Preston Tithebarn scheme approved
The public inquiry into the £700m, 1.1m sq ft Tithebarn scheme earmarked for Preston city centre has approved the scheme.
Outline plans for the project, covering an area of around 32 acres of the city centre, were initially approved by Preston City Council in July 2009. This included a 32,000 sq ft anchor John Lewis store, a Marks & Spencer outlet, a refurbished Guild Hall, restaurants, cafes cinemas, a new market, 100 new shops and a new bus station.
However, following objections from surrounding towns such as Blackpool and Blackburn – both of whom were concerned about the knock-on effect of their own towns – the scheme was called in by the government last year and a public inquiry began in May.
The BusinessDesk.com understands that the tribunal has ruled in favour of the development.
The scheme was initially being developed as a joint venture between Australian property giant Lend Lease and Grosvenor, which developed the Liverpool One scheme. However, the latter decided to pull out of the project in October 2009.
At the time, Grosvenor’s executive director for development John Irvine, said that that it was refocussing on “building a larger portfolio of medium-sized , retail, residential, and mixed-used projects rather than concentrating on a few large, long-term, city centre regeneration schemes”.
A recent report by on the retail property market by consultants Colliers said that at 1.1m sq ft, the scheme made up just under 20% of the total UK retail property development pipeline of 5.6m sq ft.
Frank McKenna, chairman of lobbying group Downtown Preston in Business, said: “This is positive news for Preston, but it’s a shame that the decision has taken as long as it has.”
He added that the dispute between neighbouring political leaders had slowed the scheme’s progress at a time when firm action would have improved its chances of success.
“In the current environment it will be a much more difficult scheme to complete, but at least we now have a clear blueprint,” he said.
A spokesman for DCLG said that no decision letter had yet been published by the tribunal. As a result, it was unable to comment.
