Building cries out for flair developer

Apr 13 2005

By Tony Mcdonough, Daily Post

A LANDMARK art deco building on the main eastern route into Liverpool is set to play a key role in the regeneration of the area.

Liverpool Land Development Company is inviting expressions of interest in the former Littlewoods building on Edge Lane, which is now owned by the Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA).

LLDC is stressing that the property will be sold only to a developer who comes up with a use for the building that will make an important contribution to the regeneration of the Edge Lane Corridor.

They believe the complex could be suitable for a range of business, leisure or residential schemes.

The Littlewoods building, which sits on a plateau on one of the highest points in the city, was built in 1938 and is well known for its distinctive clock tower.

Accommodation totalling 213.908 sq ft of accommodation is available at the 5.7-acre site.

The building is laid out in two wings, which are linked by an interconnecting block. The west wing, which includes the clock tower, is mainly two storey, with high ceilings and abundant natural light.


The sale of the Littlewoods building is just one of the major projects that LLDC is spearheading in the Edge Lane area.

The others include the redevelopment of the former MTL bus depot site as a science park, a £65m programme of improvements along Edge Lane and a drive to improve retail facilities in the area.

LLDC chief executive David Waugh said: "This building, with its prominent position on Edge Lane overlooking the Botanic Gardens, has outstanding potential.

"We believe that a developer with flair and an appetite for working with existing structures could create something really special on this site and in doing so help to regenerate this important gateway to the city."

The agent acting for LLDC is GVA Grimley. For more details, contact 0870 900 8990.

tonymcdonough@dailypost.co.uk

Another gem of a building, some years ago when Littlewoods left the site there was a report in the paper that this could be some kind of film making centre with studios, workshops, production facilities, all that kind of stuff. It would certainly be big enough, but Colin McKeown opened up his film center in Sandhills so I suppose this idea is a dead duck. Dave any pictures of this beauty??

A developer with flair and imagination, this can only be Urban Splash, just check out their CV, Matchworks is fantastic.

Another gem of a building, some years ago when Littlewoods left the site there was a report in the paper that this could be some kind of film making centre with studios, workshops, production facilities, all that kind of stuff. It would certainly be big enough, but Colin McKeown opened up his film center in Sandhills so I suppose this idea is a dead duck. Dave any pictures of this beauty??

A developer with flair and imagination, this can only be Urban Splash, just check out their CV, Matchworks is fantastic.


What about Mccleans then. :hahaha: :cheers:

Dave any pictures of this beauty??
Doug, here's a few taken from the Cathedral. The two taken in 2003 still show the Littlewoods brand name, but it's gone by 2004.
I've taken a few close ups of the building last year, but still searching.

February 2003
http://www.**************************/archive/littlewoodsfeb2003.jpg

August 2003
http://www.**************************/archive/littlewoodsaugust2003.jpg

April 2004
http://www.**************************/archive/littlewoodsapril2004.jpg

Must have quite a number of people working there in its heyday.

Dave, great pics thanks for posting them.

Development plans for the iconic old Littlewoods building on Edge Lane have been unveiled.

The iconic art deco Littlewoods building in Edge Lane is to get a new lease of life as an apartment complex with a hotel and retail space attached.


I don't suppose it's anything new but here's the story off the BBC Liverpool website.
more here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2005/10/29/regeneration_littlewoods_feature.shtml)

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/nov2005/6/6/000B15EA-4E9B-136B-82490C02AC1BF824.jpg

Art deco icon looking up Nov 4 2005
By Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

THIS is the first picture of how Liverpool's art deco Littlewoods building will look after a £48m rebuild.

It includes a sparkling new glass structure on top of the white building's clock tower, overlooking the city centre.

The landmark structure's west wing will be converted by developer Urban Splash into apartments, aimed at young first and second-time buyers.

The more rundown east wing will be demolished to make way for a hotel, offices, bars and public square, linked to Liverpool science park.

However, the iconic "bookend" frontage will be kept and restored to its former glory.

It is hoped the refurbished building will be ready to throw open its doors during 2008.

Bill Maynard, director of Urban Splash, said: "We have followed the fortunes of the Littlewoods building for 10 years.

"It is a magnificent building with an enormous presence on the brow of a hill and great views across the city.

"The west wing, which overlooks the botanic park, is still a fabulous building, but the east wing is much poorer quality and single-storey.

"We will keep the shell of the west wing and convert it into apartments.

"We will keep the two bookends, but we will redevelop behind the eastern one with a new hotel, offices and more apartments.

"It will bring life to the area and we see it as a 'digital village' where young professionals can live and start small businesses."

The use of the new glass floor on the clock tower - to be named the Sky Tower - has yet to be decided.

Mr Maynard added: "It could be a bar, restaurant, communal living space or apartments, but at the very least it will add a bit of sparkle."

The building was constructed in 1938 by John and Cecil Moores to house their pools business, and was a classic example of the art deco "ocean liner" style.

Antiques dealer Wayne Colquhoun launched an unsuccessful attempt to have it listed two years ago, which would have limited how it could be developed.

He said: "I had hoped to see a more ambitious idea than apartments. If we are not careful, the whole of Liverpool will be flats, hotels and bars.

"I do not like the idea of demolishing part of the building - I think its integrity should be respected."

That looks fantastic Red,i'm well pleased with that. :cheers:

this sounds great, some urban regenaration outside the city centre. edge lane will probably benefit greatly from this.

Yeah this looks really great, Urban Splash quality outfit, I was always confident they would come through with a great design, get on with it!!!

The evidence of success of city / city centre redevelopment must be how far it spills into the `burps.....

Merseytram to Kirkby would be pointing in the right direction and others too.

:bash:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7435/lastscan7xe.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sorry about the dodgy scan but this picture out of last nights echo looks brilliant I think,anyone else agree?

The same image, this is going to look brilliant driving down Edge Lane.


http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/5316/littlewoods10mc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Seen that in the Holy Ghost this morning. It'll be stunning when rejuvenated and hopefully the rest of teh developments there will befit the location along one of the main 'gateways' to Liverpool.

This has to be one more example (and a good one) of taking current economic forces for `Liverpool City Centre regeneration` and pushing it back into the surrounding areas.

Reconnecting the fabric of the city core to the surrounds.

All following the horrendous demise of the inner city core from the rest of the city structure during the late nineteen sixties to nineteen nineties.

This also seems a prime spot / area / district for the various `University` Campus to also follow.

OK this is a different Littlewoods building but I thought they would be fine here, new signs going on "the Plaza"


http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/6628/plaza13qi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/9982/plaza26fh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

They nicked the idea of that Unity render. I like the Plaza bit, but the Bruntwood bit :puke:

I wonder if it will be lit up it night?? BTW how did the the gig go??

Superb! Was ill the following day, and couldn't go to work. I blame the kebab....

Got the Bunnymen gig this Saturday as well. Should be good! We need to sort out that meet up too. :cheers:

I wonder if it will be lit up it night?? BTW how did the the gig go??

The Plaza bit is, you could read it from the bus stops on London Rd this evening.
Dunno about the Bruntwood bit though.

That's good to know. I'm a fan of signs and lights on buildings, particularly if they are as high as Bruntwood. It makes the city feel vibrant.

The bruntwood sign was lite up too late afternoon, should look alright of a night and bring a 'city feel' to the place

What signs facing the waterfront?

They are both on the city side, not sure if the same two are going to be put on the northside!

I see his building is now slated for schools. Shame about the Urban Splash proposal duying a death.

I see his building is now slated for schools. Shame about the Urban Splash proposal duying a death.

I did like the Urban Splash proposal, but the school option now looks like our last chance to save the building.

Unless English Heritage changed their minds and agreed to list it, it would have just sat empty for another 5 years until it was decided to demolish it.

I actually think it was a very brave move by the council, it would have been far easier to just build a brand new school.

Instead we could end up with an innovative and architecturally interesting school building (how many of them have we seen in the past 50 years) and save a major Liverpool landmark.

I see his building is now slated for schools. Shame about the Urban Splash proposal duying a death.

Any details/link for that?

Any details/link for that?

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=9395

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=9395

Ta mate. Not surprised at all that the Urban Splash project isn't happening btw when even their big city centre schemes are on hold.

From the Daily Post -

Two Liverpool schools to move into iconic Littlewoods building

Jun 8 2009 Liverpool Daily Post

TWO schools are set to be built within Liverpool’s iconic Littlewoods building.

The iconic art deco building, within Edge Lane’s new Innovation Park, was built by the Pools firm’s founders in 1938, but has sat empty for years.

But now the building is set to “be saved” and become the home of two Liverpool high schools as part of a £348m overhaul of the city’s secondaries by 2013. Last night it was confirmed city planners will be asked to authorise the construction of two schools within the building – with Liverpool Council pledging to ensure its historical features are preserved.

It would pave the way for two Church of England secondaries – Aigburth’s St Margaret’s and city-centre Archbishop Blanch to co-locate to the site.

The £45m building project is designed to boost the overall regeneration of the area.

And by forging links with the park’s 40 businesses, it is hoped would provide a raft of vocational opportunities and dovetail with the schools’ technology specialisms.

With governors’ blessing, St Hilda’s CE high would transfer from its outdated base in Sefton Park to the St Margaret’s site under the plans.

Although the Innovation Park move is backed by the Diocese, governors at St Margaret’s say they “cannot support a move to Edge Lane” – preferring the two schools’ home to be on the Aigburth site.

Last night Tim Warren, the council’s assistant education director, stressed nothing was “a done deal” but in order to submit water-tight plans before the government next month – planning permission was needed now.

And he said he was “hopeful” governors at St Margaret’s would back the plans during ongoing consultation.

The two schools would operate as separate entities but with access to a shared sixth form.

Article continues here - http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2009/06/08/two-liverpool-schools-to-move-into-iconic-littlewoods-building-92534-23813547/

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the Archbishop Blanch site if this comes off, as it's quite a sizeable piece of land, not that far from the city centre.

As I understand it the governors at St Margaret's school strongly rejected this move a couple of months ago preferring to stay in Aigburth. No one at the school wants to move to Edge Lane. I'm not aware of any change on this issue.

It occurs to me that another way to manage this site along the lines proposed would be to hand it over to the Bluecoat School. I'm sure they could fill it with a 1000 pupils without any trouble. The downside would be that it would be selective and would cause other schools to close (as a result of lower roles). It would also need to ensure that at least 50% of places were ringfenced for pupils from north Liverpool to ensure that the school wasn't swamped by pupils from south Liverpool.

Another concern that is highlighted here is how useless and partial English Heritage is when it comes to listing buildings of architectural significance. It bends over backwards not to list buildings that could be used commercially in case that interferes with future development. Either a building is 'listable' according to set of clearly defined and transparent criteria or it is not. EH is about as transparent in its decision-making as a glass full of Guinness.

I think St Margaret's are still against it but Archbishop Blanch is happy with the idea.

I suspect we may end up with just Archbishop Blanch moving to Edge Lane, which would mean just reusing the Littlewoods building without any new build along side.

Governors at Aigburth school refuse to budge over move to Littlewoods building

Ben Turner, Liverpool Daily Post

GOVERNORS last night insisted they will not support plans to move their school into Liverpool’s iconic Littlewoods building.

The Daily Post revealed yesterday how the landmark art deco building within Edge Lane’s Innovation Park will become the home of two Liverpool high schools as part of a £348m overhaul of the city’s secondaries by 2013.

Planners are to be asked to pave the way for two Church of England secondaries – Aigburth’s St Margaret’s and city centre Archbishop Blanch – to co-locate on the site.

But unimpressed governors at St Margaret’s last night dug their heels in.
They want the two schools’ home to be their current Aigburth site and urged Liverpool council to support that course of action “without further delay”.

Head teacher Dr David Dennison said: “The governors would like to reassure parents that the resolution passed by the governing body on March 9 rejecting the proposed move to the Edge Lane site remains unchanged.”

The council has stressed the £45m building project would provide a raft of vocational opportunities and dovetail with the schools’ technology specialisms. Its assistant director of education, Tim Warren, said he was “hopeful” agreement could be reached with governors.

What might work for the council and NWDA might not work for the school. St Margaret's clearly wants to stay put. The council is flogging a dead horse on this one.

Can someone explain to me why it is proposed to move St. Margarets, when it is in fact St. Hilda's that has the more outdated buildings? Is there any reason why (if they are willing) St. Hilda's couldn't be re-located to Edge Lane along with Archbishop Blanch and leave St. Margarets where they are?

St Margarets also needs money spending on it and there is only so much government money in the kitty so 'Edge Lane' and St Margarets might not be doable. Also, the St Margaret's site has more land than St Hilda's. I'm assuming that if the schools vacate their current site the land can be sold on by the council. Both sites are potentially very interesting to property developers.

^^

The article from the other day states that according to the plans, when St. Margaret's vacates to Edge Lane, St. Hilda's will move into St. Margarets vacated buildings, thus any work needing to be done to those buildings will need to be carried out anyway. Similarly, regardless of whether St. Hilda's moves to Aigburth Road or Edge Lane, St. Hilda's site can still be sold, and the St. Margaret's site cannot. As such, that is why I question why St. Hilda's can't be the school to be moved, if St. Margaret's aren't interested.

I suspect it's a bit of a moveable feast! When I first heard about it, it was St Hilda's and St Margaret's --> Edge Lane, nothing about Archbishop Blanch. As you say it's an odd choice to move St Margarets out and St Hilda's into the vacated site - maybe it allows them to remain an all girls school? (Assuming they still are - 6th forms tend to be mixed these days). The plot thickens. There could also be a bit of dissonance between St Margarets and Arch B. I know they're both CofE schools but I think St Marg's sees itself as, what's the word, 'different' from Arch B and might not see sharing a facility with that school as, erm, 'appropriate'!

It does seem a hell of a move, geographically speaking, to move an Aigburth school to Edge Lane. Also, can you imagine what two school runs would do to rush hour traffic on Edge Lane? I'm presuming that they could approach the school from various entry points. Isnt there a route from Wavertree? I can't remember.

^^

It's proposed that access to the new schools with be taken from Innovation Boulevard, the new road across the former MTL depot site, linking the Technology Park with Edge Lane. Keeping in mind the locations of the existing schools, and the most direct route to the new site, I'd say Rathbone Road and the Technology Park would bear the brunt of traffic from St. Margaret's, which will likely cause problems given how congested the roads around the Technology Park get in the morning rush hour anyway. As for Archbishop Blanch, there may be some spill-over onto Edge Lane, however I'd say Wavertree Road towards Matalan would bear the brunt of traffic here, although it would, largely speaking, be in the opposite direction to the morning rush hour, so might not cause too much of a problem, at least until entering the Technology Park anyway.

I think the main issue will be if people inevitably find the Technology Park routes too congested, and attempt to access the schools via the only other option - Edge Lane - thus adding to an already extremely busy road. That said, all being well, by time the schools are open, Edge Lane West should be complete, so traffic should hopefully be more free-flowing, and less prone to backing up towards the Littlewoods building due to the current Durning Road bottleneck, so perhaps it'll be alright?

There could also be a bit of dissonance between St Margarets and Arch B. I know they're both CofE schools but I think St Marg's sees itself as, what's the word, 'different' from Arch B and might not see sharing a facility with that school as, erm, 'appropriate'!

the people incharge at ST Margarets have no problem with the Archies lot!
we shared our sixth form prom with them last year.
Also we were told that the plan was for st Margarets and Archbishop Blanch to move in to a new school that would be built on the current playing fields and then where the current school is would be flattened and turned into playing fields, so essentially swap

It does seem a hell of a move, geographically speaking, to move an Aigburth school to Edge Lane. Also, can you imagine what two school runs would do to rush hour traffic on Edge Lane? I'm presuming that they could approach the school from various entry points. Isnt there a route from Wavertree? I can't remember.

Although the school is currently based in Aigburth, it is the only Liverpool secondary C of E school that has an intake of boys and so a more central location, especially if it were fit for the 21st century, would not be a bad idea.

I think St Marg's and AB share a similar religious ethos and have links especially at 6th form level, whilst St Hilda's has a subtly differing religious outlook. But bearing in mind education is the primary responsibility of these organisations, subtle differences should be able to be overcome.

Babs, to my almost certain knowledge, the Bluecoat has had substantial new building done in recent years so would not make great sense to move to such a site at this stage.

I wasn't thinking in terms of the Bluecoat moving from their current site, more Bluecoat 2 at the Edge Hill site! That school is so shit hot at the moment with 100% of pupils achieving at least 5 GCSEs at Grades A - C (including maths and English) and over 80% gaining a foreign language GCSE at these grades, too.

I'm sure it could attract pupils to a new wing - of course this doesn't resolve the problems of needing to renovate existing schools! Maybe Arch B and St Marg's can share a site in Aigburth. Maybe St Hilda's can be incorporated into the Belvedere School - the best girls school in the city? It's only a short walk away down Ullet Road.

I went to St Margarets and made several personal attempts to merge with St Hildas (especially one called Christine ) and all I got was a slapped face. Never tried to do it in Edge Lane mind.

Seems a waste of a true iconic site for a school - it should be one side of a new ground for Everton.

Planners back plans to build schools in Liverpool Littlewoods building despite business fears

Jun 17 2009 by Ben Turner, TMNW

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build two highs schools within Liverpool’s iconic Littlewoods building have been backed despite a scathing attack from a city business.

The iconic art deco building, within Edge Lane’s new Innovation Park, was built by the Pools firm’s founders in 1938, but has sat empty for years.

But yesterday planners authorised outline planning permission for the construction of two schools within the building – after hearing that Liverpool Council will ensure historical features including its distinctive clock tower are retained.

The approval – which paves the way for two Church of England secondaries – Aigburth’s St Margaret’s and city-centre Archbishop Blanch to co-locate at the site – came despite heavy criticism from city builders and shopfitters W Braithwaite and Son, which employs 100 staff on the Botanic Estate adjacent to the Littlewoods building.

The council has championed the £45m building project as a way to boost the overall regeneration of the area and dovetail the schools’ technology specialisms.

But yesterday fears were voiced the proposal would actually hamper growth and “ be a deterrent to new development”. As well as major fears over access and traffic congestion, Braithwaite bosses believe housing schools on a prime business site is simply “inappropriate.”

The company’s concerns to the planning committee were outlined by their representative, Edward Landor, who said the council had failed to “provide any robust evidence to demonstrate that this site should not be retained for employment purposes”.

He said it was “inconceivable that the planning system should endorse a proposal which will result in the ‘daily school run’ conflicting with business access.” Urging planners to reject the application, he added: “The site is unsuitable for use for educational purposes. It has been developed in order to attract major new employment investment to the Liverpool city region. In the setting of the current economic and financial climate, this proposal represents an under utilisation of a key employment site and should be resisted.”

But backing the application, the planning committee concluded the “overriding” benefit was to “support something that provides for educational use”. The committee also stressed access and issues of transport would be dealt with at detailed planning level.

Although the Innovation Park move is backed by the Diocese, governors at St Margaret’s say they “cannot support a move to Edge Lane” – preferring the two schools’ home to be on the Aigburth site.

The application was one of four approved by the committee, and although nothing is “a done deal” the council had stressed planning permission was needed in order to submit water-tight plans before the government next month.

Assistant education director, Tim Warren said yesterday’s authorisation “paves the way” for a £500m transformation of the city’s secondary schools “the biggest single investment of its kind in the city.”

I think this article raises a number of interesting points and concerns. Why is the overriding benefit of this building such that it should support educational use? Have all other possibilities really been exhausted? Is it sensible for the council to talk up these proposals when one of the schools has made it clear that it isn't interested - doesn't exactly model a constructive dialogue going on between the council and the school. How much pressure are the owners (NWDA) applying? How does this fit in with the Edge Lane Gateway - you know that marvel that was going to bring all kinds of mixed development to this area, encouraging new businesses that generate wealth etc?

This is one of the weirdest and wrongest ideas we've yet seen. The city's premier business park we were told, now to be the location for two large secondary schools. :nuts:

And on the main road into the city from the motorway. Great for kiddies! Splat. And they are otherwise trying to keep clear Edge Lane clear for improved access to the city centre. Two schools' school runs is really going to help in this.

It's so crass and barely believable you, like Babs, can only see the hand of the local purse-string holders, the NWDA, on this. Only they have the financial power to blackmail the dumn-ass council into as crazy and counter-productive scheme as this one.

I don't see how the council was blackmailed into this Awayo.

Kensington and Edge Hill are one of the city's key areas for regeneration and (whether you agree with Housing Market Renewal or not) one of the best ways to make an area desirable to live in is to plant a good secondary school in that community.

There isn't much suitable land in Aigburth for the school to relocate anyway and this was probably the best and last opportunity to save the Littlewoods building, since English Heritage refuse to list it.

There will be no access to the school from Edge Lane, so any kids being dropped off by their parents will have to be dropped off on Innovation Boulevard (stupid name) and if you are ever around Archbishop Blanche at 3pm you will see several school busses waiting to take kids home but very few parents. I don't know what St Margaret's are like.

The school would also be within walking distance of several cross city bus routes and Wavertree Technology Park and Edge Hill Stations, as well as a potential Edge Lane Station if the Bootle Branch Line does get re-opened for passengers.

It's not in the middle of the tech park, it's alongside Botanic Park, which already has very good sports facilities, and there is still vast amounts of industrial land available to keen the tech park growing for decades.

I have not been a fan of Liverpool's school rebuilding programme, as too often the city has been blackmailed into replacing solid old school buildings that just needed refurbishing, because government money is only available for shiny new schools rather than refurbishment. But this one ticks so many boxes that I am really looking forward to seeing it built.

"one of the best ways to make an area desirable to live in is to plant a good secondary school in that community."

I hadnt thought of that Edgehill. Good point.

If it's a relevant point here it's surprising that no one thought of it beforehand.

What I want to know is:

Why isn't this building listed?

What is NWDA up to? What has it been doing with this building since Urban Splash all but imploded?

What other options have been canvassed?

What are the long term gains/costs of turning this building into a secondary school?

It just doesn't hold together in a joined-up way. It's planning on the back of a Subway napkin. It's very worrying and illustrates once again that all the voodoo dolls are in NWDA's hands and NWDA and LCC speak as one.

The nearest school to me creates a dead zone around it. The fact that it has automated shutters on the windows doesn't help much either. I thought the idea was to make this part of town buzz. This is (potentially) one of the buzziest buildings in Liverpool. It's wasted on a school. Sure if it was a choice of a school or demolition then I know which way I'd vote but if that ever became the only choice that was on the table I would have even more serious concerns about the calibre of the current administration than I have now.

Couldn't agree more with that. I went past yesterday and tried to picture it's use as a school and just couldn't do it. Also the vast entrance and new signage from Edge Lane for 'Liverpool INNOVATION Park' is frankly embarrassing. Immediately behind this sign is nothing but dereliction and wasteland and gives an impression of the complete opposite of innovation. Another classic example of the first impressions this stretch of road gives off to visitors.

What I want to know is:
Why isn't this building listed?

I believe the Council did want to see it listed. English Heritage said no.

What is NWDA up to? What has it been doing with this building since Urban Splash all but imploded?
Who knows! Can anyone say what the NWDA actually do anywhere in Liverpool?

This is (potentially) one of the buzziest buildings in Liverpool. It's wasted on a school. Sure if it was a choice of a school or demolition then I know which way I'd vote but if that ever became the only choice that was on the table I would have even more serious concerns about the calibre of the current administration than I have now.

Just look at the deteriorating state of the building at the moment. I doubt it will survive another 5-10 years, which is what it will take before the private sector can raise the finance and have an end market for a commercial development - probably flats and a hotel again!

The only game in town at the moment is for a public sector project, which means an education use (or perhaps a hospital if the Royal & Alder Hey were not already committed to their rebuild programmes).

Normally this forum is abuzz with ideas and concept drawings for key sites in the city, I haven't seen anything like this for the Littlewoods building, which makes me think that none of us are bursting with ideas for the site (or at least none that can be realisticly financed in the near future).

Perhaps I misunderstood you Babs, but why is it a waste to give the city's kids an iconic school building. It seems that it's that sort of attitude that gives us the dreadful school buildings that are now being put up arround the city.

There are plenty of appropriate uses for this building from a hotbed of design/technology/whatever companies to an hotel-spa complex, whatever. It's not that expensive to protect a building from deteriorating further - just don't have any part of the interior exposed to the elements, maintain the roof and windows and try and keep opportunistic buddleia and sycamore growth (on the building itself) to a minimum.

The non-listing of such an obviously listable building by a government department owned by another government department is a cause for concern (buildings are not listed or are delisted in order to facilitate maximum commercial advantage - kind of defeats the purpose of having building listed in the first place).

I haven't heard any gossip about this building being up for grabs. It appears the NWDA and LCC have an agreement about what use it should be turned to (in the context of LCC receiving X amount of government money to refurbish existing schools). I'm just a bit preturbed by the lack of process skills displayed when a school is nominated for a building it has made it perfectly clear that it won't be going.

It suggest that not knowing where something is going is par for the course on a much wider level (NWDA/LCC).

English Heritage said it wasn't of sufficient architectural merit to deserve listing, there has already been much debate about EH's attitude to Liverpool, so there is not much benefit in repeating it.

Yes it doesn't cost that much (in relative terms) to stop a building deteriorating, but if it's not listed and there is no identified scheme for the building then I can't see the NWDA bothering to spend money on it. They will just let it deteriorate until they can say that it's past saving.

There was a well publicised tender for the building's redevelopment, which Urban Splash won. It was equally well publicised when the Urban Splash scheme fell through. Clearly it was well known that it was available for development again, and I'm sure the NWDA went back to the original bidders to see if any of them where still interested. Clearly they where not.

I still don't see what is the problem with the city's kids being taught in an iconic landmark building. I am not arguing that architecture is the number 1 factor, but the fact that Parklands Secondary School in Speke looks like a B&Q retail shed, surely doesn't provide the most inspirational education environment.

Yes St Margaret's are against the idea, but Archbishop Blanch are happy with the move and could fill the site themselves. I believe St Hilda's are also interested if St Margaret's don't take up the offer.

One person from English Heritage made the decision that it wasn't worth listing against idiosyncratic criteria in the context of being a government employee making a decision about a building owned by the government. The decision not to list the Littlewoods building doesn't withstand close scrutiny. EH has a poor record of protecting public buildings in Liverpool and is seen by some as being in cahoots with both LCC in terms of removing hurdles to development by NOT listing buildings - the debacle over JBH can be seen as an example of this.

You say that NWDA went back to original tenders for this site - where is your evidence for this?

I think the concern is more about headless chickens running assorted departments within LCC. If you read the plan for this area, a secondary school was not part of it and now it is - why?

What happened to the innovation park? Don't tell me: 'Don't you know, the children are our future. la la la, do-da, do-de-oh' Maybe when the council spoke about an innovation park it was 'innovation' in the context of the kids who will go to Littlewoods Academy will be the innovators of the future?

Joking apart, I would be more reassured if the thinking behind this switch in purpose was made public. Also, my understanding is that St Hilda's is NOT interested in a move to this site - it kinda defeats the purpose of having an all girls school. Maybe you have information to the contrary?

I agree EH have served Liverpool badly, I said that myself. And actually I think they refused to list the building when it was still owned by Littlewoods. If you have any evidence that LCC have colluded with EH to not list this or any other buildings, I would love to hear it.

It's a red herring to start saying "What about the innovation park" when the school will have no less affect it's viability of than the Urban Splash proposals, which were not exactly going to attract hi-tec industry or create highly skilled jobs.

What you haven't explained is why is a school is so much worse a solution for the site than 100's of flats that nobody really wanted. It would have been like the Collegate in Everton, Urban Splash did a fantastic job there, but it took years to sell all the flats.

I don't work for the NWDA, I have no information on what they did to market the building after Urban Splash pulled out. However its standard procurement practise to go back to your reserve tenders if your preferred choice pulls out. I will assume they followed that practice until I see evidence to suggest otherwise. If you want to find out about that or what else the NWDA did to get commercial interest in the site, why don't you make a freedom of information request?

I am not normally one to defend council officials, but the headless chickens accusation is ridiculous. Most of the time we criticise them for the lack of innovative thinking, always going for the simple, boring and safe options. This time they haven't.

Why wasn't it in the original plan? Well for a start Archbishop Blanch & St Margaret's were not looking for a new home 3 years ago, and it's not surprising that the NWDA (as a Development Agency) would be keen to get a commercial scheme on the site. The local community, however, have always aspired to have a secondary school in the area. Opportunities that previously didn't exist, now do. I see nothing suspicious in that.

I think the Urban Splash proposals (although full of the usual Urban Splash flim-flam) would have been better for this area - it would have provided an hotel for innovators and whatnots to stay in and locals to have their wedding receptions in. The apartments would have been occupied 24/7 - 365 (well, at least during term time). There would have been LIFE, LIFE! LIFE! after 4pm and at weekends. Such things matter in my book, especially in a part of town not exactly famous for its craic.

I read what has happened as a stitch-up between governmental agencies and their bitch (LCC) that reaks of short-termism and from which there isn't any going back. In turning this building into a secondary school it creates a dead zone after 4pm and at weekends that won't have any other spin-off benefits.

I'm just not clear how NWDA/LCC started with A and ended up with W. I understand the principle of expediency and if that's what it is they should at least be up front about it but to spin it as they have done in Liverpool Vision's latest puff piece is a just a tad hard for me to swallow - especially as I know what St Margaret's have been saying to the council and what people are saying about the council and the NWDA in Aigburth.

It's kind of like having plans for a 4th 'Grace':lol::nuts: and then it falls through for whatever reason but because the owner of the land (erm, NWDA) has governmental cash at its disposal that needs spending - deciding to run with black-cladded flats and an office block for Merseytravel. Not without some merits but not what was promised.

From the BBC -

School rebuild plans are changed

Proposals to re-site three Church of England schools in Liverpool have been amended by the city council.

A bid to move St Margaret's school in Aigburth to the Edge Lane Innovation Park has been scrapped following objections from governors.

Instead, St Hilda's school would move to Edge Lane along with Archbishop Blanch to create a £45m facility in the iconic Littlewoods building.

The plan is yet to be agreed by the governing bodies of the schools.

Views heard

The amended proposal forms part of a huge schools rebuilding programme in the city called Building Schools, Skills, Success.

Councillor Keith Turner, member for education, said it was a "once in a generation opportunity" for the city.

"We want schools involved in the decisions at every step of the way and we are fully committed to taking everyone's views on board," he said.

"These new proposals for the Church of England secondary sector are the result of us listening to the views of the schools involved, addressing their concerns and coming up with a new, exciting option which we feel will fully meet their needs."

From here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8159803.stm

Common sense prevailing?

More like lack of consultation and joined up planning shining through. St Margaret's school built an extremely unattractive extension not so long ago so a move was always an odd proposal.

all this seems pointless to me, once the credit crunch is over the building should be converted, there are better things to go in there than a school.

From the BBC -

Girls' parents oppose school move

Parents are opposing plans which could see boys attending a historic girls' school in Liverpool.

Liverpool City Council wants to move St Hilda's school from Sefton Park to a new £45m site on Edge Lane innovation park.

However, it also proposes boys being admitted after 2014.

The school was included in plans for the co-location with Archbishop Blanch school after the boys' school St Margaret's rejected the plan.

The amended proposal forms part of a huge schools rebuilding programme in the city called Building Schools, Skills, Success.

St Hilda's and Archbishop Blanch would be co-located in new schools which would partly incorporate the landmark Littlewoods building.

The ethos of the school, the learning environment in the school - all of that will be disturbed and weakened by the move
Paul Fitzgerald, parent

Paul Fitzgerald, who is leading the parents group, said no-one disputed that St Hilda's needed a new building.

But he told BBC Radio Merseyside parents believed becoming a mixed-sex school would damage standards.

"We're not objecting to moving per se, what we're objecting to is the council trying to force us into going co-educational," said Mr Fitzgerald.

"The ethos of the school, the learning environment in the school - all of that will be disturbed and weakened by the move.

"The school was founded to give girls a quality education in the city - it's been doing that for 115 years very, very well."

Further consultation

Liverpool City Council's assistant director of education, Tim Warren, said a decision had yet to be made on the move.

"Even if this proposal goes ahead it will result in the school going co-educational from 2014," he said.

"It would remain a girls' school until this date so any decision obviously will not impact on any of the existing pupils at the school."

Mr Warren added that any decision for the school to go co-educational was a matter for the governing body and could not be imposed by the council.

"I can reassure parents there will be further consultation with them on this issue before any final decisions are taken," said Mr Warren.

St Hilda's was originally founded in 1894 when the school opened under its original name, Sefton Park School.

Parents are meeting at Sefton Cricket Club on Tuesday to discuss the plan.

From here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8182930.stm

I know that this will sound petty but I often wonder how well the people employed by LCC in whatever capacity actually know the city and when I don't think along those lines I wonder how it is possible to display the kind of incompetence demonstrated above. Isn't anyone talking to anyone else? Is policy made without consultation? Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of south Liverpool should know that St Hilda's is an all girls school and that's its raison d'etre. It doesn't want to share a site with a boys' school! St Margaret's is as established on Aigburth Road as its possible to get. Presumably the LEA is aware that a new (vile looking) extension was built not that long ago?

I know I am banging on about this to the point of distraction but that's because I think it's symptomatic of the kind of incompetence that bedevils our local council. Whether it's Bradley announcing that Jason Harborow should be suspended or someone else announcing that three schools are going to set up shop in the former Littlewood's building (without clearly having done his/her homework) it just isn't good enough. I'll leave aside the sudden change of use for this building.

All councils make mistakes and most are disliked to a greater or lesser extent but as various reports have indicated there is something about LCC that prevents healthy functioning (and I see this debacle as a symptom of that) and until that is sorted out I fear that things will only get worse.

I wonder why they can't leave the Littlewoods Building as it is? Empty buildings are never good, but in some instances where the building is of particular note and merit, shoving something into it that doesn't really belong just to fill it, because the current market won't support anything else seems rather short-sighted. That said, I'm not against the idea of locating a school on Edge Lane as such (although I still think traffic management will need some serious consideration). I wonder though, seen as both St. Margarets and St. Hilda's have issues with the plan, why they can't just move Archbishop Blanch? Let them move, perhaps into a new building adjacent to the Littlewoods Building, and leave the Littlewoods Building itself until as such time as it can be put to use because a given proposal for it stacks up, not just because there's nothing else that would work at the given time.

I agree, it's not as though there isn't plenty of land to choose from in that area.

It's the lack of co-ordination, the lack of proper evaluation and the short-sighted expediency that I find exasperating. I keep on trying to convince myself that we have moved away from all that and now I'll just have to start all over again. :)

It would be interesting to find out who came up with this proposal first. Because of the complete absence of awareness of what is happening on the ground in the city I suspect that this baby might be entirely NWDA's with its bitch LCC falling in line, as always.

Have I posted these pics?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a366/robinsonworld/Liverpool/P1010742.jpg


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a366/robinsonworld/Liverpool/P1010739.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a366/robinsonworld/Liverpool/P1010735.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a366/robinsonworld/Liverpool/P1010732.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a366/robinsonworld/Liverpool/P1010734.jpg

I can't say that I have seen those particular photos before so thanks for posting them.

What a gorgeous building - EH lost whatever credibility it had left (none whatsoever, come to think of it) when they refused to list this building.

Has anything new come up for this yet? Since Bachy posted those pix,a lot of the plaster has fallen off the west face of the tower making it look rather shabby.

Dave.

I think it's one of the buildings that could be getting sold by the NWDA as instructed by the government isn't it?

From the Daily Post -

Liverpool Innovation Park schools plan may be revived to create business neighbourhood

A DOOMED plan to base pupils in the heart of Liverpool’s Innovation Park could be revived as part of a Government bid to create “business neighbourhoods”.

Liverpool Council wanted to move two Church of England secondary schools – Sefton Park’s St Hilda’s and city-centre based Archbishop Blanch – into the iconic Littlewoods building at Edge Lane’s Innovation Park in a £45m scheme.

But the project bit the dust in July last year when Government axed the Building Schools For The Future scheme, which would have seen 26 city schools transformed.

When the Innovation Park schools scheme was launched by the council, it was championed as a way to boost the regeneration of the area and dovetail the schools’ technology and enterprise specialisms. Now plans to mix business and education on the site could be restored as part of a new Government initiative to establish “Business Neighbourhood Frontrunners”.

Article continues here - http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/05/20/liverpool-innovation-park-schools-plan-may-be-revived-to-create-business-neighbourhood-92534-28728919/

^The use of the Littlewoods building by the two schools is, by far, the best idea that has been proposed for this building, in my opinion.

It would provide fantastic accommodation for two schools in need of a new school building, and it would also bring more life and activity to the new Edge Lane corridor. Plus, I am sure that the school buildings could be available for community activity outside of term time.

I hope these are saved or better still can be incorporated into any WWII history tours.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16326396%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=art-from-the-underground---picture-gallery-name_page.html


.