Members of the public are invited to take part in a debate about Chester’s amphitheatre which feels like it’s been raging since the Romans were in town.
The Big Deebate at Chester Town Hall on Tuesday (August 30) evening will consider what to do with the Georgian Dee House which sits atop the ancient monument.
Building owners Cheshire West and Chester Council want to offer a 150-year lease that The Chronicle understands would see Dee House turned into a boutique hotel incorporating a visitor centre.
The length of the lease is to give developers confidence before investing the significant sums required to bring the derelict building back into use.
But the former convent, which has been vacant since BT moved out around 20 years ago, has long divided public opinion.
While some say the grade-II listed building is of ‘historical importance’ in its own right and should be preserved, others contend it is an ‘eyesore’ that should be knocked down to allow the amphitheatre to be fully excavated.
Businessman Adam Dandy, who heads up the #Dig up Deva campaign, feels so strongly that Dee House must go that he is running a petition signed by 13,000 people so far.
The petition states: “I know that Dee House is listed, but it’s been left derelict for over 20 years now. It is described by most as an eyesore and a very large number of voters here in Chester want it demolished so that the Roman amphitheatre can one day be uncovered and turned into the jewel in our crown here in Chester, a place for Cestrians to be proud of. I hope that it could even be rebuilt in parts to show what it used to look like!
“Could you imagine the draw that such a site would create for millions of tourists over the next 150 years, making Chester a must-see destination, drawing new businesses back to the city centre rather than to Cheshire Oaks or Broughton Park..”
But the Labour administration at CWaC is pushing ahead with its development proposals which were instigated under the previous Tory administration with the details due to be revealed shortly.
Councillor Louise Gittins, cabinet member for communities and wellbeing, said: “Dee House is grade-II listed, Historic England hold a firm view that they would like to see the building repaired and brought back into a beneficial use enhancing its historical context. The building sits on top of part of the unexcavated area of the amphitheatre which is a scheduled ancient monument.
“Historic England clearly state that there is an over-riding need to protect and retain in situ the nationally important archaeological remains. Historic England will not countenance agreeing to the Scheduled Monument Consent that would be required in order for excavation of the amphitheatre to occur even if Dee House was not on the site. Historic England also add that from an archaeological perspective, the post-medieval remains in the area should be left undisturbed.”
The battle feels like a re-run of arguments that took place in 2000 when campaigners tried to stop the Lord Chancellor’s office from building a county court on part of the amphitheatre site after it had been given planning permission by the then Chester City Council.
Chester Labour MP Chris Matheson has organised and will chair the Tuesday evening debate, which runs from 6.30-8.30pm. There will be a panel of speakers including businessman Gordon Vickers plus representatives from Chester Archaeological Society, Chester Civic Trust, Guy Butler from Chester Growth Partnership and Alison Duckworth from Marketing Cheshire. He understands members of the Dig up Deva campaign have decided ‘they don’t want to take part’.
Mr Matheson encourages as many people as possible to go along by booking a free ticket through clicking on this link.
He said: “I’m looking forward to getting a good attendance at the debate and having a really good discussion about all the options. It’s important to Chester and I want to make sure that we eventually get the decision right.”
Asked for his own view, the MP added: “I haven’t really decided. Let’s hear what people have to say. There’s good arguments on both sides but it's also a question of what’s possible and what we can financially afford and whether we need to go elsewhere to look for money.”
