Voters should ask heritage questions

What sort of city do we want to live in? This question isn’t just for the civic society members, but for all Peterborough citizens and, perhaps most importantly, its voters.

On Thursday, May 5, voters will select candidates that best represent their views and aspirations. Although national politics casts a long shadow over local politics, it is local councillors that perhaps have the most direct effect on our daily lives.

All aspiring councillors must realise that Peterborough is changing more than most cities. New jobs are coming and new housing is springing up like bulbs in a fenland field. The nature of the city is rapidly changing too; you’ve only got to look at developments on the Embankment, Northminster and, hopefully soon, North Westgate to see the changes. As I often joke when I give one of the society’s blue plaque presentations, if you stand still for too long in Peterborough city centre you might get converted into flats!

However, in our desire to move forward and to improve the environment, we must not overlook the treasures we already have. For example, it would be unthinkable for the West Front of the Cathedral to be allowed to deteriorate. But upkeep of our historic buildings is a costly business. We have many other churches, nationally and locally, which are of historic importance which require increasing amounts of care, attention and, of course, cash.

The society is alarmed by the recent appearance on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register of a number of parish churches of Medieval origin within Peterborough’s Unitary Authority area: Etton, Northborough, Peakirk, Maxey and Woodston (St Augustine - weirdly still in Ely Diocese!), together with the early 20th century St Peter and All Souls RC Church, and thus covered by a separate regulatory framework (planning issues aside). The physical problems of this group are many, ranging from major structural failure, through struggles to keep up with general maintenance to the effects of vandalism, lead theft, etc.

Churches are by no means the only ‘Heritage Assets’ in trouble. Several of these in the city centre have been a worry for some time. Laurel Court has long been on the Register. A clutch of others, mostly listed (or they should be), such as the Cumbergate almshouses, 8 Cathedral Square, the Sessions House and D’Arcy’s shopfront in Westgate could well be amenable to appropriate intervention by the city council, including, when appropriate, a preparedness to challenge some of the more recalcitrant building owners. But to be effective this would require some adjustment of ‘vision’ at both a political and senior officer level.

A major anxiety now beginning to loom large concerns the long-term future of Thorpe Hall. This, and its remarkable walled garden, have been in the possession of the Sue Ryder Hospice for more than three decades. With its new residential accommodation more recently created within the former kitchen garden, the hospice now seems only to use the hall itself for storage and the occasional meeting.

Clearly this great monument of the Civil War period is beyond the Sue Ryder organisation’s ability to maintain adequately, or to provide with a beneficial use commensurate with its national importance. Though not yet on the ‘At Risk Register’, the building is perhaps on a slippery downward slope.

It cannot be acceptable that Sue Ryder, a charity whose essential raison d’etre is to provide an invaluable service to the community, not that of maintaining a problematic major historic building, should find itself saddled with this burden. A solution is probably some considerable way off, but the civic society is independently beginning some tentative exploration of ideas.

So, should you find yourself being canvassed by aspiring candidates in the upcoming local elections, it would not be unreasonable to ask them a few pertinent questions.

Do they have a view about the evolving character of the city centre? And how do they think the council, and perhaps connected agencies, can best support recovering some real sense of place for the future? These are important questions that deserve serious consideration. But do we have candidates who are determined to fight for the city to become memorable and worthy of being a distinctive visitor destination or are they happy to let the city drift towards being bland and nondescript?