To what extent do you agree or disagree with these proposals to improve the layout and appearance of St George’s Street?
Tend to disagree
Changes are needed to improve St George’s Street, but those proposed are unimaginative. The street looks regimented and not in keeping with a heritage city. The artist’s impression shows dull uniformity compounded by the near total removal of all mature trees. White lighting strips around ugly seating blocks and spotlights at the base of trees, gives a clinical appearance to the area.
The diagrams are misleading. The replacement trees appear almost full height (reaching the top of shopfronts), whereas semi-mature specimens will be considerably smaller. The loss of mature trees at the Canterbury Road end is puzzling. If the mature tree is being spared at the Rose Lane end to “provide a focal point”, why not retain them at the more heavily polluted Canterbury Lane end where a green focal point is desperately needed? Mature trees are irreplaceable in terms of pollution amelioration, carbon storage, shade and habitat.
In the diagrams, the street runs without break across Canterbury Lane towards the underpass. If this were planned as a car-free or shared space giving priority to pedestrians, it would be welcomed. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Canterbury Lane area is congested, with cars parked on yellow lines, often with engines running – a problem made worse by food delivery drivers waiting to collect orders from nearby fast-food outlets. The diagram shows a bench sited by Superdrug, one of the “carefully-placed seats” for people to “soak up the experience”. Anyone sitting here would be soaking up dangerous levels of air pollution posing a serious health risk. Removing mature trees here compounds the problem at the most polluted end of the street exposing unsightly bollards and traffic.
Canterbury District Green Party cannot support felling ALL mature trees. Given that the tree bases have been made good with flexible material so they no longer pose trip hazards, we advocate at the very least, keeping the mature trees at the Canterbury Lane end.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to permanently remove the market from St George’s Street?
Strongly disagree
A vibrant city like Canterbury benefits from a variety of shopping opportunities and traditional markets are part of this mix creating an atmosphere of hustle and bustle and attracting people to the area. Permanently removing the market would take away a much-valued traditional shopping experience. The fruit and vegetable stalls offer fresh, often local produce such as Kent strawberries, cherries and asparagus. The city should support fresh and local produce being sold in the local market this way. Bizarrely, the proposed plan suggests removing such market traders in favour of “different kinds of street traders”.
Livelihoods are at stake if the market is removed. Stall-holders have been trading in the city for years and are greatly appreciated by their customers, as evidenced by the successful petition collected before the first lockdown. Throughout the pandemic, these traders offered a good alternative to indoor shopping to the people of Canterbury.
There are surely other ways of creating the flexible space desired. Some or all of the market could be sited within Whitefriars or Rose Lane with some stalls still located in St George’s Street on certain days. There is precedent for this, with the Christmas market regularly operating in Whitefriars. The market needs to be visible not tucked away somewhere out of sight. It gives a good service and adds to the atmosphere, shopping experience and vibrancy of the city.
Canterbury District Green Party does not support the permanent removal of the market. We see no reason why it cannot be temporarily relocated within Whitefriars or Rose Lane during the construction period to protect livelihoods and continue to provide a service for local people.
Do you have any suggestions on how the space in St George’s Street could be used following the improvements?
St George’s Street is a linear thoroughfare and the proposed changes accentuate this – it needs a less uniform design to stop it looking bland and boring. Additional greenery (retaining mature trees at either end of the street), planters and more attractively grouped seating areas. Retaining some of the market in St George’s Street would benefit the area. Encouraging more local produce stalls on certain days would also be a positive move. A farmers market would work well - in addition to not instead of existing stall-holders.
This is an opportunity to provide multi-compartment bins so that some basic recycling can be achieved as is the case in other cities. If the area was made to look more attractive and sustainable, it would encourage people into the city to special events such as live music performances, literary events etc.
Do you have any other comments on these proposals?
The Climate Change Impact Assessment states that the changes would result in a neutral impact on climate change in the Canterbury district. However, this does not take into account the carbon storage capabilities of mature trees which far outweigh those of newly planted ones. Canterbury District Green Party, therefore questions this claim.
Contrary to the description given, removing the mature trees will not create “a softer, greener and leafy feel”. It will make the area less green for a long time to come, with the trees taking decades to reach maturity (if they are ever allowed to). The area will look particularly bare in the winter due to the harsh lighting scheme, lack of foliage and tree height variation. We welcome any additional tree planting but the removal of fully mature trees, especially those at the most polluted end of the street, cannot be supported. We believe that, unless modified, the proposed changes will result in poorer air quality, less sustainable shopping options and a poorer visitor experience.
For pedestrians approaching St George’s Street from the underpass, the view into St George’s Street will change for the worse. The concrete precinct will no longer be softened by mature trees and their large green leafy canopies, but will be fully exposed, creating a harsher, more urban-looking street scene.
It is worth noting that there is research evidence showing that shopping areas with MATURE trees within them actually do better in terms of retail sales than areas without mature trees. We hope that decision-makers are fully aware of this research. Compelling evidence therefore, not only of an environmental but also an economic benefit for keeping mature trees within the scheme.