I know a lot us trawl through the media, trade publications and the internet for news of new developments in the city center, any news from these sites are usually about large scale developments. but there are a lot of smaller developments never published in the press, but are as equally important to the citys fabric. News of these developments can be found on the citys planning website (when its working). So Ive started this thread so that we could see what p.p. has officialy been applied for, and any decisions made. Please contribute if you happen to notice anything of interest.I'll start it off, p.p. has been applied to convert Yorkshire House into appartments, i think thats the building next to the unity development. Cheers :)

Begsy, great idea for a thread, snippit of news re Kings Waterfront--- tenders being sought for sewers and roads, approx value £14.5M. Got to get these in before the big stuff starts to rise.

PL/INV/1248/05

To erect mixed development of Town Houses, apartment blocks & residential tower, and retail space. It doesn't give the location.

EDIT

Taken from this mornings DP letters page, I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but it is to do with Liverpool's planning (or not) process.


Exasperating

Once again, I find myself exasperated by officer recommendations to refuse privately funded schemes to erect 2 towers in Liverpool. Having already expressed my support for the Brunswick Tower development previously , I will do so again. I cannot argue with those who think the city council is making a huge mistake in turning these down, and I ask the officers to search their consciences and explain to us the reason they do not want these to go ahead, as there seems no difference with the ones they have allowed.

I am, of course, free to express my views in this way. My colleagues who are on the planning committee cannot do so until they are in session. I would urge them to reject the officers recommendations and vote to attract more private investment into what we want to be the most business-friendly city.


Cllr Peter Millea, Executive Member for Regeneration, LCC


I my view further evidence, if it were needed, of the almost total breakdown in communication/working relationship between Liverpool's councillors and it's paid officers.

I can only agree with Pete and urge Lady Dorren and her colleagues to chuck out the officer recommendations and vote for approval!! that's the simple and correct thing to do for Liverpool.

What an excellent letter. Good on the man! It'd be nice to see the Brunnie Quay and Vermont towers poking above and beyond the arena on one of Daves/M.O.'s pano shots in the future, Maybe with a statue of our Pete looking out over what planners aimed to destroy. :cheers:

It'd be nice to see the Brunnie Quay and Vermont towers poking above and beyond the arena on one of Daves/M.O.'s pano shots in the futureI did a trial mega-pano from Thurstaston the other week. You've no idea (yet!) how good BQ would look from there. Can't say the same for the wretched Southport gasholder though.... :)

With support like this from the boss of regeneration in the city, do you think the balance has shifted to accept rather than reject??

Most of us on this forum have said this before, C'mon Lady Doreen we know you follow this site, do the right thing and vote yes!!

Time for letters and e-mails of support to Cllr Peter Millea?

Definitely. We've done it before, we can do it again!

(Though my wife thinks it's bizarre when I get a letter in the paper supporting the building of a 'block of flats'...) :)

For the Liverpool Echo, send to:

letters@liverpoolecho.co.uk

Don't forget to include your postal address as I don't think they'll consider letters for publication without them.

Definitely. We've done it before, we can do it again!

Lol, I was just about to edit my message asking how many times we have had to do it before! :lol:

I've just sent a couple of e-mails to the Echo and DP news desk about decisions of the planning dep. Does anybody have this Millea's e-mail address? Let's see how democratic this city really is.

Keep the pressure up chaps. Glad to see there are like minded individuals in the city who want to put pressure on our councillors and civil servants to get things done. It's terrible we have to resort to shaming them into doing their job well but if that's what it takes then so be it. Sure you all agree that we want to get Liverpool up to speed on the business front and attract investors. It can be a business center and a cultural center at the same time.

I think the council would look better if they actually explained some of their rejections in a bit more detail. If there are genuine reasons such as the structural integrity of the building being questionable we would understand rejections but cack such as 'Tall building restriction' area is twaddle of the highest order.

Taken from this mornings DP letters page, I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but it is to do with Liverpool's planning (or not) process.


Exasperating

Once again, I find myself exasperated by officer recommendations to refuse privately funded schemes to erect 2 towers in Liverpool. Having already expressed my support for the Brunswick Tower development previously , I will do so again. I cannot argue with those who think the city council is making a huge mistake in turning these down, and I ask the officers to search their consciences and explain to us the reason they do not want these to go ahead, as there seems no difference with the ones they have allowed.

I am, of course, free to express my views in this way. My colleagues who are on the planning committee cannot do so until they are in session. I would urge them to reject the officers recommendations and vote to attract more private investment into what we want to be the most business-friendly city.


Cllr Peter Millea, Executive Member for Regeneration, LCC


I my view further evidence, if it were needed, of the almost total breakdown in communication/working relationship between Liverpool's councillors and it's paid officers.

I can only agree with Pete and urge Lady Dorren and her colleagues to chuck out the officer recommendations and vote for approval!! that's the simple and correct thing to do for Liverpool.


Doug I have changed my order from the Echo to the Daily Post, having taken both for a few weeks the DP does appear to be more in the Peter Millea camp while the Echo does like the "sound bites" from Cllr. Anderson.

That letter did raise my hopes that we have an ELECTED councillor who is aware of the damage being done to this city by its PAID officers. Let us hope that Lady Doreen and her pals "grasp the nettle" and say yes to both towers.

Liverpool`s proud boast to be a " BUISNESS-FRIENDLY CITY" has today taken another bashing from Mersey Docks, they join a long line of organisations who have criticised the length of time it takes to get planning approval for major schemes. This comes after Grosvenor, Maro and Chieften complained of dithering and lack of contact with the "big hitters " on the city council.

It does look like Storey and Henshaw have got a major internal problem to sort out if their slogan is to be believed. The spotlight is trained on the planning dept and on the planning committee.

The decisions that they agree over the next few weeks will IMO decide if this city will move foreward or stagnate.

The Daily Post is taking a strong editorial line in favour of both Brunswick Quay and Chieftain. If nothing else, it would be good if they could get the planners to show themselves and to explain in the popular press why they are rejecting these towers.

The consensus seems to be that there is a conflict of interest within the council with the need to ensure the economic success of Kings Dock conflicting with the need to review developments in accordance with planning law.

What is needed is some firm guidance from the council on what is likely to be accepted and what rejected - guidance that is adhered to by the council themselves. Developers do not wish to waste millions developing schemes only to find them rejected on what appear to be fairly arbitrary planning decisions. Even if the planners decided that no building over ten storeys would be permitted, it would at least let developers know the ground rules for development in the city and they would be less likely to go elsewhere.

What's the details on the 'Chieftain'?

I agree the pressure from commercial developers and Plc's is growing on the council planning process, not before time, but they shouldn't have to go through this.

The council are also being exposed as both planning authority and developer (Kings Dock) I think these roles will only cause further conflict and confusion.

Bill Gleeson, DP business editor, in Wednesday's paper "Decisions about the (Kings Dock) arena were made in a closed council session, when the press and the public were kicked out of the debating chamber. To make the schemes sums add up, the council needs the residential schemes on the Kings Dock to be profitable so it can use part of the proceeds to pay for construction of the arena, To achieve this it needs the property values in the city to remain high"

Sounds like a risky business the council is getting into here, what if there were a national down turn in property prices I don't think Liverpool would be immune to that. Also it would seem that the council had something to hide.

Doug,

Very interesting indeed. I thought the arena was being paid for with government and EU grants- following its construction, shouldn't it pay for itself? Are the apartments to pay for the construciton of the arena or to keep it afloat? Won't the arena be run by a private firm?
LCC are like Eastern bloc communists.

It's a sad state of affairs when the council needs to manipulate the market to make their schemes work. This is a very dangerous business. Besides, it seems criminal to maintain property prices at a certain level (-pricing many out of the market) to make their scheme work.

Of course, they are too stupid to realise that in trying to predict how house prices will change, and blocking privtae investment to reach their chosen level- they may actually cause values to fall becuase there will be less investment per se taking place- which means less jobs, less choice, etc. i.e. the things that make people want to live in a city in the first place.

Blab, I think the profit on the residential schemes will only be used to pay for part of the arena construction costs, your'e right that other funding will cover the bulk of the costs, this will be tinkering around at the margins to make the scheme "viable"

I'm note sure what the business plan for running the arena will be, will have to wait and see what Bob Prattey comes up with.

Gambling on continuing property price increases I think is a very risky strategy, an incident like yesterday thankfully a rare case, shows how vulnerable markets can be.

This looks like the only interesting planning application being interrogated by the planning Stazi this week.

Info Here (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000307/M00004689/AI00018473/$Item15HighlandHotelBPPetrolStationHillStSeftonStL8.docA.ps.pdf)
Map of site (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000307/M00004689/AI00018473/hillstseftonstL8.pdf)

Does look promising for being accepted, although where will the petrol station move to...!

Item 34. B.P. Petrol station/Highland Hotel site (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.Asp?CId=307&MID=4689)


Looks like the above was approved, so another little piece of the jigsaw added to bringing life back to under used parts of the city.

To consider a recommendation that Application No 05F/0596 to erect three blocks, 2 no. seven storeys high and 1 no. part 10/part 7 storeys high containing 150no. one and two bedroom apartments; 3 no. ground floor units (682sq.m) to be used within use classes A1, A2 or A3 and and layout new access road and basement and surface car parking, at Highland Hotel & BP Petrol Station, Hill St/Sefton Street, Liverpool 8, be granted subject to the conditions proposed by the Planning Manager and a legal agreement.

While the very negative report on Grand Central is the headline item on the agenda of the Planning Committee of 2 August (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=307&MId=4693&Ver=4), another item gives some insight into the relationship between Committee and planning officers. Namely item 5, discussing a proposal for an apartment building next to the Blackie. This was previously refused, apparently for being too modern. Planners, supported by Urban Splash (developers of the adjacent Great George area), favour the modern design. Urban Splash say specifically that they object to 'any ideas of faux classical design or pastiche', an obvious dig at the Planning Committee's taste. A reversal of their refusal seems on the cards, as the threat of a successful appeal (as in the case of West Tower) is again raised.

Email address for Henshaw anyone ?- just about to send a major rant about the impression the latest bad news has on investor confidence.

I have Storey's, the DPs, Echo and Millea's as well as Liverpool Vision. Any other suggestions for copies? I will post on this board and any replies I get.

Email address for Henshaw anyone ?- just about to send a major rant about the impression the latest bad news has on investor confidence.

I have Storey's, the DPs, Echo and Millea's as well as Liverpool Vision. Any other suggestions for copies? I will post on this board and any replies I get.


LA try this. David.Henshaw@liverpool.gov.uk

I have sent many emails to members of LCC especially the planning dept, I have only ever received two replies,both from the same person-Sir Henshaw.
Both of these replies were entirely predictable but at least he replied.

Best of luck to you. :cheers:

LA try this. David.Henshaw@liverpool.gov.uk

I have sent many emails to members of LCC especially the planning dept, I have only ever received two replies,both from the same person-Sir Henshaw.
Both of these replies were entirely predictable but at least he replied.But don't, under any circumstances, criticise anyone or anything remotely related to council or it's management employees or you will end up on the *BANNED* list, like me. However, I own property in Liverpool and pay taxes in that city and will be returning later in the year to instruct a solicitor to take legal action against the city and/or it's agents for discrimination. I will, of course, be seeking damages and costs and the removal, from office if an elected official and termination of employment and/or contract if an employee.

Doesn't the European bill of rights say something about the refusal, of governments, to provide services to citizens?

I think tonight on BBC One at 6.30 pm on the local news they are going to do an item about skycrapers in Liverpool and if they should go for them or not, in particular the one by the Train Station.

I thought the Scouce Forumers might be interested.

We're all too aware, Zim. ;)

But don't, under any circumstances, criticise anyone or anything remotely related to council or it's management employees or you will end up on the *BANNED* list, like me. However, I own property in Liverpool and pay taxes in that city and will be returning later in the year to instruct a solicitor to take legal action against the city and/or it's agents for discrimination. I will, of course, be seeking damages and costs and the removal, from office if an elected official and termination of employment and/or contract if an employee.

Doesn't the European bill of rights say something about the refusal, of governments, to provide services to citizens?


Sloyne,how exactly is this 'Ban' applied?
Are your emails blocked from getting through or on a list not to be replied to or something?
I don't know how these things work.
Unless you have been continually abusive towards someone it does seem a bit unfair to say the least.
It would appear that you have definite grounds for complaint.
Keep us up to date on your legal action and best of luck. :cheers:

If you want to know what's going on take a Look at the Lime Street regeneration thread, it's not the most positive of threads though :(

We're all too aware, Zim. ;)

oops sorry. I thought it was unusual for me to know something before everyone else :)

Sloyne,how exactly is this 'Ban' applied?
Are your emails blocked from getting through or on a list not to be replied to or something?
I don't know how these things work.
Unless you have been continually abusive towards someone it does seem a bit unfair to say the least.
It would appear that you have definite grounds for complaint.
Keep us up to date on your legal action and best of luck. :cheers:
The message I get is very explicit; It says; ]"This system has been configured to reject your mail"[/B] . There is no ambiguity about the message and, according to my guru, it is innitiated at the city communications centre. As I'm sure you will agree, no bureaucratic minnion would have the authority to authorize this ban, it would have to come from someone with "authority" in either the political or executive side of council.

Are you sure you keep you language to a respectable level? The use of offensive language reults in your message getting blocked. Not that I send obsene letters to the council or anything. ;)

Are you sure you keep you language to a respectable level? The use of offensive language reults in your message getting blocked. Not that I send obsene letters to the council or anything. ;)Never one four letter word, however, I have taken both Storey and Henshaw to task over various items and have accused Storey, with proof, of plagerising my ideas and attributing them to himself.

I cannot even e-mail anyone on council, whether Lib-Dem or the opposition. I have, in effect, been censored. But like I said, I will find the culprit and exact retribution. I do hope it is Henshaw or Storey.

http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/images/news_images_2005/1may_images/henshaw/henshaw.jpg :rofl:

Taken from yesterday's DP supplement, Vision.

"The various plans for skyscrapers in Liverpool have fuelled much debate in recent months. Probably the most contentious has been Maro's grandiose Brunswick Quay project which includes a stunning 51-storey tower.

This has been rejected twice by the city's planning committee on advice from officials so an investment of £120m looks like being lost although the company is to appeal. What intrigues me about this decision is what lies at the heart of it. Is there a lack of true democracy here? It has been interesting to read letters both in the Post & Echo denouncing the 'city' for discouraging private investment such as this.

Let's get this right, it wasn't the 'city' making a decision it was a majority 6 planning councillors on a recommendation from the chief planning officer.

What's more none of the 6 represent the ward in which the proposed Brunswick development is situated. Also, they are all Lib-Dem councillors and actually opposed the view of their planning chair, Lady Doreen Jones. Under previous regimes, such an important decision would have been debated at length by a proper planning committee of 25 councillors or more representing various wards across the city.

Then it would go on to an equally drawn out discussion at full council so that all views could be fully aired. It seems the new streamlined version of democracy, encouraged by government, means a handful of people can wipe out major projects at a stroke.

Cllr Peter Allen, one of the 6 objectors, says the second application did not differ materially from the first. He also points out that Lady Doreen Jones voted against the initial plan but then changed her mind at the second time of asking.

A council spokesman said the grounds of rejection were the same as the previous proposal; wrong location, displacement of local businesses and housing policy issues.

Sounds like looking for excuses does't it?"

Barry Turnbul, Editor barry.turnbull@liverpool.com



Of the Lib-dem 6, 2 of the Cllrs are Peter Allen and Elaine Allen both represent the St. Michaels ward and both live at the same address in Mossley Hill.

Now it could be that they are husband and wife? or father and daughter? and I'm not suggesting that they didn't arrive at the same conclusion to reject BQT quite independently. But in such a small group I think the council should ban relatives serving on the same the committee.

well at least the DP seems to be waking up to what the council really are.

City Lofts have put in p.p. for a 9 storey appartment building on Princes half-tide dock, could have done with a biggun on that site.

9 stories isn't too bad I don't think. I think mixing the heights up will give a gud effect on princes dock. Especially if we ever see Alex tower rising up. Hopefully it will be a gud quality building, I think quality is essential compared to height on this site. The earlier buildings prove that bad quality isnt good for this development.

Looking at the ongoing City Lofts development I think it will be a gud quality building. Lots going on at Princes Dock now, both on site and planning applications.

Interesting-sounding building proposed for approval at next week's Planning Committee meeting (agenda (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=307&MId=4705&Ver=4), item 19). A mixed-use building on the southern corner of Gt Crosshall St and Byrom St, rising to 12 storeys maximum and seeming (though the description is a bit hard to understand) to have a highly sculptural shape. Planners recommend it, though usual suspect Cllr Sullivan is quoted as objecting on the grounds that it does not match the 'suburban' character of the vicinity.

[Just noticed this already mentioned on Development Summary. Sorry for repetition.]

Also of interest on that agenda: the proposed modifications to the Port of Liverpool building (including apartments at the top and a sunken plaza in front) and item 12 (Caryl St/ Grafton St), which continues a long-running saga - eco apartment blocks that originally were to have wind turbines on top.

Cllr Sullivan is a wanker.

Whats suburban about Gt Crosshall st? Fair enough it is close to a residential area but that contains 2 tower blocks of about 15 stories. I don't understand these people!

Suburban feel :bash:

That area should not be Suburban, it's the city centre, with a very un suburban multi-lane highway and existing very large buildings, businesses and major cultural attractions nearby.

^^ I believe, they had the bungalows in mind when they said that.

Dear friends,

Does anybody have the planning documents for Brunswick Quay and Chieftain (1st proposal)?
I have tried using the Planning Explorer on LCC but it is currently down (-and I don't how long it will be down for.)

If anybody has the documents relating to the decisions taken and the committee reports I'd be most grateful if they could be mailed to me (-I'll PM my e-mail address.)

Thanks in advance. :cheers:

^You don't need the planning explorer for that and it's just awell because that thing is offline more than it is online! Just do a search for Brunswick Quay and Skelhorne Street HERE (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieDocSearch.asp). :)

Cheers dudester! :)

This mornings DP carries a front page story about Lord Mayor, Coun Alan Dean, calling on the planning dept. to "ease up" he fears that the planners could drive away developers to rival cities. He cites recent planning decisions on BQT and Chieftain as examples, saying " As I go to events around the city, the wider business community is bemused by some of the planning policies. They can't understand why some good schemes do not get supported"

Lady D was last night saying "I believed the Brunswick Quay scheme to be excellent and voted for it, but the majority took a different view. I felt it was in the right place and hope the developers win their appeal" (good on u Lady D!!)

It seems that a Lord Mayor should not make political statements like this whilst in office, it goes against civic protocol, but Coun Dean it seems could not resist the temptation to speak up after attending a party to celebrate the start of building work on West Tower.

I hope Nigel Lee and his mates read this article and seriously think about what they have done, as Toadboy said on another thread this is all about kick starting this city to go on to bigger things.

I think it's essential that we do start saying yes to these major schemes. Its ok having smaller developments all over the city but thats not going to make us catch up to places like Manchester and go well ahead of cities like Newcastle and Sheffield. We need to start creating a truly iconic city for 2008.

This mornings DP carries a front page story about Lord Mayor, Coun Alan Dean, calling on the planning dept. to "ease up" he fears that the planners could drive away developers to rival cities. He cites recent planning decisions on BQT and Chieftain as examples, saying " As I go to events around the city, the wider business community is bemused by some of the planning policies. They can't understand why some good schemes do not get supported"

Lady D was last night saying "I believed the Brunswick Quay scheme to be excellent and voted for it, but the majority took a different view. I felt it was in the right place and hope the developers win their appeal" (good on u Lady D!!)

It seems that a Lord Mayor should not make political statements like this whilst in office, it goes against civic protocol, but Coun Dean it seems could not resist the temptation to speak up after attending a party to celebrate the start of building work on West Tower.

I hope Nigel Lee and his mates read this article and seriously think about what they have done, as Toadboy said on another thread this is all about kick starting this city to go on to bigger things.

I have not read todays DP ( in London again), so cheers this info, I also believe that Louise Ellman, MP for Riverside, was making similar noises on behalf of local business in the Estates Gazette. It would be very interesting if Liverpool was to have an elected Mayor with similar powers that Ken Livingstone in London enjoys.

This item covered in this mornings DP.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16579972%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=city%2dplanners%2durge%2dbattle%2dover%2dhuge%2dhousing%2dscheme-name_page.html


The following jumped off the page at me!!

"Planning manager Nigel Lee says the proposed scheme will undermine attempts by Liverpool to win investments in the inner core of the city which is most in need of regeneration. The Thingwall plan would harm the urban renaissance of the city centre, adds Liverpool's planners."

hey Nige remember Brunswick Quay, Chieftain, your department was responsible for turning down this investment you hypocrite!!

Don't know if this has been mentioned on other threads but Lady D. is to step down after the May elections. Chairing the planning committee must be a double edged sword for most authorities in this country but particularly here in Liverpool, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Lady D supported Brunswick Quay, that project could have been well into the construction phase if she hadn't been stabbed in the back by members of her own party, for her support of BQT she gets my best regards.

The question now to be answered is who will chair this important committee?? is it the turn of the opposition to provide a candidate?? God help us if a certain councillor by the name of Munby is nominated.


http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=leading-light-in-town-hall-politics-decides-to-bow-out%26method=full%26objectid=18018040%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

Don't know if this has been mentioned on other threads but Lady D. is to step down after the May elections. Chairing the planning committee must be a double edged sword for most authorities in this country but particularly here in Liverpool, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Lady D supported Brunswick Quay, that project could have been well into the construction phase if she hadn't been stabbed in the back by members of her own party, for her support of BQT she gets my best regards.

The question now to be answered is who will chair this important committee?? is it the turn of the opposition to provide a candidate?? God help us if a certain councillor by the name of Munby is nominated.


http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=leading-light-in-town-hall-politics-decides-to-bow-out%26method=full%26objectid=18018040%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

We will put your forward for it deadly doug? Or maybe COTW :bash: ?

We will put your forward for it deadly doug? Or maybe COTW :bash: ?

Good idea.

This from an excellent article in last weekends Sunday Times about Anthony Gormleys statues, he said:

"A few years ago Leeds council ran an international competition, gave me a commission, fought for and won the money to build it, secured the site for 300 years, then denied it planning permission!! There is no logic other than small minds in some grey zone of human experience wanting to deny the unusual"


I don't know what site he is referring to and it probably doesn't matter too much now, but what it does illustrate very well is the level of incompetance and at sometimes sheer stupidity of the planning procees in this country.

The (in)famous Leeds Brick Man. One of Gormleys first commissions. More than a few years ago - we are talking about the end of the eighties here.

Think of one of the Crosby iron men constructed out of brick and towering 300 feet over Leeds city centre. Crazy shit! It didn't happen, however, as Gormley reports.

Awayo thanks for the info, I'll have a Google for that later.

300 feet might be an exaggeration. Big bugger though. Here's a scale model of the cove:

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/artgallery/art_images/art_sculpt01.jpg

Ok we complain about the planning decisions, so lets take ACTION. Why not see how to get on the commitee and how can we complain and make systematic comments to the likes of Munby and twats?. LETS DO SOMETHING

To go down the long road of being on the planning committee first you need to be a local councillor.

As prerquisites, you need to be wrinkly, old and know very little about the planning system.

Jeezus... the very thought is enough to send a shiver down the spine!

As prerquisites, you need to be wrinkly, old and know very little about the planning system.

Well that rules out all of us here on SSC, :nuts: because we are all bloody experts:lol:

Hey young Urbany,:bash: : more respect for us old and wrinkly`s:ancient:

Ok, so none of us are currently able to get on the planning committees, but what about forming a loby group, a kind of nemisis group to the 'Victorian Society' which at least can have some say in planning processes, and maybe even get quoted in the local rags every once in a while 'The 'Liverpool Skyline' group were said to be strongly supporting the new application for a 150 storey building to replace St Johns Beacon'...

How does one go about forming such a group?

Ok, so none of us are currently able to get on the planning committees, but what about forming a loby group, a kind of nemisis group to the 'Victorian Society' which at least can have some say in planning processes, and maybe even get quoted in the local rags every once in a while 'The 'Liverpool Skyline' group were said to be strongly supporting the new application for a 150 storey building to replace St Johns Beacon'...

How does one go about forming such a group?



I work for an organisation supporting people to set up groups etc. I have a legal background in this field . I had a couple of meetings with Tony Sebo before his illness and there was some dicussion on this forum about how to get it kicked off.

If there is still a will to get something started, I can meet with interested parties to go through whats involved.

I work for an organisation supporting people to set up groups etc. I have a legal background in this field . I had a couple of meetings with Tony Sebo before his illness and there was some dicussion on this forum about how to get it kicked off.

If there is still a will to get something started, I can meet with interested parties to go through whats involved.

Sounds good Bugged, I reckon there'd be enough interest. It just strikes me that a lot of the time we sit here arguing the toss about one development and another, whilst other groups like the Victorian society (which can't have a huge membership) are getting invited to consultations and quoted in the local press over new developments. It'd be great for this city to have a positive lobby group for new developments and I'm sure our collective opinions in that format would do far more good as than the sum of all our rantings on here (not that this forum doesn't serve a vaild function for ranting!).

Would be interested to know what it'd take to set up a group like this, and when it was up and running how much of the day to day business could be managed in a similar forum set up to the one we use here?

Anyone else got any thoughts?

Apologies to Buggedboy. Due to being lazy and not reading his name properly, I've continually referred to to him as Buggerboy. I'm very sorry mate. :(

I work for an organisation supporting people to set up groups etc. I have a legal background in this field . I had a couple of meetings with Tony Sebo before his illness and there was some dicussion on this forum about how to get it kicked off.

If there is still a will to get something started, I can meet with interested parties to go through whats involved.

I think this would be a great focus for Tony's proposed 21st Century Society - it should be more effective than just individuals objecting. Be warned that this will be a susbtantial effort for anyone to take on and I fear Tony doesnt have the energy at the moment after his illness. Apologies Tony if I am being presumptious.

I have a number of contacts who would be potentially interested in getting involved. I would offer to help but more but its tough from 5500 miles away.

Does it really need Tony to function though? I know he has drive but the group will be weak if we have to rely on Tony to be on the ball all the time. Remember, he's still recovering from illness at the moment.

Sebo had the idea, and then did the hard spade work, so maybe someone will pick things up now he's laid the foundations. I seem to remember Doug also did some of the work, and arranged meetings. Others helped as well I think - Martin and I both did a bit of the editoral work on terms of reference etc. I agree with Gareth, it ought to be possible for others to build the next stage, and in time, as Tony gets his strength back, he might want to play a bigger role in it.

There used to be an email list, but then it went a bit exclusive, I only got things forwarded from others, then that stopped - nothing to do with Sebo incidentally, he wanted to involve everyone who wanted to get involved - but it seemed like the culture to build something inclusive wasn't quite what everyone had in mind. It's important to involve everyone who can contribute when you want to build something new, maybe that's something we have to work on if we try to start this thing off again. It's necessary for a few people sometimes to just get on and do things, but they need to report back, and keep everything moving along and open to all.

No LA, you're spot on. Don't want to come across as illness victim, but the heart attack and operation seems to have taken much more out of me than I thought it had...... to get a group going, as you all say, would be great.

It certainly does not need me to head up as most of you who have enthused about setting up a group are brighter and better informed than me anyway.... some are more diplomatic too... which is important!

I would love it, if when I do get the umph back, that there is a cool group in existence to get involved with, that is stating the case for welcoming a dynamic and forward looking metropolis - that takes a truly holistic overview of all those interlinked aspects of urbanism!


Go ed fellas... set it up... buggedboy is ready with the technicals and legals... all it needs now is the brains and passion, of which there are bucket fulls even just on this forum!

So how do people get involved with this thing? And what exactly is it? How do I get the emails?

just PM Gareth or one of the others who have encouraged this group to be set up, with your email?

Shit.. just remembered that Gareth and I discussed doing something a few weeks ago and I promised to contact buggedboy.... oops... sorry, but I forgot!

Ther is still bags of enthusiasm (to say nothing of the desperate need) for a sound, pro-urban group to supprt the future potential of the city.

UrbaniseD, the email thing isn't going to make it - it will need people to turn out at meetings - I'll try to get to a meeting before Christmas if others are interested in it, can you do that also? There might be one group here, there might be two - it was bizarrely hard to get agreement on what it should be about, but one or two groups are better than none, so maybe that will be the most fruitful way forward. Maybe someone should revive the relevant thread to see where we got up to before it all went quiet?

Well if a provisional date can be arranged I will be able to check my diary.

Provisionally, how about 16th or 17th December? Anyone else free for a meeting that weekend?

Poli, I can make either of those dates, might be an idea to put it on the meet up thread a bit nearer the date.

I should be able to make those dates, depending on times. I also see that Poli has ressurected the original thread, so I suggest people who are new to this idea (like myself) head over there to look at what's gone before and try and answer the 5 questions which would inform the foundations of any such group.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=308906