Scheme ill-judged

I read Councillor Ashley Whalley's soapbox article with interest and would now like to make the following constructive comments which we consider meets more clearly our communities' and customers' needs.

Firstly, I must stress that the C of T is not against change, in fact we welcome it and certainly welcome a re-vamp of Blackburn centre. However, our main interest is to see Blackburn established as a friendly and welcoming retail centre with good access and parking.

Consequently, we believe the total closure of Church Street to circulatory traffic will have a seriously detrimental effect. We are aware that regeneration money is available to the council for the removal of traffic from the town centre, but to what extremes must they go to achieve this?

The closure is based to a large extent on the 'orbital' route becoming a viable town by-pass. After analysis, the orbital route appears a hotch-potch of traffic management. Junctions such as the Montague Street/Preston New Road, the bottom end of Barbara Castle Way, the mini roundabouts at the bottom of East/West Park Road, to name but a few, are not conducive to the free flow of traffic an orbital route requires.

The emphasis Councillor Whalley puts on safety as a closure reason is over-hyped. There have been three accidents in Church Street in the last five years. Does this merit closing it down? During normal shopping hours the suggestion of more parking is interesting. The carrot offered to traders has been more on-street parking in the area, but the idea of chevron parking (cars driving in -- backing out) on Darwen Street is surely a non-starter. Backing out on to a busy thoroughfare is fraught with danger. Certainly the chamber wants more but realistic on-street parking.

On the safety platform, we have also lobbied for a pedestrian crossing on Darwen Street, already passed but not implemented. Is this not a primary move in making Blackburn a safer shopping centre?

Councillor Whalley writes of improving the prospects of properties on the Cathedral perimeter. He must be alluding to the pavilions which have been the subject of great debate. Are they worth preserving or a white elephant which is colouring the council's thinking regarding the closure of Church Street?

The blatant statement that Morrisons' fears of loss of trade are 'completely unfounded' needed validation.

The closure of Ainsworth Street and Penny Street is another potential blow to retailing, as the Boulevard is now regarded as inaccessible to many customers laden with shopping. Case histories of over-pedestrianisation are plentiful. Oxford, Cambridge and indeed our near neighbour, Accrington, are prominent. Accrington Council have, in consultation with the traders, decided to allocate £75,000 of ratepayers' money to re-open roads closed only recently in a driven desire to pedestrianise, which has not worked.

Now, to the most important and constructive part of this article. The Chamber of Trade would want a proper orbital route. However, we realise that Church Street is a barrier with two-way traffic and a fence. Therefore, our plan would be a single lane, one-way from Higher Church Street, towards the markets with controlled pedestrian crossings and a narrow carriageway, which would eliminate much through-traffic but would enable serious car-borne customers to have access to the markets and shops.

The return route would be a one-way system down Railway Road and on to Jubilee Street. (Incidentally it has been mentioned by the council that Railway Road could be two-way to compensate for the loss of Church Street). Is this viable?

In conclusion, our debate is not spurious. All the C of T wants is Blackburn to be a shopping magnet for surrounding areas. To do this we require easy access and good parking and the closure of Church Street does not engender this. There is too much in this draconian scheme which is ill-thought out.

PETER HOBKIRK (Chairman of Blackburn and District Chamber of Trade).