four storey 237 space car park on the site. The town council\u2019s counsel, Mr. Robin Midgley, told the inquiry that members were appealing against a decision to reject plans for the 143 space car park which boasted extensive external landscaping of plants, shrubs and timber. The Inspector, he said, had to evaluate the consequences of rejecting the appeal, and to question which of the two schemes was to be preferred. \u201cThe existence of planning permission which is likely to be implemented if this scheme is not approved must be a principal material consideration,\u201d Mr. Midgley told the Inspector. \u00a0Mr. Midgley said the council had pursued the three-storey application as it would be cheaper than the approved plan. But he said that the four-storey scheme would now prove less expensive to build than originally estimated, because of the recession, and was therefore considered feasible. He continued \u201cIt is clear that the surge of opposition which is simulated by gossip about costs and by a head in the sand attitude towards the approved scheme has been generated quite recently. It is strange that the people concerned about cost should be doing the worst possible thing and pushing the pursue of the 1989 scheme. The height and mass of the earlier scheme may persuade you that the current scheme is to be preferred.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Inspector wound up the inquiry but before leaving Launceston to deliberate his decision, Roger Budge visited the site so that he could see for himself what effect the proposed building would have on the surrounding area.<\/p>\n

The Aftermath
\nOpponents of the plan were aghast at \u00a0the implication made by Roger Midgley during the inquiry with the \u2018No group\u2019 accusing the town council of trying to \u2018blackmail\u2019 them into submission and eventual acceptance of the appeal scheme. Paul Broadhurst was one of a number of protestors who called for the 1989 approval to be revoked to prevent it being used as a threat against them. He said after the inquiry, \u201cI have watched with continued amazement at the bulldozer tactics of a small number of intransigent councillors who appear to have nothing but contempt for public opinion.\u201d H e added \u201cThe fact that there are three separate applications currently under review demonstrates their bitter determination to realise their vision, no matter what the cost in material or aesthetic terms. The last thing Launceston needs is an urban folly of grandiose proportions that could ruin the town, be and unspecified drain on resources for many years to come, and is loathed by both local and visitors alike.\u201d Again the letters column of \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post\u2019 lit up with correspondence.
\n\"september-letters-column\"<\/p>\n

In the meantime the town council continued with its plan to raise the funds for the construction by applying for credit approval of \u00a3350,000 from the National Association of Local Councils. The council needed this approval before it could borrow the funds needed. Town clerk Philip Freestone said the council already had credit approved for 1992, but decided to put in an application for the next financial year in case the car park saga \u2018dragged on.\u2019<\/p>\n

Further dispute came the following week after John Coles of the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 stated that the Inspector had been mislead as the the proposed buildings height. He said that when the Inspector had visited the site the town council had fixed a piece of string onto the Guildhall to show the finished height of the car park, whilst the Action Group erected a pole which came out a lot higher. John said \u201cour height was disputed by the council. However, we have since measured the Guildhall, and we believe that the car park will be more than three feet higher than the Inspector was led to believe,\u201d \u00a0The drawings, illustrating how the difference would affect neighbouring buildings. Mayor Derek Bradshaw, stated that he was confident that the councils measurements were correct had felt that Mr. Coles had made the \u2018elementary error\u2019 of checking the height from the existing ground level, rather than the would be ground level if the car park was built. The mayor stated that he was more than confident that drawings by a trained architect would be more accurate than those given by a layman. John Coles, in wishing to clarify how the council arrived at its measurement, visited the town hall \u00a0to see the plans, but the town clerk Philip Freestone refused to let his see the plans. Derek Bradshaw defended the town clerk stating that Mr. Coles had had ample opportunity in the past to survey the plans. However, this controversy took a sudden turn when at the next council meeting, the town clerk Philip Freestone conceded that the height shown by the piece of string was one metre lower than it should have been. The mistake, he said had occurred as a result of an inaccuracy of an earlier survey of the Guildhall. He added: \u201cThere was no intention on our part to show the line incorrectly; it was an error. It was unfortunate that I was not available to the site inspection because I would have realised the plan of the Guildhall was an error.\u201d He continued \u201cthe string would have been placed about one metre lower that it should have been.\u201d On hearing of the councils findings, John Coles said he felt \u2018vindicated,\u2019 but was surprised not to have received a letter of apology from the authority.<\/p>\n

The public inquiry result<\/strong>
\nIt took the Inspector, Roger Buss, two months before he came to his conclusion and he decided to overturn the district council\u2019s refusal and allow the scheme to go ahead. In coming to the decision he said, \u201cthe car park would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and preserve the setting of listed buildings.\u201d The development, he added, would not have a \u2018significant harmful effect\u2019 on nearby properties such as Westgate Mews and the Westgate Inn. He said, \u201cThe proposed structure would, if carried out as intended, compliment, rather than imitate, and harmonise with the character of the surrounding buildings and improve the Sheep Market site.\u201d He pointed out that the proposals were in line with the district council\u2019s planning \u00a0guidelines, encouraging increased parking provision in Launceston. However, permission was granted with several conditions. The town council must start the scheme within five years and no development could take place on the site until a programme of archaeological work had been approved by North Cornwall planners. Planting proposals to landscape the structure would also have to be approved, as would the maintenance of the foliage.<\/p>\n

Launceston town clerk Philip Freestone said the town council, which had been roundly criticised for pressing ahead with the scheme, was vindicated by going to appeal. The Department of the Environment\u2019s permission will now go to the next meeting of the full council which will decide if it wants to go ahead with the scheme. Philip Freestone said in an un-conciliatory way: \u201cit\u2019s good news for Launceston as a whole. I don\u2019t know what all the fuss was about originally as I feel the scheme will enhance this area of the town. We still have to make a resolution to build the car park, and that will not be made until the next meeting of the full council.\u201d He said that work could start soon as the finance had been agreed. The town council had already set aside \u00a3100,000 to pay for the scheme, and North Cornwall district council had agreed to contribute \u00a3200,000. The council had been given permission to borrow the remainder of the cash. Philip Freestone added that the council had already spent between \u00a350,00 and \u00a360,000 on the car park to date, but that figure would be part of the total cost. He concluded that he was still waiting to assess the cost of the appeal which he said had turned out to be an \u2018unnecessary cost.\u2019 The town clerk\u2019s tone was not one that could reconcile the differences and anti-car park protester Wilfred Cocks said when hearing of the news his reaction was one of \u2018shock and devastation\u2019 saying \u201cI regard it as a travesty of natural justice.\u201d \u201cAs well as ignoring environmental concerns, it shows a complete disregard for public opinion in the town and the surrounding area, \u201c he said. Mr. Cocks said he would be asking the council for clearer details of the costs involved, and a public meeting would be arranged in a last ditch bid to get town councillors to change their minds. \u201cWe hope that the council will, even at this late stage, realise that this is an unpopular measure in the community and will severely compromise their credibility,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n

\"t-chapman-letter-from-november-1992\"\u00a0\u00a0 \"b-randall-letter-from-november\"<\/p>\n

At the at the next meeting of the town councils finance committee, it was agreed to recommend that the full council proceeds with its intention to build the car park. Members also agreed to contact the original tenderer’s for the scheme for written confirmation of prices, which would then be discussed by the full council on December 21st.<\/p>\n

In the meantime a vacancy had occurred upon the town council and No campaigner John Coles, who had put himself \u00a0up as a candidate, was duly elected. At the same time long standing town councillor Olver Harris tendered his resignation citing that he was no longer able to serve Launceston properly on both town and district councils.
\n\"december-letters-column\"<\/p>\n

At the full council meeting, which was packed with angry opponents inside the Guildhall, the newly elected John Coles had placed a motion asking for a referendum but this was quickly thrown out. The councillors then debated the scheme with John Coles announcing that he had written about the plan to the district auditor whom, he said, had the authority to issue a stop notice if he felt the burden on the electorate was unreasonable. Councillor Coles stated that the net gain in parking would be \u2018very small indeed, and the cost of servicing the loan on the new car park would approximately equal the current income derived from the present site.
\nCouncillor Barry Jordan speaking against the proposal, claimed that it would become a \u2018den of iniquity for the unsociable people of Launceston.\u2019 \u201cIf we cannot fill that car park now, how do we propose to fill one twice the size?\u201d He asked. \u201cThe town clerk has stated in the past that the car park will need to be three quarters full three quarters of the time to break even \u2014 that means half full all the time, but if that is the case we don\u2019t need anymore car parking spaces,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n

But their arguments failed to persuade fellow member Arthur Wills who said he couldn\u2019t see anything wrong with improving the current facility in Westgate Street. He said he loved Launceston and wanted to share its \u2018magic,\u2019 but claimed that people wouldn\u2019t come to the town if there was insufficient parking. Councillor Wills endorsed fellow member Alan Buckingham, who said anyone writing to Environment Minister Michael Howard, asking for the planning permission for the building to be revoked, were \u2018wasting their time.\u2019 The financial provisions, he said, had all been made, and there was nothing which had not been foreseen and provided for. Alan Buckingham added \u201cin three to four years, or so, it will have such a pleasurable effect on everyone\u2019s pocket, it will be a noticeable factor in the determination of the precept this town council has to make.\u201d \u201cWe believe that the best thing the town council can do for Launceston is provide this car park, and if we don\u2019t do it we will look back in absolute sadness at what we have missed,\u201d he said. At the end of the debate the council voted 11\u20133 in favour of proceeding with the scheme. The council also agreed to accept the lowest tender of \u00a3518,595 from Dudley Coles Limited for the work to be carried out.<\/p>\n

Afterwards, long term opponent Wilfred Cocks said, \u201cI am having a stream of commiserations and expressions of concern from people in all walks of life who are appalled at the way the community is being treated. This is a sad episode in the history of public affairs in Launceston.\u201d \u201cWhat would council stalwarts of earlier years say if they knew the electorate had been treated with such disdain?\u201d He said.<\/p>\n

\"Cornish
Cornish and Devon Post letters column from December 31st 1992.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The fallout from the councils decision soon occurred when the annual Christmas visit of the mayor to the Royal Mail sorting office at Pennygillam was cancelled. The mayor Derek Bradshaw was told that many postmen were unhappy with his visit, due to his support for the multi-storey. Derek Bradshaw said he was \u2018sad and disappointed\u2019 that because of personal issues, the mayor was not welcome on an official visit. The situation was described as \u2018deplorable\u2019 by fellow councillor and car park supporter Alan Buckingham, who did not want to see Mayoral duties diminished. \u201cI would like council members to take time off between now and the full council meeting and see how we feel about the implications of someone saying you can come if you want, but you will not be welcome,\u201d said Mr. Buckingham. Royal Mail area manager told \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post\u2019 that Mr. Bradshaw had been invited to the sorting office. He added \u201cHe didn\u2019t come although the invitation was there.\u201d \u201cWe\u2019re aware that there is an issue in the town at the moment and our staff are local people who have their own opinions about the car park, We wouldn\u2019t want them not to have an opinion on an important local issue, but they would have acted properly if the mayor had visited\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

With 1992 nearing its end, the question of the multi-storey took another twist when North Cornwall M.P. Paul Tyler, wrote to Bill Grigg, chairman of the district council\u2019s finance committee, suggesting more modest spending elsewhere in the town may be more appropriate in the light of substantial cuts in the authority\u2019s budget for 1993-94. He also hinted at the impact of the development of the Old Sheep Market site on the authority\u2019s own car parking revenue. \u201cClearly there are difficult decisions to be made, and we all appreciate the impossible task you and your colleagues have in deciding priorities,\u201d he wrote. \u201cFor one possible economy, however, there is obviously widespread support. I do not, as M.P. Have a direct role in the development control process, and happily leave this aspect of planning to your elected members. Nevertheless, the large number of residents of Launceston and other parts of the district who clearly regard the construction of a new multi-storey car park in the town as unsuitable for investment of your poll tax payer\u2019s money is a factor which none of us should ignore. No doubt, in the present financial climate, you will also consider the impact on your own car parking revenue.\u201d In the meantime, he said, a more modest investment in improved lighting and pedestrian access to the district council\u2019s Race Hill car parks was far more urgent. He added; \u201cI am sure that you would have widespread support for any move to transfer funds from the multi-storey commitment for this purpose, while at the same time achieving major economies.\u201d<\/p>\n

1993, the referendum and construction<\/strong>
\nAt the February 15th council meeting, \u00a0the councillors voted 8\u20136 in favour of signing the legally binding contract for the work to go ahead. This despite that a local poll had been organised for Launceston\u2019s 6,00 0 electors for March 4th. The decision was unexpected and left opponents astounded and prompted angry outbursts and calls for councillor\u2019s resignations. And it came despite pleas from some members that the council should wait for the outcome of the poll, and each read the 50\u2013page contact before it was signed on their behalf. Town clerk Philip Freestone told the meeting that the authority resolved in December to erect the car park and was now in a proper position to commit itself to having the \u00a3518,595 structure built. The contract had arrived at the council offices on that very Monday morning and was ready for signing, although there was no mention of it on the evening\u2019s agenda. Councillor Barry Jordan claimed it would be \u2018undemocratic\u2019 to sign the document without every member first reading it. \u201cI have never had a contract signed in my name which I have not been able to read through,\u201d he said. \u201cIt seems rather rushed if the contract has only been received that day. If it had been received last week and every member of the council had been told, I would have gone to see it,\u201d he continued. The recorded vote \u2014 with eight members in favour, six opposed, and one abstention \u2014 sent shock waves through the public gallery prompting opponents to declare their \u2018disgust and disgrace\u2019 at the authority\u2019s actions. Nigel Bowman said \u201cthe council was a disgrace to the country and a disgrace to Launceston\u201d and he threatened to sell his Launceston Steam Railway to a supermarket chain. Councillor John Coles later told \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post\u2019 after the meeting that he was \u2018shaken\u2019 by the vote, which he described as a pre-emptive strike against public opinion. He was \u2018incredulous\u2019 that his fellow members were prepared to sign a 50\u2013page document, only seen by two councillors by Monday\u2019s meeting without reading through it or awaiting the outcome of the poll. He then said he would be asking the contractors, Dudley Coles Limited to \u2018act honourably\u2019 and not sign its contract with the town council until after the poll on March 4th. Mr. Coles stressed the need for electors to vote next month to show the town council that it was acting \u2018undemocratically.\u2019 The town council issued a press statement after the meeting, reaffirming its support for the car park plan:<\/p>\n

\u2018The present site was \u2018woefully inadequate\u2019 and invariably full at busy times of the day and most evening when it catered for people using the Town Hall and Conservative Club, five nearby restaurants and takeaways, Westgate Inn, the Ambulance Hall, and the historic Castle, which attracts about 20,000 visitors a year. The Dockey car park is close to the direct route from the A30 and the first, and probably the only one to be discovered by visitors approaching for Pennygillam roundabout. The statement explained that the scheme provided for 150 spaces on three levels, the top deck being less than two feet above Westgate Street at its present entrance. The lower levels are to be excavated below existing ground, with a single exit opening on to the Dockey adjacent to the Town Hall, which the council believes will considerably improve traffic conditions in that part of the town. The scheme also includes new public toilets, boasting full facilities for disabled people. North Cornwall district council has agreed to provide a capital grant of \u00a3200,00 towards the project, and the town council will provide \u00a3100,00 from its own resources. The remainder will be probably be raised through Loan Consent, with repayments of not more than \u00a335,000 per annum over 25 years. The income from the new car park\u2019s first full operating year is estimated between \u00a3100,00 and \u00a3120,00, as compared to the \u00a350,000 per annum it is currently making with 70 spaces. The council believes the profitability of the car park is \u2018bound to rise,\u2019 and that will be set against the future precept figure for the town. The statement concluded, the new car park is well considered and will benefit the town both economically and practically. The council, in winning the appeal for the planning and further satisfying the district auditor on the financial implications, have shown they honestly are working for the future of Launceston.<\/em><\/p>\n

The ill feeling now began to boil over, with members of the town council and their families being targeting with a series of abusive letters and telephone calls. Town clerk and secretary, Philp Freestone and Margaret Sanderson, had received abusive calls and visits. Councillor Ruth Sleeman told the above meeting that she had received three \u2018rather nasty letters\u2019 and her twin sister had been verbally attacked in a case of mistaken identities. She said \u201cI felt very ashamed to think that people are sending out these letters. I have been loyal to this town since 1976.\u201d Councillors Arthur Wills and John Barnes both confirmed that they also had received threatening mail, which they had passed onto the Police. Fellow councillor John Coles disassociated himself and other action group members from the work of what he hoped was a \u2018small fringe element of extremists.\u2019 He said \u201cnone of us would condone the sort of personal attacks that members of this council and their families are receiving.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, solicitors acting for the No Multi-Storey Group made an application to the High Court for a judicial review of the council\u2019s decision to seal contracts for the building to go ahead. They were also seeking an injunction restraining any, or further work from being carried out in connection with the car park. The letter ended: \u2018It may be that under circumstances councillors who voted in favour of the resolution will wish to take independent advice on their own position and the possibility of an order for damages or a surcharge being made against them personally if the council acted ultra vires. We should add that the barrister we have instructed tells us that in his opinion it did.\u201d<\/p>\n

After an unsuccessful attempt to move an amendment calling on the council to delay sealing contracts until after the poll, councillor Barry Jordan, supported by councillors John Coles, Ruth Sleeman, Sam Bradshaw, Jim Hughes, and Kevin Wadland, had written to the mayor asking for a special meeting of the town council to be called within seven days. The resolution to go before that meeting read:<\/p>\n

\u2018That the Launceston town council rescinds the decision of February 15th, 1993 that stated documents should be sealed.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

Mayor Derek Bradshaw would not comment on the latest moves by the opponents but said that the council was seeking advice on the last paragraph of the opponents letter.
\nIn the meantime a night\u2013time ride on Launceston\u2019s Steam Railway raised \u00a3524.08 for the No Multi\u2013Storey Group, who had opened a campaign shop in Westgate Street (below left<\/em>). A sponsored walk was also organised to help raise funds for the group.<\/p>\n

\"no-campaigners-in-1993\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"opponents-drawing-of-the-proposed-car-park\"<\/p>\n

Tensions mounted in the lead up to the historic referendum, with the opponents releasing their own artist\u2019s impression of the scheme (above right seen from the Dockey<\/em>). Councillor, John Coles, said \u201cthe town council produced an artist\u2019s impression, and a description of the the car park which appears to have misled many. They have said that it will be less than two feet higher than Westgate Street at the entrance, with the lower decks excavated below present ground level. However, we have been pointing out to the many visitors at our Westgate Street campaign office that it is really a very large structure indeed, and it will dominate this historic corner of the town forever.\u201d \u201cThe artist\u2019s impression released by the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 had been drawn based on the architect\u2019s designs, and showed how the viewpoint from the Castle gate had been ignored in the town council\u2019s public presentation. The car park would be almost as high as the ridge of the Guildhall roof, and would remove forever the view of Westgate Street,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Adrian Hawkins, president of the town\u2019s Chamber of Trade and a supported of the scheme, said that many residents would vote against the town council, rather that on the car park issue. \u201cIf everyone had to vote and there was a category for \u2018I don\u2019t give two hoots\u2019, I think that is what most people would vote,\u201d he said adding that \u201cI think the car park is a good idea, but the way the town council has gone about it is diabolical. I hope that everyone will go and vote because it is the fairest way of doing it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The poll took place on March 4th, at St. Thomas Church Hall and Launceston Town Hall with electors from Launceston\u2019s north and south wards being eligible to vote. The polling stations were open from 4 p.m. Until 9 p.m. With the count taking place at the Guildhall immediately afterwards. The result was a massive thumbs down for the scheme, with 2,820 against and just 156 for representing a majority of 18 to one. 57.7% of those eligible voted. After the polls closed long-standing opponent Nigel Bowman told the \u2018Trelawney\u2019 singing crowd: \u201cA year ago, Launceston\u2019s oldest and probably most respected councillor, Taffy Hughes, told the council that 95% of the town were against the car park. He was right, exactly 95% of the vote tonight is against it,\u201d Fellow opponent and town councillor John Coles also expressed his delight at the result, and said he didn\u2019t see how the council could now proceed with the scheme. He understood that although the contract had been signed on behalf of the town council, it hadn\u2019t been signed by the contractors, Dudley Coles Limited, and exchanged. The council, he said, should now tear up the contract and proceed no further. He concluded that the No Multi-Storey group would continue with the legal action, saying that the advice was sound and that they had an excellent case to prove not only that the council acted beyond its powers in the way the contract was signed, but also that the poll result must be acted upon. The action group called another parish meeting under the Local Government Act, to be held at the Town Hall on Wednesday March 13th, in which had two resolutions on the agenda. The first was for the council to rescind contract, and the second was for the entire council to resign.<\/p>\n

However, the mayor, Derek Bradshaw, claimed that the result was no different to what he expected, stating that 45% of those that did not vote were not bothered about the car park. The council, he said, had maintained throughout that the result of the poll was not legally binding, and the contractors had been told they can start work when they were ready. He said: \u201cThe town council has to take into account the views of all people who rely on the town \u2014 shop keepers, voters, tourists, county council and district council views.\u201d \u201cWe are still a market town with a regional pull of visitors and travellers, and if we don\u2019t provide the facility they will not come here. If this doesn\u2019t proceed then within five to ten years you would have a totally dead town centre,\u201d he said prophetically.<\/p>\n

The aftermath of the February 15th meeting was still being felt almost a month later, with various allegations being made as to the honesty and reputations of various members of the council. In a move suggested by councillor Alan Buckingham, the members were informed to lodge any details with the town clerk as evidence in cases of future legal action. Mr. Buckingham said: \u201cit may be that attitudes will be different, I don\u2019t know. I think we should protect our personal reputations and the reputation of this council.\u201d He stressed that he had not been prompted to suggest the move because he was nervous, but because he wanted councillors to be reassured of their safety. Fellow member Monty Brown confirmed that threats and allegations of corruption had been made at the previous months meeting. However he felt that the council should \u2018move on and let go.\u2019 He said \u201cI don\u2019t like what has happened, but I don\u2019t see that any useful purpose would be served by locking someone away.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the next council meeting, a further attempt to stop the plans for the scheme was made. Councillor John Coles asked that all action in connection with the car park should be suspended until the result of any legal action was known. Mayor Derek Bradshaw ruled the proposal out of order and forbade any further discussion as the item was not on the agenda. This resulted in the 60 people in the \u00a0public gallery jeering loudly \u201cout, out,out,\u201d and \u201cresign.\u201d The mayor was forced to adjourn the meeting for a short while before calm was restored. Addressing the mayor, councillor Coles said \u201cI think I represent the 2,820 who voted against the car park, and you represent the 156 who voted in favour. I believe this council has been persistently wrong in discussing the car park in committee, or as I like to put it, in secret.\u201d Mr. Coles said he believed the \u2018No group\u2019 had a good case, but was prepared to offer an olive branch to the council. He added; \u201cthat is in view of the result of the poll, the council suspend all action in connection with the car park until the full result of any judicial action is known.\u201d Councillor Coles said he would like the vote to be taken in form of a written ballot, and issued each member with the written proposition. But the mayor refused to accept the resolution in that form. It was then that councillor Barry Jordan asked if the car park contract had been signed. However, town clerk Philip Freestone could not give a positive answer and replied: \u201cthe documents are in the hands of our advisers, and because the matter has gone to the High Court, I cannot discuss the matter.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the March 13th meeting, which was attended by over 500 angry electors, the call for the council\u2019s mass resignation was again made. Jeering electors said the council had ignored the recent referendum, and claimed that councillors were out of touch with the public and did \u2018not measure up to the job of governing Launceston.\u2019 They called for the election of 15 new councillors to give the town a fresh start. The call was led by councillor John Coles who said \u201cthe only way forward is for this council to resign \u2014 the whole council.\u201d His motion calling for the council\u2019s mass resignation was overwhelmingly carried by the meeting with only two votes, both from town councillors, against. The meeting, chaired by mayor Derek Bradshaw, also demanded that the council rescind the car park contract with the builders, Dudley Coles. Wilfred Cocks urged the eight pro-car park councillors to listen to the people and change their minds. This, he said, would bring \u2018joy\u2019 to residents and \u2018relief\u2019 to councillors. It would help restore credibility and allow them to walk through the town square with their heads held high. Mr. Cocks warned the the \u2018No multi-Storey Group\u2019 would continue with their legal action and would see it through to the end if the council refused to back down. \u201cIf they continue to dig their heels in, they face a very difficult time, a time of anxiety, in which there may be financial and legal implications. They have come to the critical hour of decision. This is now serious and we are serious. We urge them to decide that this must stop,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

This meeting caused \u00a0more uproar through a whispered comment mayor Derek Bradshaw made to the town clerk Philip Freestone. With the saga now taking on interest from the wider media, the BBC were in attendance and one of their ultra-sensitive microphones picked up the whisper, where the mayor was heard to say \u201cone day Coles\u2026.I shall take him in little pieces.\u201d But when Launceston resident Marilyn Elliottt interrupted the meeting to accuse Mr. Bradshaw of \u2018making a threat,\u2019 he publicly denied saying anything about Mr. Coles. Mrs. Elliott, he told the packed meeting, must have misheard him, and he later repeated that she was mistaken. \u00a0But after the comment was subsequently broadcast on the following evenings \u2018Spotlight\u2019 programme, Derek Bradshaw conceded that Mrs. Elliott\u2019s assertions were correct and wrote a letter of apology to her. It read: \u201cI can confirm that you did not mishear me and I therefore apologise to you for comments made. May I also say that no threat was implied or intended.\u201d<\/em> But Marilyn Elliott was not satisfied with his letter, claiming the mayor made no apology for trying to \u2018discredit\u2019 her. The events at the parish meeting, she said, proved that Mr. Bradshaw fully intended to protect his reputation at her expense. In a letter to the mayor, she said: \u201cAs you are well aware it takes a considerable time, in any walk of life, to build up a good reputation for oneself but just a few seconds to spoil it. You trued to blot my \u00a0character in front of a packed meeting.”\u00a0<\/em> She concluded she would like a public apology and that the annual town council meeting on April 22nd, would give the ideal opportunity to do so. However, Mr. Bradshaw denied that he had tried to discredit her and he felt his letter was apology enough for the incident.<\/p>\n

The annual town council meeting was held in a hostile atmosphere as more than 300 people packed the Town Hall. There were complaints of the slow start made especially with the length of reports that officials claimed had to be read before public resolutions could be considered. Town clerk Philip Freestone\u2019s annual report of the parish council then caused furore resulting in accusations of \u2018bias\u2019 from the floor. People were outraged by Mr. Freestones\u2019s \u00a0statement that the council had maintained a dignified attitude throughout the ongoing car park row, despite personal abuse suffered by many members and their families. There had been a great deal of \u2018Ill–informed comment\u2019 from those opposed to the controversial plan, he added. The annual report continued: \u201cIt is right that elected councillors may be criticised for making decisions not to the liking of the people. But they are elected councillors and must make decisions which they feel would be to the benefit of the town. The way to change is through the ballot box, and not through personal abuse.\u201d Councillor John Coles was incensed by his statement, saying people would no doubt accept it if it had been written \u2018in a less biased way.\u2019 He dismissed concerns of mayor Derek Bradshaw that the meeting was \u2018drifting out of control\u2019 claiming that the problem had arisen because the council\u2019s annual report was \u2018insulting\u2019 to the electors. \u201cI am sure the meeting would accept an unbiased report from the chair,\u201d he added. \u201cThe clerk\u2019s report should be completely anodyne, if I may say so.\u201d \u201cIt has just been said that the way to change things is through the ballot box, but that was done in March when 2,820 to 150 and you have chosen to ignore it.\u201d Parishioners at the meeting later voted overwhelmingly to disregard Mr. Freestone\u2019s report. The town councillors were visibly shaken when the angry residents gave an overwhelming show of hands in favour of a proposition for contracts for the car park scheme to be rescinded, and for the councillors to \u00a0resign en bloc. After a roaring speech made by councillor John Coles in which he demanded the resignations, the hall erupted with clapping hands, stamping feet and near-deafening cries of \u201cOut, Out, Out.\u201d Parishioners supported a subsequent call for the town council to abide, as far as practicable, by resolutions passed at parish meetings. Mayor Derek Bradshaw told the hostile crowd that the propositions couldn\u2019t be voted upon that evening, but he stressed he was not \u2018dodging the issue.\u2019 He would undertake however, to include the matter on the agenda on the next meeting but one, of the council. Proceedings later became even more bogged down as an almost private war was waged between Mr. Coles and Mr. Bradshaw over whether contracts for the building of the car park had been exchanged with the contractors. Mr. Bradshaw and town clerk Philip Freestone both maintained that contracts \u2018existed\u2019 between the two parties, but refused to elaborate any further. The meeting went on for four hours at at the end \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 member Wilfred Cocks, appealed to senior councillors to rethink their decision to back so wholeheartedly the controversial scheme.<\/p>\n

Even before the High Court appeal could be heard, on Monday May 24th, the council closed the Old Sheep Market car park as the contractors moved in. Residents and opponents were horrified to find the cap park closed, and many braved the rain to hold a brief rally to register their protest. District councillor Yvonne Horn said \u201cI think it is appalling \u2014 democracy, as far as I am concerned, has gone out of the window. The car park is public property, it is public money; I think it is deplorable. It really makes you want to give up \u2014 you think \u2018what am I councillor for?\u201d \u201cThe only good thing that will come out of it is that in two years time you are going to have a new town council.\u201d The town council\u2019s decision to press ahead with the contractor\u2019s official starting date, came despite the discovery that listed building consent was required before the wall flanking the Town Hall could be demolished. North Cornwall district council\u2019s planning director said \u201cthe onus was on the applicants or developers to obtain all necessary consents, ideally before starting the work, but it didn\u2019t affect the rest of the car park.\u201d The new mayor, John Barnes, (at 32, Launceston\u2019s youngest ever mayor<\/em>) confirmed that the authority had been told by its legal advisers that it didn\u2019t have to wait for the High Court hearing to start work. He said \u201ca resolution was passed by nine to six (with one abstention) on Friday, May 21st, to start the work, and once the contract was signed (by himself and deputy mayor Clive Horton<\/em>) after the meeting, the starting date of May 24th was added.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, a special meeting of the council was convened for Friday, May 28th, to discuss a resolution by councillors Barry Jordan and Colin Warne to suspend the town clerk, Philip Freestone, pending inquiries into his actions regarding the car park. A third resolution was added to the agenda concerning councillor Barry Jordan\u2019s language and behaviour towards Philip Freestone. This was due to a heated debate at the previous Friday\u2019s meeting when councillor John Coles asked to see a fax from the district council regarding the listed building requirement, which, he said, had been sent to the town council\u2019s office. Mayor John Barnes initially claimed that they no longer had a copy of the fax, as Philip Freestone had given it to the authority\u2019s architects, Jonathan Ball Practice. This statement outraged councillor Barry Jordan who accused Mr. Freestone of \u2018over-stepping his authority.\u2019 \u201cUnless all the information is on hand, we cannot make a decision on this tonight,\u201d declared an irate Mr. Jordan. \u201cPhilip Freestone has given the relevant piece of information away; I have accused him of not giving the full facts to this.\u201dFurther angry exchanges took place, until Philip Freestone said he had a copy of the fax, which confirmed that listed building consent would be needed before the wall at the rear of the Town Hall could be demolished.<\/p>\n

At the same time Chief Inspector John Isaac, of Launceston Police, urged everyone involved in the car park wrangle not to \u2018overstep the mark.\u2019 \u201cWe are concerned that now action is being taken at the site, that something is going to happen. I am urging all involved not to break the law and to involve the police. If someone breached the peace or causes damage to the site, we can and have to act,\u201d he said, adding, \u201cthe last thing we want is some well intending person to do something silly and end up being before a court.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Protestors
Protestors outside the Sheep Market Car Park on May 25th 1993.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The High Court hearing was duly heard the first week of June with Mr. Justice Macpherson dismissing the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019s\u2019 application for leave to bring a judicial review in regards to the car park scheme. In giving his decision Mr. Justice Macpherson said he could see nothing illegal, irregular or perverse in the council\u2019s plans, which were passed by a narrow eight to five vote. Legal moves by the group, he said, would be \u2018doomed to failure.\u2019 The judge described the proposal to build the car park as a \u2018very hot issue\u2019 in the town, and said it was very unpopular with a lot of local people. \u201cI fully understand their feelings, but it is not for me to side one way or the other,\u201d he continued. The judge said it might be possible to seek and injunction to stop the car park going ahead in other court proceedings. This was a matter for the action group to discuss with their legal advisers, and a matter for Launceston voters. \u201cIf voters disapprove of the way those in office have regulated their lives, they can throw them out in the future,\u201d he added. He refused an application that the group should pay the council\u2019s legal costs as it would only exacerbate bad feeling in the town. Each side were ordered to pay their own costs.<\/p>\n

Leading opponent John Coles said he was \u2018sad and angry\u2019 at the outcome of the High Court hearing, which, he conceded, had been expected. \u201cThe circumstances had changed so significantly that the case had changed. I certainly felt very cheated that the town council\u2019s solicitor would not allow us the adjournment we requested. We tried to be fair to them, but I think they were very unreasonable to us in the circumstances,\u201d he said. \u201cSubstantial new evidence was coming to light day by day, and rejected claims that the action group was now fighting for a lost cause. We\u2019re not flogging a dead horse, but we may well be changing horses,\u201d he added, cryptically. \u201cIt is inevitable now that the fight is going to take a different direction, we are not going to give up until it is built and there are cars parked there.\u201d<\/p>\n

Launceston mayor John Barnes welcomed the decision and said the council would now press ahead with the construction. \u201cOnce the structure was built, people would hopefully see what a benefit it would be for the town\u2019s future. We will try and work to establish better feeling in the community. I think it will take time, but with time and patience I think we can resolve a lot of the bad feeling in the town,\u201d he said. \u201cI know there will be people on both sides who are going to feel very aggrieved, and those feelings may not go overnight, but once the car park is built, a lot of people will see what a benefit it is for the town\u2019s future. That is what I am looking forward to,\u201d he added. (Below two pictures of the Sheep Market Car Park courtesy of Peter Gilbert<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\"the-sheep-market-launceston_-photo-courtesy-of-peter-gilbert\" \u00a0\u00a0 \"the-sheep-market-2\"<\/p>\n

\"multi-storey-construction-photo-courtesy-of-mark-knight\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"multi-storey-construction-1-photo-courtesy-of-mark-knight\"<\/p>\n

Although the opposition continued their campaign, after that High Court defeat, there was very little that could in reality be done (above two images of the site closed down in preparation for construction. Photo’s courtesy of Mark Knight<\/em>). A couple of weeks after the construction began, Wilfred Cocks and Hal Lee (seen below left being escorted off the site)went onto the site to advise the foreman that excavation work should be monitored by a representative from Cornwall County Council\u2019s archaeological unit. But they told \u2018The Cornish and Devon Post\u2019 that the foreman was immediately antagonistic, and rejected their attempts at conversation. \u201cIt is the first time since either of us had set foot on the site since work began\u201d said Wilfred Cocks. \u201cIt was a shock to the system \u2014 it was an immediate response of aggression and it was quite appalling. The principle involved is dreadful,\u201d he continued. Hal Lee, a retired RSPCA inspector, \u00a0cut his hand as he tried to steady himself, and needed hospital treatment. Dudley Coles managing director Douglas Elliott confirmed that the company had received a complaint, saying that \u201cthe contract has aroused a fair amount of public debate, but we are purely the building contractor, employed to do a job, and we are not taking any sides in the debate.\u201d Although the Police were contacted at the time no official complaint was made.<\/p>\n

\"wilfred-cocks-and-hal-lee-being-ejected-from-the-site\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"multi-storey-car-park-construction\"<\/p>\n

The animosity continued on both sides with anonymous telephone calls being made to councillors that supported the scheme. Councillor Rob Tremain found the front of his property dubbed with bright yellow paint. Wilfred Cock sent a letter on behalf of the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 stating that the had no knowledge of the matter, nor did they support such action, or any other form of physical intimidation.<\/p>\n

That years civic parade and service failed to heal the rift, with abuse being hurled at town councillors and members of the public as they left the Sunday service at St. Mary\u2019s Church and two eggs were thrown towards the procession. Such was the feeling that several organisations did not attend, some through prior commitments, but others boycotted the event as a protest to the council\u2019s decision to press ahead with the multi-storey. \u00a0Mayor John Barnes described the service as \u2018very poignant,\u2019 but said he was disappointed that some local organisations were unable to attend. He said \u201cone or two members of a local organisation, whose leader would not allow them to partake went with another group. I am disappointed that some of the leadership would not allow them to go. Some members of the opposition were in the church, which you have to give them credit for. But I am disgusted with some of the activities of people outside the church; some people turned their backs, okay, but verbal abuse was thrown at members of the public and the council for attending the church service, which I find abhorrent.\u201d \u00a0Car park opponent Wilfred Cocks said the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 actively discourage this kind of behaviour.<\/p>\n

Council meetings continued to be a hot bed of controversy with the July 8th, \u00a0meeting of the finance committee having to be adjourned \u00a0after councillors were heckled by the 40 strong gathering in the public gallery.<\/p>\n

In an unexpected move, the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 produced its own plans of how they believed the Sheep Market site should look later in the July (below<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\"no-campaigners-alternative-multi-storey-car-park\"<\/p>\n

Wilfred Cocks persuaded architect, Margaret Withers of Warbstow to provide a design which utilised the giant hole and concrete structures already in place at that time. \u201cWe actually regarded the hole as an asset to the town,\u201d said councillor John Coles. \u201cIt has given us the opportunity to virtually hide a ground level car park under cantilevered promenades. The space becomes a civic square, reflecting the Victorian and Edwardian character of the area, and providing superb vistas of the Castle to attract the tourist. He said. But mayor John Barnes, described the plan as \u2018mischievous\u2019 and accused the action group of \u2018misleading\u2019 people, and wasting their money. The council, he said, was now maintaining the listed wall at the back of the Town Hall, but applying for permission to demolish the Mortuary. If the Mortuary had to be retained, he said, amended plans would have to be drawn up, causing extra expense to Launceston\u2019s rate payers. Mr. Barnes said: \u201cIt is an absolute waste of people\u2019s money and time, and would create an ulcer on the landscape. The gloves are off now because we have proved them wrong on three counts \u2014 architecturally, financially, and legally \u2014 and they are now just using delaying tactics and misleading the general public,\u201d<\/p>\n

In another twist to the saga, North Cornwall planners threw out the plans to demolish the old Mortuary, voting nine to eight in refusing the application. The town council were seeking listed building consent to demolish the wartime building, and for permission to re-position the north wets elevation of the three tier car park to retain the listed boundary wall. Chief planning officer Tony Philp claimed the Mortuary made no special architectural contribution to the area, and recommended that consent should be given for its demolition. Launceston district councillor, Yvonne Horn was vociferous that it should be retained, and all possible alternatives investigated before demolition is considered. She said \u201c We don\u2019t want to see this building demolished. It doesn\u2019t matter if it is the Mortuary, or the wall, or the Castle, it is our history.\u201d She continued \u201cfrom the outside there is nothing historic about it, but it was built because of the Town Hall\u2019s use during World War One as a hospital.\u201d She was supported by Wadebridge councillor Colin Brewer, who said the town council should not build the car park if they couldn\u2019t do so without demolishing the Mortuary. But Launceston district councillor David Viggers argued that the building was not worthy of \u00a0retention, and added: \u201cIf it was not the Mortuary, it would be another wall or something else they could cling to. The majority of people in the town are resigned to the fact that there us going to be a multi-storey car park in the town, and there are just a few who are doing this.\u201d \u201cThis thing is festering in Launceston all the time; those of us who live in Launceston know what it is like. The quicker this issue is resolved, the better for everyone concerned,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

By the end of September it was revealed that the scheme was \u00a346,000 over budget and 12 weeks behind schedule. In a statement from the town clerk, Philip Freestone, it was claimed that most of the additional costs could have been avoided but for the actions of the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group,\u2019 but councillors agreed that the claim should be omitted from the report before it was adopted. The planning inquiry cost a total of \u00a322,230, which members argued had been brought about as a result of the authority\u2019s decision to appeal against North Cornwall district council\u2019s refusal of the plan, and not \u2018delaying tactics\u2019 by the action group; \u00a311,380 had been spent on the amended plans; \u00a31,00 on the dispute over a right of way over the car park site; \u00a37,684 on the High Court action, and \u00a33,500 on the district auditor. Members were also told it would cost \u00a32,000 for every week that the contract overran.<\/p>\n

At the same time an extraordinary meeting boiled over into another heated debate, this time over allegations that correspondence was being kept secret from certain councillors (below<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\"september-1993-launceston-town-council-meeting\"<\/p>\n

It was becoming more and more difficult to administer town council meetings and the meeting held on Monday September 20th, proved no different when the council met to discuss the options open after the North Cornwall district council planners rejection of the application to demolish the 79 year old Mortuary. The option chosen was to ask North Cornwall for the go-ahead to complete the construction of the car park without touching the wall or mortuary. The cost of this option was approximately \u00a342,00, set against the five other options that would have cost up to \u00a3193,000. One of the five choices was to halt the work for four months, at an estimated extra cost of \u00a3125,000. Councillor Coles declared that of the six options, one would be a criminal offence and the other five would be very expensive. He later said that the cost of the chosen option, plus the cost of the appeal to Environment Secretary, John Gummer, against the planner\u2019s refusal of consent, and the original bills would total around \u00a3600,000. Mr. Coles said at the meeting that the town council was giving instructions to progress work which still could not be completed without further planning consents. He stated that he would try to make sure that \u2018not a penny of extra expense incurred by this council is paid by the ratepayers of this town.\u2019 He called for the council to cease committing further expenditure on planning and legal expenses \u2013 matters which should have been in place before building began. To loud cheers from a packed Guildhall, he again called for the council to resign. \u00a0Opponents of the car park refused to budge when the council decided to go into closed session to discuss legal aspects of \u00a0the options, before resuming the open meeting. After ten minutes, the councillors withdrew to another room. Tempers often flared with claims, counter claims, and accusations flying across the room, under the watchful eye of two policemen. At one point, councillor Barry Jordan called for a truce over the issue, which had reached \u2018the end of the road.\u2019 \u201cIt is going to be built whether we like it or not. At the moment, it is costing us all a great deal of money. Why not get it built so that it is earning money. We should start working together to benefit Launceston and stop ripping it to pieces,\u201d he said. Town Clerk, Philip Freestone referred \u00a0to the previous row about a fax and said claims made had been incorrect. He did not know of the existence of the fax and he likened the treatment by opponent\u2019s to that of \u2018a lynching party.\u2019 He added; \u201cThis is another example of the malicious nature of the opposition to denigrate the action of myself, acting as a proper officer of the council.\u201d During the 15 minute question time for the public, some present claimed it was \u2018a farce\u2019 because there were questions, but no answers. But mayor, John Barnes, insisted that the council had decided to build the car park with proper permission and had given the necessary authority. To claims that he had not answered, he retorted: \u201cI have answered in the way I feel fit.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the same meeting it was agreed to temporary open the Town Hall toilets between 9 am and 4:30 pm to replace those in the Old Sheep Market car park that had been demolished.<\/p>\n

\"launcestons-multi-storey-under-construction-in-november-1993\"<\/p>\n

The \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 were given a fillip in the October, when North Cornwall district council passed their own application to crown the car park with a scenic civic square. The idea of the scheme is that 46 parking spaces would be provided at the lower level, using work already done. Cantilevered over part of this would be the civic scenic square, to be called The Prom and Chestnut Tree Walk. This area would have a bandstand, shelters, seating and planting, and would link with a building which would include public toilets. The scheme was opposed by the town council. Councillor Neil Burden said giving approval would mean the loss of more and more car parking spaces. He said; \u201cThey needed to cater for people to park near the town centre. You should look at it from a practical point of view. It is not a sensible use of \u00a0a car parking area.\u201d<\/em> Councillor Graham Facks-Martin said: \u201cI can\u2019t see any planning reason to refuse. It is pleasant enough and I very much doubt that it will ever actually be built.\u201d<\/em> Wilfred Cocks said after declaring it a moral victory, that the group would welcome talks with the town council and contractors to work out an acceptable way ahead. \u201cThe battle has gone on far too long and should be halted forthwith,\u201d<\/em> he said.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, October 27th, \u00a0the planners met at Camelford to decide on the amended plan of the town council, which was seeking the go ahead for repositioning and reducing the size of the car park in order to keep the listed stone boundary wall and former mortuary building. At the packed meeting Steve Atkinson, the planning officer, said the net loss of parking spaces would be eight, taking the total down from 144 to 136. There were more than 100 letters of objection to the changed plan, including one which said there was considerable doubt over the funding of the project, which depended on the release of \u00a3200,00 for the district council. Councillor Brenda Parsons said that the work was done without proper consent and that should really be the concern of \u00a0everyone. \u201c I find the whole thing absolutely shocking, Words fail do me. If everything has been done by the book, why is there so much hassle and why are they coming back with amended plans and wanting listed building consent?\u201d She asked. She claimed that if an individual had acted in the manner of the town council, they would have been given hell. Councillor Graham Facks-Martin said there were no grounds for refusing. \u201cThe car park is nearly built and it is \u00a0a sad sight to see the town tearing itself to pieces.\u201d He referred to the vote against the wishes of the people and said there should have been a compromise at the time. \u201cIt could be suggested that the town council did not intend to take any notice of the referendum whatever the votes expressed in it.\u201d Councillor Yvonne Horne said they had refused the mortuary demolition application saying \u201cif anybody changes their, it has been a complete waste of time.\u201d All the time councillors were being threatened with costs, legal action, and being surcharged if they turned it down. \u201cIf you refused it all along, how can you turn round and say it can go ahead now?\u201d \u201cSurely planning is about being consistent?\u201d She asked. Bill Grigg said he deplored the decision of the Environment Secretary to grant planning go-ahead on appeal to build the car park. Pleas came to the council to save the wall and mortuary. \u201cHaving done so, it seems to me quite unreasonable not to agree the amendments which will enable the mortuary to be retained. It seems obvious to me that the object is to further embarrass the town council,\u201d he said. Councillor John Lugg said he has voted against in the past. \u201cMany of us would want to vote with out hearts because our hearts would say vote with the people of Launceston. But, the truth is that for two years we have had a bad time of it. Many of us have stood for what we believed in and been harassed for it,\u201d he said, adding \u201cIf they voted against the plan, they would be taking a risk.\u201d The subsequent vote was in favour of the amended plan and the application was granted. This caused an uproar in the public gallery. The incensed opponents of the scheme vented their anger and frustration on the committee members, who were accused of betraying the town and the democratic process. Town councillor John Coles told them they had sold the town down the river. He said he was angered by the smiling faces of planners. \u201cI can be silenced no longer. I have stood by for two years and seen democracy totally and absolutely abused.\u201d He shouted, Asked to leave, he shouted \u201cYou will have to remove me,\u201d Wilfred Cocks tore up some of the pages of the agenda, and Nigel Bowman shouted \u201cThis is juts the beginning. Democracy in North Cornwall starts tonight.\u201d \u2018We have feelings\u2026\u2019 said another protester, and a fourth said; \u201cIf this is democracy, God help us.\u201d \u00a0It was then that the planning committee chairman, Harvey Lander pleaded with the opponents to leave quietly so that the committee could deal with other matters but half of the 40 or so opponents stayed put and refused. Councillor Lander then announced that he was adjourning the meeting until the public gallery was cleared. A policeman arrived later, but the anger had by then subsided somewhat and there were no arrests.<\/p>\n

The following week the \u2018No Multi-Storey Group\u2019 finally admitted defeat with long time campaigner Wilfred Cocks saying \u201cIn all battles, there comes a time when you have to realise your number is up. It is better to do one\u2019s swansong gracefully rather that linger.\u201d \u201cClearly, we are extremely disappointed not just that the amended plan has been approved, but the way in which district councillors were threatened with surcharge if it was declined.\u201d \u201cWe hope the Ombudsman will make public criticism of \u00a0the Planning Officer\u2019s actions. As talk of the controversy \u2018splitting the town,\u2019 I see it as an event that has brought the vast majority together in a unique manifestation of public concern. We have had immense support from the areas around Launceston and from faraway places. It has cost a great deal in time and money, and we still need \u00a32,500 to clear loans made by public-spirited well -wishers., But, it has been worth it. We all have the satisfaction of having stood up for what we believe to be right. The local councillors who have ignored this united outpouring face the likelihood of having to live with a financial and environmental fiasco. We do not envy them.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The multi-storey was finally completed in 1994 and now stands testament to a struggle that divided the town. Time is said to be a great healer, but for many on both sides the argument, some twenty years after the saga, the whole memory is still quite raw. The ramifications in the council chamber echoed on for some time, with many that served at that momentous time no longer in public service. Many residents to this day, refuse to use the car park, preferring to use, ironically the resurfaced cattle market car park. The car park is far from the burden envisaged by many and it is budgeted to make a \u00a351,457 profit for the 2014\/15 year<\/a>. The town centre has duly been pedestrianised, again causing some controversy along the way. It is a matter of opinion as to whether the aesthetics of structure and its \u2018landscaping\u2019 are pleasing to see and if indeed they sit well in their environment. But for the casual observer not knowing the trouble this one structure brought to a quiet Cornish town, its quite simply a place to park the car.<\/p>\n

\"launceston-multi-storey-car-park-entrance\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"multi-storey\" \"the-completed-launceston-multi-storey-car-park-in-2010\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Visits: 399<\/p>\n

\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

. \u00a0\u00a0 One of the most contentious and divisive of events in Launceston\u2019s recent past is that of the building of the multi-storey car park on the town council\u2019s only car park, known locally as the Old Sheep Market car park which held spaces for up to 75 cars. As the name alludes to, this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":26,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-3527","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","has-post-title","has-post-date","has-post-category","has-post-tag","has-post-comment","has-post-author",""],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3527"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14369,"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3527\/revisions\/14369"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/launcestonthen.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}