From today's DP, by Sophie Freeman, Business staff

"Liverpool property development firm Vermont has confirmed it is pressing ahead with plans for the city's tallest tower, despite speculation that 2 similar developments will be refused planning permission next month.

The Vermont scheme, which is planned for Sefton Street, is a joint venture with Ethel Austin Properties. Vermont's Mark Connor said the plans for 'Project X' were very sensitive but added that the company will be submitting a plannning application in 6 to 8 weeks time.

Sefton St stretches from the junction with Parliament St to the start of Riverside Drive. Mr. Connor would not disclose the whereabouts on Sefton St the development was planned for, but added it was not the James Troop building."


No link yet on the DP web site, crap name Project X, could be from Captain Scarlet!! let's hope it will change when they submit the planning app.

This is within a tall building zone, outside WHS buffer zone but right in Coun Munby's zone!! This project could add further pressure on the council and planning department, would they dare refuse this one?? let's wait and see.

The other two towers won't be turned down now. The world knows the council have an agenda to protect their pet projects at Kings Dock and Lime Street by turning down perfectly acceptable and breathtaking proposals that may threaten them somehow. They wouldn't dare.

Chieftain will get the go-ahead, maybe with a couple of floors knocked off for the sake of it, and Maro seem to have a watertight case this time. DP scaremongering I think. :)

Doug,
posted this on another thread a few mins ago
---------------------
Mark,
I'll ask Brian Brennan (James Troop building) of Direct Build if he knows the location of the planned Vermont development when he gets back into the UK tomorrow.
---------------------
:cheers:

Thanks David! :cheers:

Ask if he's seen the renderings as well! :)

City's tallest tower, I Like! :)
Maybe thats why we didn't here about it in February, because it was redesigned!

Dave, I saw that after I'd started up this thread, but as I said there this has the potential for being a really important building, I thought it needed its own thread.

Mark Connor must have balls of steel to let this story out the day after the DP's "understanding" of the refusal for Chieftain & BQT!!

A couple of pics looking towards Sefton St. Taken on a very chilly February afternoon.There's a load more over at www.**************************/jamestroop taken in Jan 2004. They were originally taken for Direct Build, but it may shed some light as to the planned location of Proj X.

http://www.**************************/seftonst001.jpg

http://www.**************************/seftonst002.jpg

Can you really see them letting them build Liverpool's tallest building in Mumby territory? We already know he'll be against it.

Cheers for the pics Dave. A big development in this area would tie in well with the Baltic Triangle and Kings Dock. Mind you- it looks like there could be businesses needing re-location- reminds me of another 'tallest building' project.

Dave, thanks for the pic I remember seeing these a while ago, who are Direct Build? did they ever say why they where interested in the site??

Dave, thanks for the pic I remember seeing these a while ago, who are Direct Build? did they ever say why they where interested in the site??
Doug, Direct Build are a London Company based in Docklands, but they opened up a Liverpool office a few years ago in Hanover House, Hanover St. Actually their full name is Direct Build Wavertree, possibly because they renovated a block of apartments (similar to Gerard Gardens) in Wavertree. Don't know the old name, but it's called Abbeygate Apartments nowadays. Brian Brennan's one of the people who runs it. The first time we met, he was driving up to Liverpool, but stopped off at our house in Luton for a chat about a few things. He was born in Kilburn London, but lived a few years in Luton as a kid. It was only when he got to our house that he realised he used to live about 100 yards away! A bit before my time though.

Dave, I saw that after I'd started up this thread, but as I said there this has the potential for being a really important building, I thought it needed its own thread.


Doug, I absolutely agree that it deserves it's own thread and nothing should be read into my post, apart from I'd already posted it on another thread. Apologies for any misunderstanding :cheers:

Thanks David! :cheers:

Ask if he's seen the renderings as well! :)

Will do m8, but seeing as it's not his company involved in Proj X, I doubt it.

BTW Thanks for the vote. Shouldn't count our chickens, but looks like another winner for our great City :cheers:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=231358

Yeah. Maybe you should retire from the UPC and give some less talented people a chance. :)

Yeah. Maybe you should retire from the UPC and give some less talented people a chance. :)

I don't have much interest in arty farty pics and this one - and the one last week - are the only two I have anyway. So I reckon I'll bow out as undefeated champion :) :cheers:

http://www.vermontdevelopments.com/images/projectx.jpg

Planning Status: Application anticipated February 2005
Sales Value: £100 Million
Commencement Date: July 2005
Completion Date: December 2007

As posted by Sleepyone in a Manc thread last week.

As posted by Sleepyone in a Manc thread last week.

[Total silence as we all scurry off to the Manc Forum to check out the veracity of caw123's post :) ]

Thanks for the post Chris, by the way :cheers:

Post 117: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=226943&page=6&pp=20

Post 117: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=226943&page=6&pp=20

I Like it! :cheers:
Nice one Sleepy!

"The strength of the north west economy – Britain’s largest, outside London – will be a major factor, with the core cities of Liverpool and Manchester, as well as Preston and Warrington, featuring strongly in future developments.

Vermont aims to hit the ground running. The illustrated schemes either have or are progressing towards planning permission and funding approval. These give you an indication of the scale, quality and ambition of our programme moving forward."

Looks like its 28 mikes

Looks like that building in Leeds.

Tallest in the city? Would have to be 28 office mikes then?

That's what I was thinking caw, if that was the case it would be interesting to see what objections could be raised. A commercial development in that area on that scale could kick start real regeneration including a stop on the northern line, impact on the nearby homes and accelerate new residential and retail.

I Like it! :cheers:
Nice one Sleepy!

"The strength of the north west economy – Britain’s largest, outside London – will be a major factor, with the core cities of Liverpool and Manchester, as well as Preston and Warrington, featuring strongly in future developments.

Vermont aims to hit the ground running. The illustrated schemes either have or are progressing towards planning permission and funding approval. These give you an indication of the scale, quality and ambition of our programme moving forward."
Yay!

Well out the window goes the standard Brunswick whine that it must be turned down as it would stand alone.

At some point you can only hope the council will realise towers and waterfront are a perfectly natural combination, whichever part of the waterfront it is.

Tallest in the city? Would have to be 28 office mikes then?

Chris, just realised you had a sig. But the text color is white on an almost white background when I view it. Unreadable. Well it is to me, anyway. Are there various skins available on Skyscraper? If so, I presume your background is black, hence the white text .

Yay!

Which rhymes with...... ;)

Hay?

Chris, just realised you had a sig. But the text color is white on an almost white background when I view it. Unreadable. Well it is to me, anyway. Are there various skins available on Skyscraper? If so, I presume your background is black, hence the white text .

It's intentional. Supposed to be a way of having some kind of arty mysterious words of wisdom that you have to make an effort to read. ie/ highlighting it. And many won't notice it, it's there, but is it?

Well yeah, a bit crap innit?

so will this tower be bigger than the west tower?

It's intentional. Supposed to be a way of having some kind of arty mysterious words of wisdom that you have to make an effort to read. ie/ highlighting it. And many won't notice it, it's there, but is it?

Well yeah, a bit crap innit?
Nooo not at all. I'm just rather set in my ways. Prefer my font color black on a white background and engaging in sex with live animals. By all means call me predictable, it's just the way I am :cheers:

Depends on whether or not it means tallest office tower.
If it does then it won't be taller than West.

Oh dave, what a shame, never knew you were such a sheep! :ohno:

(Haha, that pun came by itself)

It depends on what the DP consider to be the current ‘tallest’: Beetham 1 (completed), Beetham West (u/c – well, nearly) or Brunswick (planning). If they’re going for the former then it only needs to be about 300ft tall to be considered the ‘tallest’.

if they build this they have got to build brunswick qauy as well my only problem is where heading further and further south we will end up in widnes if this carries on.

so will this tower be bigger than the west tower?
Even if it was completely office, it wouldnt be taller than West.
Alpha Tower (office) in Brum is 28-storeys but HCT (resi) is still taller at 39-storeys, one floor less than what West Tower will be.

How close will this be to the greenburg tower and the possible two at Kings Dock?

Would it look like a cluster from the Mersey?

Oh dave, what a shame, never knew you were such a sheep! :ohno:

(Haha, that pun came by itself)

Woolyback :)

That the caption for the picture says the tower would be submitted in February which we know it wasn't, time enough to make it taller?

It depends on what the DP consider to be the current ‘tallest’: Beetham 1 (completed), Beetham West (u/c – well, nearly) or Brunswick (planning). If they’re going for the former then it only needs to be about 300ft tall to be considered the ‘tallest’.

To me it sounds like Vermont made the cities tallest comment, if the DP knew im sure they would have gave the heigh in storeys at least.

Excellent proposal, it should stretch the centre southwards. There is very little time left to reject perfectly good and realistic proposals without risking the entire revival of the city. Developers will soon stop building once the economic cycle moves on (and down) and it will be no good the Council then just waiting for the "right" proposals to come their way, because they could be waiting a very long time.

The problem area, it seems to me, is flexible office space, there is no problem with residential or hotels, but Liverpool could lose jobs if it doesn't have a good range of quality office property to offer in the next few years. It needs to be able to seize on 2008, by having a reasonable number of new office spaces opening or in the pipeline.

If there is yet more lack of action / turning down perfectly sound applications, then I think something needs to be done - because it seems to me the Council is starting to strangle a business-led recovery in Liverpool. Maybe the business lobby groups will need request that Ministers take over running the city, if the Council are not up to it. Unions should join them, as people will be losing jobs or not gaining better jobs if the Council starve the centre of once in a generation office developments.

Maybe this one should be a test case. By the sound of it, it needs fast-track approval and for work to commence very quickly, not the usual "we will do this in our own good time" approach Liverpool planners and elected members seem to have been indulging in. Once there is a downturn the proposals will dry up instantly, there really is no more time left to lose. I doubt if the members and officers involved are of a calibre to appreciate that.

Liverpool should accept everything that comes it's way. If it is shit, then it will fail. If it is decent, then it will thrive, and the city will be better for it. City planners should be hung by their bollocks!

im getting confused now. i come in before and there was 2 full pages of posts on this x thing. if it going to be our tallest how tall is it going to be. 29 floors is not gonna beat b2

Last year they proposed a 30 storey tower. It's looking like plans have been revised upwards. :)

Last year they proposed a 30 storey tower. It's looking like plans have been revised upwards. :)


Maybe they've heard my idea.
If you want a 30 storey building in an allowed area then submit plans for 40 storeys and after the height police have their way hey presto,you have your 30 storey building. :cheers:

Hence the delay in applying for planning Kung... :) Fingers crossed eh?

Hence the delay in applying for planning Kung... :) Fingers crossed eh?

Fingers crossed,yes.
The sad thing though is that plans like this shouldn't need crossed fingers, the council should grab every development opportunity going. :cheers:

Last year they proposed a 30 storey tower. It's looking like plans have been revised upwards. :)


The rather bleak render on the Vermont web site looks about 30 storeys high, so for it to be quoted as the tallest in the city it must be over B2 -40storeys
To me it looks like it has been designed for a corner site, so I am guessing that it earmarked for the old Norton scrapyard at the bottom of Parliment St.

This Vermont Tower sounds like the reincarnation of the Liverpool Vision proposal for a 20 storey office tower on the Norton for Crap site (corner of Parliament Street and Sefton Street).

If this is going to be an office tower (has that been officially announced?) there is a chance that Steve Munby will not object as the development will not be adding anymore apartments. However, if the plan is to build on the James Troop site, there will be problems with nimbys in the houses across the road concerned about overlooking (that derailed a scheme for a couple of 20 storey towers on the site some time ago).

Another possible location would be near to the Leo Casino, or even the site of the Pretty Ugly Pottery on the corner of Sefton Street and Mariners Wharf (this has been used as a police call centre but it is possible that some agreement has been made to relocate it - this could explain Vermont's reticence over the site of the tower).

A site overlooking Wapping Dock would be magnificent and have minimal impact on the neighbours.

lets not get excited as we will no doubt be let down by our short sighted coucnil

However, if the plan is to build on the James Troop site, there will be problems with nimbys in the houses across the road concerned about overlooking (that derailed a scheme for a couple of 20 storey towers on the site some time ago).

"Mr Connor would not disclose whereabouts on Sefton Street the development was planned for, but added it was not at the James Troop building site. Previous plans for that area involved the creation of 137 apartments."

1 down...:)

Has anyone had a look at www.**************************/jamestroop yet? Surely there's a few pointers on there as to where it may be situated. I'll see if I can locate a few shots of Sefton St taken from the cathedral.

Has anyone had a look at www.**************************/jamestroop yet? Surely there's a few pointers on there as to where it may be situated. I'll see if I can locate a few shots of Sefton St taken from the cathedral.

Yes Dave I have looked at those pics and I would be surprised if it was way down Sefton Street as it could fall outside the designated "tall building zone" whch is shown on city documents as being centred on the south end of Kings Dock / Parliment Street area.

Cheers Woody. So it looks like it's one of the warehouses near to the corner of Upper Parly/Sefton St :cheers:

On the other hand, if it's the "Sefton St Area", there's a large plot of vacant land just in front of Grafton Street.

Dave Iam always looking at Liverpool Pictorial, its number 1 for stunning photos of the city. Dave you have cover`d the north end docks but I have found little on the south end system -from the Vatican down towards festival gardens.( apart from that superb set taken from the Cathedral). Do you have any plans to shoot this area ?

Dave Iam always looking at Liverpool Pictorial, its number 1 for stunning photos of the city. Dave you have cover`d the north end docks but I have found little on the south end system -from the Vatican down towards festival gardens.( apart from that superb set taken from the Cathedral). Do you have any plans to shoot this area ?

Woody, the simple reason is because I don't know the area too well. I know every nook and cranny of Everton, Vauxhall, Kirkdale, Walton and I've taken the easy option, photying areas I've known ever since I was a kid.

Spent a couple of years in the South End in Halewood, but don't recall much apart from nearly losing an eye when I was shot by a BR Hunts Cross station employee (long story) and teaching myself French by lending books from Leathers Lane library.

Thanks for your observation and kind words about my site Woody. I'm well aware of my shortcomings regarding the South End and hope to put things right one day. How about a walkabout with your good self, Mark and Dave W? (http://www.liverpoolviews.co.uk)

Thanks for your observation and kind words about my site Woody. I'm well aware of my shortcomings regarding the South End and hope to put things right one day. How about a walkabout with your good self, Mark and Dave W? (http://www.liverpoolviews.co.uk)

Dave ,shortcomings no, if I was in your shoes I would do the same, my knowledge of the north end matches yours of the southend :)
A walkabout would be a brilliant , I would think that Martin and Doug would jump at the opportunity of a tour with the forums "ACE SNAPPER" :)

PS, CANNOT FORGET, GARETH,AWAYO AND BLABBERS,
Dave lets see over the next week or so if we can come up with a date to suit everybody.

Poli I couldn't agree more about the need for a sense of urgency. This has been a fairly long boom period for the UK and there are now signs that this will begin to slow down. Whilst we're not looking at a slump in particular, the slow could well still be notable in terms of the rate of construction and regeneration/new developments.

The sooner we get a strong momentum going the better Liverpool can fare through less productive periods. IMO the council is certainly hindering this.

WRT the tower it sounds excellent, and I'm really pleased also that this is an office development. I had dinner at the Leo Casino last week and the whole area is bursting with potential. I looked over the King's Dock carparks and couldn't even imagine the extent to which the arena + hotel and flats will transform the area.

Dave ,shortcomings no, if I was in your shoes I would do the same, my knowledge of the north end matches yours of the southend :)
A walkabout would be a brilliant , I would think that Martin and Doug would jump at the opportunity of a tour with the forums "ACE SNAPPER" :)

PS, CANNOT FORGET, GARETH,AWAYO AND BLABBERS,
Dave lets see over the next week or so if we can come up with a date to suit everybody.

Sounds like a good idea Woody made more urgent by that promised pint of Cains.

Sounds like a good idea Woody made more urgent by that promised pint of Cains.

Not sure about this walkabout :) , might mean a visit to the Baltic Fleet, which sounds expensive. Oh bugger the cost, anybody got any dates when we could check out the southend docks and the Baltic Triangle ???

Scouserdave is looking for a person with intimate knowledge of all the " nooks and cranny`s"of this area. Martin ,your our man for this part of town :)

crikey 30 storey office tower would be huge, would be the same size as centre point in london which is also 30 storeys, even one canada square is only 50 storeys but seems a hell of alot larger so this building would really set a hell of a new standard for liverpool if it goes ahead

City planners should be hung by their bollocks!
With piano wire at 11:00 oclock on a Sunday morning on St. Georges Plateau with the mass bands of the Kings Liverpool and 8th. Irish marching passed. :)

Not sure about this walkabout :) , might mean a visit to the Baltic Fleet, which sounds expensive. Oh bugger the cost, anybody got any dates when we could check out the southend docks and the Baltic Triangle ???

Scouserdave is looking for a person with intimate knowledge of all the " nooks and cranny`s"of this area. Martin ,your our man for this part of town :)
I was in the Baltic Fleet last month. Saw a bloke who looked the spitting image of Gordon Strachan....but only from behind, mind you :weirdo:
http://www.**************************/gordon.jpg

Planning committee will at its next meetinig, 12 July 05, approve an application from Blue Sky Properties for the erection of 150 apartments in 2 x 7 + 1 x 10 storey blocks. The waterfront committee objected to this development because it was to high. But the planning manager said that planning approval has already been granted for 69/71 Sefton St (the James Troop Building) for a 10 storey apartment block, so he had no problems with the height or density of this plan.

Space for Project X is filling up along this street, I still fancy the old scrap yard, any more suggestions?

PS, the location of this scheme is the old Highland Hotel and adjacent BP Petrol filling station

I was in the Baltic Fleet last month. Saw a bloke who looked the spitting image of Gordon Strachan....but only from behind, mind you :weirdo:
http://www.**************************/gordon.jpg

I want one of those hats Dave's wearing.

:cheers:

Thats not Dave, its ACCY after a SSC Liverpool forum meeting, and 1 pint of Cains best bitter.

No it's not. That's his mum. Accy is tied to the railings outside having his arse sniffed by a Jack Russell.

I want one of those hats Dave's wearing.

:cheers:
LOL! Bar Steward! :cheers:

having his arse sniffed by a Jack Russell.mmmm nice! :sleepy:

...

having his arse sniffed by a Jack Russell.

Shouldn't it be the other way round? :laugh:

LOL! Bar Steward! :cheers:

Sorry Dave I meant no offense! I was only being serious. :)

:jk:

I have very very fond memories of the "Baltic Fleet" pub .... almost iconoclastic.

:cheers:

The Baltic Fleet is a classic. I love all the pictures they have going up the stair case. And the large windows in the non-smoking section that have amazing views of the Liver Building.

I think the ale there, "Wapping", is brewed on-site. I'm not sure though. Perhaps they have a micro-brewery in the cellar.

Yep. :)

What a pub! :cheers:

Possibly the so called Project X. If so, what a let down :bash:
Located at the south end of Sefton St.

http://www.**************************/x001.jpg


http://www.**************************/x002.jpg


http://www.**************************/x003.jpg

Nah, that's for this:

Application Number:05F/1620

Site Address:69-71 Sefton Street, Liverpool, L8

Applicant:Pierse Homes

Proposal:To erect 3no. residential blocks, 3/5 storeys high containing 2no. ground floor retail units and 55no. flats (alternative to 03F/3011 and 04F/2447)

Nah, that's for this:

Application Number:05F/1620

Site Address:69-71 Sefton Street, Liverpool, L8

Applicant:Pierse Homes

Proposal:To erect 3no. residential blocks, 3/5 storeys high containing 2no. ground floor retail units and 55no. flats (alternative to 03F/3011 and 04F/2447)

Just been over to the council website and found that out too. But thanks anyways :cheers:

We should be hearing about this tower anytime now, as thats when they should be submitting the planning application.

We should be hearing about this tower anytime now, as thats when they should be submitting the planning application.

Whistles to pass time....peep peep peep.... :runaway:

Just a quick update on the Pierse apartment development. The front wall appears to have been brought down, with standard wooden hoardings put up instead. The land inside seems to have been cleared of any debris, and from what I saw all of the land on the site has now been dug up by JCB's, presumably for the foundations. I didn't get a great look a I was only passing in the car, in a traffic jam, but it looks like progress is being made.

how big is the pierse apartments?

how big is the pierse apartments?

They are 3/5 storeys. We're still waiting for what was said to be the cities tallest tower to be revealed, let's hope that comment wasn't bad journalism! :)

Looks like this has gone into planning!

05F/3572

Vermont Developments

Land bounded by Sefton Sreet, Parliament Street, Stanhope Street and Caryl Street, Liverpool L8

To erect mixed development of 6 Blocks of 398 residential units with office, retail, restaurant/ Bar/ leisure and hotel uses and underground car parking

Would I be right in thinking this is quite a big development, although no mention of the tower.

6 blocks and 398 residential units plus hotel office retail etc, tallest one is probably about 300-400ft id guess

Hopefully, we'll have renderings this week. I hope the Echo were right when they said it'd be the cities tallest building.

Doubtful, 6 blocks? maybe they no anythin big will get knocked back

100m - 125m will do me nicely, thats 6 buildings from 100m, 105m, 110m, 115m 120m and 125m. :cheers:

It could be the office and residential in one big tower and the rest in 5 smaller buildings.

It always goes quite when something happens! :)

Does anyone know where this is?

Based on the Lime Street Gateway tower which has around 5 apartments to a floor, we are looking at an overall mike count of around 80. Evenly distributed over six buildings, that would give us six 13 mike towers. However, just look at the site - it's a postage stamp. I think we are more likely to be looking at one very tall tower (40+ mikes) with low rise blocks around it.

Notice this is an outline planning application. Looks like Vermont are testing the water before going for a detailed design. A tall tower is going to be very hard to get through there due to its proximity to the Anglican Cathedral.

Looks like this has gone into planning!

05F/3572

Vermont Developments

Land bounded by Sefton Sreet, Parliament Street, Stanhope Street and Caryl Street, Liverpool L8

To erect mixed development of 6 Blocks of 398 residential units with office, retail, restaurant/ Bar/ leisure and hotel uses and underground car parking

Would I be right in thinking this is quite a big development, although no mention of the tower.

Great news Liverdude, this is not a large site and slap bang in the "tall building zone", across Parliment St from the Norton scrap yard, and the very poor rendering that was posted months back did appear to show this tower on a corner plot. The planning boys have approved a couple of developments further down Sefton St. but limited the heights to 10 storeys (due to low rise housing in the area) I am guessing here but we could get a tall tower on the corner of Parliment and Sefton with 5 mid rise blocks on either side. The 38 storey Central Station tower will contain 400 1 & 2 bed apartments, which could mean this Vermont tower could be more like Beetham West as this is a much smaller site. Fingers crossed for a bigun. :)

The land up Parliament Street and then again up to the Cathedral rises very steeply. With the cathedral being a very tall building anyway, a 40 mike tower would probably look short in comparison when viewed from the Wirral, which I believe could be the main point of contention. BTW - am I right in thinking this is the Norton for Crap site, as the site across Parliament Street has warehouses on?

Notice this is an outline planning application. Looks like Vermont are testing the water before going for a detailed design. A tall tower is going to be very hard to get through there due to its proximity to the Anglican Cathedral.

Martin this site is in the Tall zone, and we have 5 towers planned for the Kings Dock site , 2 x 22 and 3x 12 storey`s , all these have been positioned so as not to affect the view of the Cathedral when viewed from the river/Woodside , this Vermont tower is further south and if passed could help Brunswick tower in its fight to win approval.

. BTW - am I right in thinking this is the Norton for Crap site, as the site across Parliament Street has warehouses on?

Chris this is not the Norton site, I do not know how "active" this site is but it is as you say occupied by warehouses.

It looks like Vermont are taking things carefully. Perhaps they have been doing lots of consultation and making sure they cover every possible critism that may arise. If this is the case and it is a biggie, i'd rather it take a bit longer and get approved than for them to have rushed in a got rejected.

I can't find the exact figures but I remember that Brunswick Quay tower would have been higher than the Anglican Cathedral despite having a much lower site.

From Woodside, I think that a tower in that location would serve to form a 'bookend' corresponding to the towers of the north tall buildings zone.

What matters, as far as I'm concerned is that whatever is built there has a high architectural standard. The nimbys will always complain but, if we have a great design, there will be many people supporting this new tower.

Granted, until recently we've never had a large number of towers, but I think (Concourse aside) we've generally been quite lucky when it comes to buildings with good and interesting designs. Some are better than others, but I think we do quite well. I can't think of any of the towers we currently have, or that are proposed that I dislike.

.

From Woodside, I think that a tower in that location would serve to form a 'bookend' corresponding to the towers of the north tall buildings zone.

What matters, as far as I'm concerned is that whatever is built there has a high architectural standard. The nimbys will always complain but, if we have a great design, there will be many people supporting this new tower.

Liverpool Vision have always planned for a Southern gateway tower to "bookend" with Beetham One , and this was to be built on the Norton site.

Even Lady Doreen, who supports the Brunswick plan has said many times that she thinks the south end of the city centre lacks height and bulk. Lets us hope that the other members of the PC do not gang up on her again and for once think of the cities future. A great design is a must, as it will be close to the "stupendous and iconic" towers that David McLean will be building over in Kings. :)

Just catching up with this one, thanks Liverdude for the planning number.

The story is in today's DP, after being told by the Echo this would be Liverpool's tallest building I am disappointed to read that the main tower of this scheme is only 22 mikes, what a let down!! (comes to something when 22 mikes is disappointing!!) Still a brilliant project lets hope it gets past the planning mafia!!

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/3503/dsc011913xv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Woody, I think you're right about possible connection with BQT in any case this will be great if it gets through planning.

Here is the link, another bloody quarter!! FFS can't they come up with something more original than this.


http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200businessnews/tm_objectid=16375726%26method=full%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

Here is the link, another bloody quarter!! FFS can't they come up with something more original than this.


http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200businessnews/tm_objectid=16375726%26method=full%26siteid=50061-name_page.html
:)

Thanks for the link, Doug :cheers:

Looks like they've considered the needs of a sustainable development on this, we're building a downtown triangle - Upper Parly to Waterloo Dock, up to the Uni.

Not bad for the south side of the city - good to see them finally getting in on the 'tower' craze.

22 mikes in an area like Old Hall Street would look very average. However in an area like this with no real tall buildings, the impact on the area is a lot greater. The building certainly looks good, and although it's early days, it really seems like Vermont have done their homework in order to get this tower passed with the minimum of fuss. I think in will also be a true focal point for the major Parliament Street / Sefton Street junction. Hope it goes ahead.

In about 10 years or so Liverpool downtown will stretch from Parliament Street to Stanley Dock (I hope!) all of which is great. For Liverpool to get back to its heyday (now looking more achieveable and maybe even surpassable than ever) the areas of the old inner city L8, L7 etc need to have all that empty space reclaimed by housing, whatever, and the higher the density the better. What a city that would be!

please tell me that is not the ''tallest tower'' in the city project we have been waiting to hear about. Still looks nice tho

Have just took the effort to read back a few posts and am gutted but still looks a tidy design and more office space too.

It's a start folks. OK it's not exactly dizzy heights, but the southern part of downtown is stupendiously flat. This should go some way to address this issue. I'm sure the proposals in this area will get taller over time, like in the north.

They reckon the site used to house sail makers so they have taken the sail as the inspiration for the design,I just can't see how this tower resembles a sail in any way,is it just me? :dunno:

Not from the pic in post 100 anyhow. Maybe from another angle.

So much for the cities tallest building

^^
Hey Westie, I would've thought you'd want your namesake to hold the title of tallest building for a quite a while? Just a thought.

i havent read through the entire thread so i apologise if i am repeating someone elses comments but i hope that the scrapyard thats faces this planned development is also developed in the very near future.

once good progress is made on that up towards the baltic area that entire section of the dock road will be booming. do you think they should incorporate some bridges on the dock road link this section of development to the kings dock project

Is thw whole of the Baltic triangle getting re-developed, i saw a render for the area and it all looked developed, has the planning permission been given for this whole area to be done up

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/nov2005/6/5/0007EBC5-51A0-137B-8C480C02AC1BF824.jpg

Comments (from Liverpool Echo, November 16, 2005)
Vermont Developments chief executive Mark Connor said: "This hugely significant scheme will transform a low quality, under-utilised industrial site into a vibrant and sustainable mixed-use development, generating considerable additional employment and opportunity for the local community.

"The scheme is both exciting and innovative, providing plans for a privately funded shared equity model which will ensure the delivery of high quality and affordable residential accommodation."

He said Vermont hopes to be on site by next April and work should be complete within three- and- a- half years.

Local architects Falconer Chester have designed the scheme and said the tower was inspired by ships' masts with their sails unfurled.

Spokesman Paul Falconer said: "The site used to house sail makers so it made perfect sense to take the shape of a sail as our inspiration."

Hmm, looking at that render I think a tower of around 350ft or so would have been better. The render makes the tower look very squat, however conversely I think that a taller tower - Beetham West sized or taller - would have been too much for an area with no tall buildings currently. Also I agree I can't see the sails in the design of the building anywhere.

Well this new tower is far better than what is in the area at present. From the renderings I would say it looks kinda blocky and boring. The lights could be interesting. I don't know why they even bothered mentioning the sail theme- BQ is a sail- this doesn't look remotely like a sail, or anything else for that matter, besides an apartment block. :cheers:

It's good that that area is being regenerated mind. A 40 storey jobby on the scrap yard site could be good.

I'm yearning for a 50-60 storey tower to come along- perhaps for the Old Hall St area.

I know that the technicalities would probably render this impossible, but hypothetically do we think that BQ would have more success if Maro moved their tower to the Norton site?

Chris, I don't think so, bear in mind Maro own the site where they hope to build BQT. Now the two of these developments would really promote tall buildings in the south end, once we have one, the box will be open!!

I feel like a smug twat after posting these pics in July :cheers:
Spot on or what!
http://skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=4667314&postcount=7

Here's a few more

http://www.**************************/xa.jpg

http://www.**************************/xb.jpg

They are some appauling warehouses and would belong further up in North Liverpool, not in between the nice new Baltic development and apartments near the Chung Ku, (nice restaurant BTW)

I dunno... they have a lot of character.

^^

One or two have an interesting architectural feature on the front, but most, including the site of this tower are bog-standard warehouses, and wouldn't represent any loss to the city.

[QUOTE=scouserdave]I feel like a smug twat after posting these pics in July :cheers:
Spot on or what!

OK scouser-smug twat-dave, :weirdo: well done, I was pretty close, just across the road :runaway: at Norton Crap yard. It may only be 22 mikes,which means its no higher than Kings Towers and it should "sail" through the planning police. Which still leaves us with Norton site which could also take a 30 mike tower.

Is the Norton site still in use, or is it derelict?

It does sound very promising for this tower, and the whole area in fact. Maybe in couple of years land will increase in value in that year and we can rid ourselves of that McDonald's on the dock road. Thousands of people leaving the arena every night after a concert, and what do they see - corporate America. A nice mid-level tower would does nicely there. Hopefully this will kick start the regeneration of the whole area the way Beetham 1 kick started the continuing development in that area.

Is the Norton site still in use, or is it derelict?.

I am sure its derelict, that side of Parliment St is in the Baltic Triangle ,so maybe Windsor Developments are looking at this site.

Is that the Coburg pub at the end of that block of warehouses, hope it stays, will gain a lot of new custom along with Cains Brewery Tap up the hill.

Is that the Coburg pub at the end of that block of warehouses, hope it stays, will gain a lot of new custom along with Cains Brewery Tap up the hill.
There's absolutely no chance of The Coburg going! :cheers:

I thought this was meant to be the project for Liverpools biggest tower?

I thought this was meant to be the project for Liverpools biggest tower?

That was the rumour many months back, but following detailed talks with the city planners and English Heritage, Vermont must be happy that their proposals will be approved. It would not be helpful for them to submitt plans for a 50mike tower knowing it would end up in the waste bin. This tower may not be what we had hoped for, but the whole scheme is what this part of town requires, offices,apartments,houses and local shops.

I thought this was meant to be the project for Liverpools biggest tower?

The Vermont site (http://www.vermontdevelopments.com/projectx.htm) is still showing the below rendering, sniff.

http://www.vermontdevelopments.com/images/projectx.jpg

Still 22 storeys is a big jump for that part of town, and will help stimulate further development there as Chrispy said. The height seems appropriate to me, and hopefully the development has been discussed behind the scenes between developers and the planners so that planning process should not be too arduous.

I still have some suspicions that the planning department has not been quite the villains they have been painted as being of late. We hear stories about Manchester city council have been more proactive in working with developers than Liverpool's - with reason, perhaps.

But it strikes me that several developers in Liverpool have decided to work at odds with the council and have jumped onto a anti Liverpool CC planning bandwagon - by spouting off to the local and trade press and using the Manchester angle and a useful way to dig at the council and hopefully get their projects through. Cooperation has to be a two way street.

For example, Chieftain's aggressive, "Approve our tower, or we'll shout at everyone that yer the worst focking council we've ever worked with" tactics arent exactly designed to win friends. I wonder how they'd have got in elsewhere behaving like that.

Many other developers, who have worked with the council, as Venmore has, maybe, do not report any problems.

I'd really like to have the inside track on all of this, and I don't have it, of course.

Resi tower to lift £100m Liverpool scheme

Vermont Developments this week submitted a planning application for a £100m mixed-use scheme in Liverpool.


16.11.2005

By Heather Greig-Smith

A 22-storey residential block is to form the centrepiece of the scheme on an industrial site at the city’s southern gateway at the junction of Parliament Street and Dock Road.

It will include: a 132-bed four-star hotel; 15,000 sq ft (1,393 sq m) of offices; 10,000 sq ft (929 sq m) of restaurants or leisure facilities; and 6,000 sq ft (557 sq m) of retail.

In addition, 398 homes are proposed, including three-bedroom townhouses and family flats. Some of the homes will be part of a private shared-equity scheme.

The plans have been submitted after 18 months of consultation with Liverpool City Council, English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Vermont has four other schemes under way in Manchester, Warrington and Liverpool.

The company is led by former Charlton Homes and Space entrepreneurs Paul Bolton and Mark Connor.

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/x/o/e/VDP_Tower_Sefton_cmyk.jpg

Looking at that impression above, I stand by my comments of yesterday that the tower could have done with an extra 100ft or so. Nothing more as it would be too high, but that tower is just a bit too short. I do like the width and general bulk of the tower though. Compare to Beetham 1 when coming along Great Howard Street, and the tower is very thin, this looks much better.

I had Norton in my head as well, how about a mate across Upper Parly eh?

That'd be good, but would have to be twice the height.

Its a very good sign that the regenaration seems to be filtering further away from the city centre stunning tower.

It is great news and that part of Toccy is very neglected and would really benefit from new dense development. Its one of the best areas to live and could really come into its own. I hope that old warehouse just up Parliment street gets done-up, recently they had emptied it, so maybe. Norton is an empty site.

Those warehouses are an eyesore. Tear them down.

The new tower in Toxteth is a good idea mind. It will help toward regenerating the area.

That old warehouse is currently in the process of being developed. Posted about it somewhere before, but cant remember where. Its called the "Buddleia" project.

Its going to be mixed use with some apartments, but mainly arts based offices, studio's, cafe's and community facilities. The primary focus will be supporting Black and other Racial Minorities in business start up.

Its being developed by Novas Overtures in Liverpool. Their office is one one with the spire on the junction of Duke St, Hanover St and Paradise St (next to the new bus station).

I remember seeing a completion date of 2007 somewhere.

oh yeah, visit www.buddleia.org for some piccies

I still have some suspicions that the planning department has not been quite the villains they have been painted as being of late. We hear stories about Manchester city council have been more proactive in working with developers than Liverpool's - with reason, perhaps.

But it strikes me that several developers in Liverpool have decided to work at odds with the council and have jumped onto a anti Liverpool CC planning bandwagon - by spouting off to the local and trade press and using the Manchester angle and a useful way to dig at the council and hopefully get their projects through. Cooperation has to be a two way street.

For example, Chieftain's aggressive, "Approve our tower, or we'll shout at everyone that yer the worst focking council we've ever worked with" tactics arent exactly designed to win friends. I wonder how they'd have got in elsewhere behaving like that.

Many other developers, who have worked with the council, as Venmore has, maybe, do not report any problems.

I'd really like to have the inside track on all of this, and I don't have it, of course.


I agree. Taking the Council to court is likely to be even less productive - presumably they hope for leverage on the revised proposal (which I also expect will be rejected).

I dunno... they have a lot of character.
I agree with acurra theses warehouses give the area a new york docklands feel.

Thats good news as they are great examples, there are also more further down which are crying out to be appartments. These are the last few buildings which relate back to the areas history and purpose, so should not be knocked down. As for the use, not sure about black and ethnic businesses as there are plenty of white people which need this kind of support also. I think it should be about helping ALL people of Toxteth and surrounding areas to get their ideas off the ground!!!.

Its not a NY dockland feel its a UK docklands feel!

I agree with acurra theses warehouses give the area a new york docklands feel.

They're very ugly though and anything is better than them,I don't think this will have any trouble getting through planning if they decide to go on a walkabout to survey the area this time.

The warehouses around central docks are stunning- the old dock road is straight out of a New York gangster movie. But the ones in the wapping part of town aren't anything special really. The area is a wreck and anything would be an improvement what's there now.

Image from this weeks Your Move.

http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/8896/dsc012367vs.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Hm, looks a bit Will Alsopy: strange blobby thing at the top, structures on wonky stilts. Still, alright tho.

That is ideal really like this cant see it having any problems over the height either lets hope.

lets face it, everyone like 1 princes dock and this will be the saem height

the only problem with this development that might get some objections may be that it obstructs views of the cathedral.

the only problem with this development that might get some objections may be that it obstructs views of the cathedral.

Only from the Wirral, this tower is further south than those proposed for Kings Dock so obstructing the Cathedral should not be an issue.

This one looks a bit 60s esque IMO. But it's only a render, and much much better than what is on the site now. I like the Alsop (rip off) stilts on the lower block.

I love it , its very rectro how tall is gonna be ?

http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/8896/dsc012367vs.jpg (http://imageshack.us)[/QUOTE]

The tall lobby (sorry for the Americanism) is going to make a huge impact at ground level.

I love it , its very rectro how tall is gonna be ?

22 mikes.

Daily Post today interviewed one of the developers, who said " we would have liked a taller tower, but after 18 MONTHS of talks with the City Planners, we agreed on 22 storeys. Although not the monster that was hinted at, this should sail through the planning boys in the New Year.

Sefton St. Quarter.

http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/3355/seftonstq16wk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/6461/seftonstq31lb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/8701/seftonstq49ro.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/7328/seftonstq56ls.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/8359/seftonstq63lh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Are all of them warehouses in your pictures to be replaced by this development,I certainly hope so??

Slightly off thread but only across the road, Nortons site ripe for development.

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/3826/nortonsscrap18zk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Around the back derelict.

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/6950/nortonsscrap31rs.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/2504/nortonsscrap48ux.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/5006/nortonsscrap50fv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Still off thread but just a bit further down Sefton St. the Coburg is looking great!

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/8352/thecoburg13gm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/638/thecoburg25fp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The plans released are pretty good but the only down side to the project is the height of the building which is to be 22 storeys. It really should have been at least 30 storeys to match the Beetham Tower. It's not what you would call a skyscraper at 22 storeys. The council only ever think small with regards to tall buildings, how sad. Lets hope there are more developers who are prepared to build tall. Liverpool really does need at least two 80 storey towers which could act as modern land marks for the city. But it will never happen not until the council planning committee change there stance. One of the visions i have always had is if the RS&A building and the Echo office tower sites could be used for the construction of two 80 storey towers. Also there would be a 40, 35 and possibly a 50 storey tower to fit in with these two huge towers. What a vision. Liverpool would then look like a 21st Century City. It would be interesting to hear other peoples views.

We're not going to get 80 storey towers regardless of what the council think, if the demand isn't there though.

These things take time.

A 22 storey tower isn't huge, but remember it will be close to Kings Dock and hopefully a few more towers will go up on the norton scrap yard site. That would create a nice little cluster.

The main thing for me is to see the waterfront given a bit more bulk rather than having lots of little sheds and empty spaces that are there at the moment. In time, the big fellas will arrive. There's still incredible amounts of space in Liverpool for big developments.

Steve the warehouse on the corner of Sefton St is part of the plan I'm not sure how many of the other warehouses will be demolished.

I think its stupid sometimes when people make comments about having 80 storey or even 50 storey towers in Liverpool. Only London has towers that are close to that height and that is one of the richest cities in the world; by far the richest city in the UK. 40 storey towers, 30/20 etc are all realistic for Liverpool at the moment if mixed use or solely residential. I think until office space in the city centre is sustainable with prices comparable to other cities then things may start to look up. There's a lot to consider for example value of land etc which isn't as high as it could be to stimulate the demand for an 80 storey tower. However, I do believe that in a few years if the economy continues to grow and the city has a skyline with a decent amount of towers on then a higher building may become a reality.

I think between 25/40 story towers are perfect for Liverpool,tall buildings that aren't in clusters tend to look out of place I think.

But how do start a cluster?? someone has to put a marker down.

We'll already have the makings of one with this,two at Kings Dock and whatever goes on the Norton site and there's plenty of space available in this area so I suppose it wouldn't apply to here.

But how do start a cluster?? someone has to put a marker down.

Doug, Paul Bolton has put the marker down and English Partnerships who`s King Dock plan includes for 5 Towers all in a line running back from the river,
2 x 22 storey`s and 3 x 12 storey`s is a starter for ten. Norton crap yard is a must for a tower, let us hope that the city`s idea of a tall building is NOT one no higher than 22 storey`s :sleepy:

Your little digi box must be red hot ,after todays epic shoot, thanks for an excellent " cluster " of photo`s :)

Whoops, almost forgot Doug, the Coburg looks great,and I thought it had gone the way that other pubs along the "dock road" had gone, demolished.

I don't think it's that unrealistic to think of an 80 mike tower in Liverpool, or even that the planners might approve it. No, I haven't been drinking the Toilet Duck again.

West Tower, at 40 mikes should be at full height by this time next year. This will show that a tower can be very tall and yet not adversely affect the skyline - rather the reverse. If Central Station tower gets the go ahead, it will be as tall as St Johns Beacon and have a fantastic modern design.

I think that this will influence planners into realising that our city can sustain tall buildings without damaging its World Heritage status. After all, the original Beetham Tower was to have been as tall as West Tower but was rejected. Now that it is obvious that the 30 mike tower is not damaging the skyline, approval for West Tower has been forthcoming.

If we were to get a really super tall (70 or 80 mikes), I think it would have to be at the north end of the city, probably the north side of Leeds Street. There, it would be
far enough away from the WHS to be acceptable and would be at the summit of a progression of towers starting with the Unity office block.

As to whether such a building would be economic to build in Liverpool, I'm not sure it wouldn't although we may need some economic growth before it became a practical proposition. After all, a 70 mike tower has been approved for Manchester.

In fact, I was discussing the comparison between Liverpool and Dubai on the Downtown Liverpool website a few days ago. Turns out that this city, which is building the tallest building in the world, the Burj al Dubai, has a GDP comparable to Merseyside.

I doubt that people would be willing to invest that much in Liverpool at the moment but 70 or 80 mikes might be a practical proposition.

Could, in the near future, Vermont the Project X developers, be thinking of a
Phase 2 of their development. They did state back in july that they wanted to build the tallest tower in the city. Now after 18 months of talks they settle for a 22 storey tower, and publicly seem quite content.

I was wondering if they might do "a Beetham" and build a SECOND tower on the Norton crap yard site. This was the site that Liverpool Vision saw as the ideal location of a Southern Gateway Tower. Getting ahead of myself here, phase one :) has`nt even been approved yet, but just maybe Vermont are also eyeing across the road.

22 mikes.
hmm.. isnt the main tower supposed to be commercial.. not residential.. that would make 22 floors fairly tall ish.. probably around the same height or slightly taller than beetham one.. thats not a bad start for an incredibly low rise part of town

hmm.. isnt the main tower supposed to be commercial.. not residential.. that would make 22 floors fairly tall ish.. probably around the same height or slightly taller than beetham one.. thats not a bad start for an incredibly low rise part of town

not always, Concourse House is 15 stories and only 160 feet tall, a 22 story buiding with the same floor height as Concourse will be about 240 feet

Skyscraper news have it as 67m* so they are estimating

yeah we are. an average of a little over 3 metres per floor as its residential... this is using the average confirmed floor to floor height on over 1000 residentials! it aint perfect but its a guide.

Published 07 December 2005 at 11:51
Fresh tower revealed for Liverpool – images

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/AJ071205FChester2.jpg

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/AJ071205FChester.jpg

Falconer Chester has submitted these proposals, which include a 22-storey tower, for the Sefton area of Liverpool city centre.

The mixed-use development will include nearly 400 apartments and a 132-bed boutique hotel.

The scheme will be contained within five development blocks set around an internal access road, adjacent to the city’s marina and Kings Dock.

The architect claimed that the building will be orientated on the axis of the Liver Building and the Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, thus making reference to buildings that dominate the city skyline.

The scheme will also include over 1,000m2 of office accommodation, nearly 600m2 of retail floorspace, 400 underground car parking spaces and associated access, landscape and public-realm works.

It will be located on the corner of Parliament Street and Sefton Street.

by Rob Sharp

'sefton area'?? who wrote this??

they mean Sefton Street

The James Troop development has been approved, a=10, b=5, c=5+6 Mikes, to see the further improvement of this area.

The taller building will be converted, with the rest demolished for the new blocks, thankfully these aren't semis.

Planning decision here (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.asp?ID=1432)

Brian Brennan (Build Direct) was a bit surprised to read that the application was approved, as it's almost the same as their application last year. Can't recall who he sold it on to about 6 months ago, but he thinks if the design is so similar as their's, Goddard Manton may still be retained as the architects.

He was also pissed off with a certain Councillor who superimposed a pencil version of one of the buildings on to the plans "and made it look like the Empire State Building" :)

^^
Liver Bird Developments bought the James Troop Building

The James Troop development has been approved, a=10, b=5, c=5+6 Mikes, to see the further improvement of this area.

The building next to the Coburg will be converted, with the rest demolished for the new blocks, thankfully these aren't semis.

Planning decision here (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.asp?ID=1432)

Which development is this I'm a bit confused. :?

Paul D....

Slight error in my statement above, this development is further up the road away from the Coburg Pub towards the B.P. petrol station. Currently there are old warehouse buildings fronting the main road, one of which will be converted and the rest demolished. The derelict Highland hotel building is just across the side street next to the B.P. station, this will be ripe for development once this new development is built.

If the project x development goes ahead, then it won't be long before the rest of the low rise saw tooth warehouses are redeveloped.

Loads of pics of the James Troop building and views looking towards it from January 2004 at:
www.**************************/jamestroop

Just remembered.
Loads more viewed from Chaloner Street, Camarthen Crescent, Caryl Street.
http://www.**************************/chalonerstreet February 2004.

Paul D....

Slight error in my statement above, this development is further up the road away from the Coburg Pub towards the B.P. petrol station. Currently there are old warehouse buildings fronting the main road, one of which will be converted and the rest demolished. The derelict Highland hotel building is just across the side street next to the B.P. station, this will be ripe for development once this new development is built.

If the project x development goes ahead, then it won't be long before the rest of the low rise saw tooth warehouses are redeveloped.

Thanks Juxta. :)

Just remembered.
Loads more viewed from Chaloner Street, Camarthen Crescent, Caryl Street.
http://www.**************************/chalonerstreet February 2004.

Your website is a great resource for getting ones bearings as to where these new developments are. The Blue warehouses are the ones which hopefully will be due for re-development, as they will be sandwiched between Project x and James Troop new developments. Hopefully the businesses can be re-accomodated, especially the place that makes those narrow boats.

Any more news on this one guys??

seems to have gone quite quiet... would appreciate any news on this!

DP today, 06F/1219 to erect mixed development comprising 5 blocks: one 22 storeys (70m high) and 4 other 8-10 storeys high containing 384 residential units, 145 bed hotel, office space, restaurant/bar, parking and public realm. Site bounded by Sefton St. Parliament St. and Caryl St. application by Vermont Developments.


Still think Vermont should push their tower up to at least 30 storeys for this prominent site.

DP today, 06F/1219 to erect mixed development comprising 5 blocks: one 22 storeys (70m high) and 4 other 8-10 storeys high containing 384 residential units, 145 bed hotel, office space, restaurant/bar, parking and public realm. Site bounded by Sefton St. Parliament St. and Caryl St. application by Vermont Developments.


Still think Vermont should push their tower up to at least 30 storeys for this prominent site.

It`s still a lot better than a kick in the goolies though isn`t it! :)

Yet more positive change in the pipe line! :cheers:

Totally agree a big step in the right direction, the reason I'm still a bit downbeat on this was that Vermont promised the cities tallest building here when they made their first announcement many moons ago.

Maybe when the announcement was made it was going to be amongst the tallest in the city, but things have moved on since. Also, lets not forget the impact of the heritage morons. Im sure they weighed in with a few opinions, or even if they didnt, I bet the planning dept feared they would and pre-empted them by negotiating the tower downwards.

However, I think 22 storeys and 4 x 10 storeys should really add to the bulk there. I also quite like the design of the tower too.

On site by August if approved I hope.

DP today, 06F/1219 to erect mixed development comprising 5 blocks: one 22 storeys (70m high) and 4 other 8-10 storeys high containing 384 residential units, 145 bed hotel, office space, restaurant/bar, parking and public realm. Site bounded by Sefton St. Parliament St. and Caryl St. application by Vermont Developments.

Still think Vermont should push their tower up to at least 30 storeys for this prominent site.

It will be rejected as it is too close to the Anglican cathedral. No buildings are to obscure the views of this cathedral from the river. They want this site as it is close to Kings Dock, so will be attractive. If Brunswick Quays is accepted then expect more tall proposals around Brunswick/Toxteth/Harrington Docks. This building will act the as a catalyst for talls around these waterways.

It will be rejected as it is too close to the Anglican cathedral. No buildings are to obscure the views of this cathedral from the river. They want this site as it is close to Kings Dock, so will be attractive. If Brunswick Quays is accepted then expect more tall proposals around Brunswick/Toxteth/Harrington Docks. This building will act the as a catalyst for talls around these waterways.
How close is "too close" John? Sefton St is situated on a much lower elevation, by the way.

How close is "too close" John? Sefton St is situated on a much lower elevation, by the way.

The height is subjective of course. A developer is not going to be arsed with a time wasting process of determining the height, which may mean planning rejections and appeals , etc, so will build to a level he knows they will not complain about.

Brunswick/Harrington/Toxteth/Herculaneum Docks look good for talls, only if the Toxteth and Harrington have water reinstated. The river lock gates at the Herc look good for a tall as the Brunswick Quay (assuming it is built) with the amenities this area will provide, and the water complex is to one side, the river the other and Otterspool Park to the other. Ideal indeed. Great site, and even better if water is reinstated in some parts of the Herc. A canal can be reinstated to the partially excavated graving dock there now, completing an and to end 7.5 mile dock waterway. Iy would be agood thing is the gas holders at Grafton St are removed to encourage more development in that area. They are not appealling at all.

Brunswick Quay will set a precedence. In a way much of Liverpool’s future depends on it. Otherwise back to scraping around and being a third class city.

The height is subjective of course. A developer is not going to be arsed with a time wasting process of determining the height, which may mean planning rejections and appeals , etc, so will build to a level he knows they will not complain about...



Brunswick Quay will set a precedence. In a way much of Liverpool’s future depends on it. Otherwise back to scraping around and being a third class city.

John, it's not like you to be one dimensional in your thinking. :)

DP today, 06F/1219 to erect mixed development comprising 5 blocks: one 22 storeys (70m high) and 4 other 8-10 storeys high containing 384 residential units, 145 bed hotel, office space, restaurant/bar, parking and public realm. Site bounded by Sefton St. Parliament St. and Caryl St. application by Vermont Developments.


Still think Vermont should push their tower up to at least 30 storeys for this prominent site.

At last some movement, Vermont have been in detailed talks with the city and others for months so its fingers crossed. I agree Doug ,Vermont should have pushed for 30/35 (maybe they will after getting approval for 22 ) as this site is outside the principle sight line for viewing the Cathedral from Woodside Ferry. This tower will sit behind the 22 storey blocks to be built in Kings so the present proposal will get lost on the skyline. OK will have an impact when entering the city from the south, if it had have been taller it might have helped Brunswick Quay look less isolated.

Just read that Vermont hope to be on site next month :cheers:
http://www.businessliverpool.co.uk/liverpool_spring2006.pdf

Just read that Vermont hope to be on site next month :cheers:
http://www.businessliverpool.co.uk/liverpool_spring2006.pdf


I didn't even know it had planning permission,give me the latest proposal for NWS any day,still it will replace a pile of shite so get it built.

No neither did i, good stuff

o well another 200ft building to add to the rest:)

Just read that Vermont hope to be on site next month :cheers:
http://www.businessliverpool.co.uk/liverpool_spring2006.pdf

I've got a feeling that's pending approval but they have been working with all the right people so I don't think they'll have a problem there,whether or not they'll be on site is another matter though.

Recommended for approval by the Planning Manager, apparently with a considerably modified tower. Unfortunately the Planning Report (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000307/M00005981/AI00028423/$Item222LandboundedbySeftonStParliamentst.doc.pdf) doesn't contain any renders. Seems likely to be an improvement for those who didn't buy the 'sail' concept (like me).

Other interesting stuff on the current agenda (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=307&MId=5981&Ver=4&J=3) includes the Hope St Hotel extension, of which there is a render.

Recommended for approval by the Planning Manager, apparently with a considerably modified tower. Unfortunately the Planning Report (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000307/M00005981/AI00028423/$Item222LandboundedbySeftonStParliamentst.doc.pdf) doesn't contain any renders. Seems likely to be an improvement for those who didn't buy the 'sail' concept (like me).

Other interesting stuff on the current agenda (http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=307&MId=5981&Ver=4&J=3) includes the Hope St Hotel extension, of which there is a render.

Some interesting planning apps there. Here is Vermonts website, but not much to see yet.
Vermont Developments website (http://www.vermontdevelopments.com/projectx.htm)

I do like that Hope St hotel extension.

that website is still commencemt 05 and the 26 story version, maybe the changes are what we already know, from 26 to 20

that website is still commencemt 05 and the 26 story version, maybe the changes are what we already know, from 26 to 20
The planning application was for 22 storeys, the height has now been reduced,it doesn't say by how many floors. Which is incredulous ,since this was of the original tall building zones.

The planning application was for 22 storeys, the height has now been reduced,it doesn't say by how many floors. Which is incredulous ,since this was of the original tall building zones.

Yes, but Lathom and his manager didn't like it, so they decided to break their own rules.

:laugh:

The planning application was for 22 storeys, the height has now been reduced,it doesn't say by how many floors. Which is incredulous ,since this was of the original tall building zones.


Unless I've misread the report the 22 storey tower has been recommended,only the size of the floorplate has been reduced.
This in effect means a more slender tower.

Unless I've misread the report the 22 storey tower has been recommended,only the size of the floorplate has been reduced.
This in effect means a more slender tower.
Go to design and architectural quality, Tower element. Says tower has been reduced in height.

Go to design and architectural quality, Tower element. Says tower has been reduced in height.

I agree that this tower has been reduced in height, but the Planning Manager also says that this site being 1km south of the city centre is ok for a 22 storey tower. So I read that as a 22 storey tower will be built.

The revised design of the tower would seem to be much improved , although no renders are shown you can see the floorplate on the site plan drawing.

With the PM making reference to the 22 storey blocks to be built in Kings, the Queens Tower should also get the thumbs up.

Go to design and architectural quality, Tower element. Says tower has been reduced in height.

Yes GV it does say that.
Bit confusing though as in the previous paragraph the planning manager said he was quite happy with a 22 storey tower in that position.

Do you think there is a possibility that the reduction was to an earlier plan?

If the tower has been reorientated and made slimmer and the planning manager was happy with the height then there does not seem to be a reason for a reduction.

Have to wait for the first renders i suppose.

Yes GV it does say that.
Bit confusing though as in the previous paragraph the planning manager said he was quite happy with a 22 storey tower in that position.

Do you think there is a possibility that the reduction was to an earlier plan?

If the tower has been reorientated and made slimmer and the planning manager was happy with the height then there does not seem to be a reason for a reduction.

Have to wait for the first renders i suppose.
Could be Kung,seems a bit odd to reduce the height when the towers on KD are 22.

Cheers Lathom for posting the report, having just had a quick flick thro, the Planning Manager has had to work hard to get this big scheme in a fit state to recommend approval. CABE did not like the tower one little bit( I also thought it to fussy and top heavy ) or for that matter the rest of the scheme.

We at times on this forum give the planning boys a hard time, but on this scheme consultation over many months and what would seem to be a complete re-design has produced a much improved development.

Have a look through the planning committee agenda of the 20 odd plans that Lady D and chums are mulling over, only 2 have been marked " minded to refuse" and they were for pavement seating.

Not a bad approval rate :)

Great news,I'm glad this has had a redesign because I wasn't keen on the original render and I'm made up it's been recommended for approval because of the pile of shite it's going to replace. :)

Cheers Lathom for posting the report, having just had a quick flick thro, the Planning Manager has had to work hard to get this big scheme in a fit state to recommend approval. CABE did not like the tower one little bit( I also thought it to fussy and top heavy ) or for that matter the rest of the scheme.

We at times on this forum give the planning boys a hard time, but on this scheme consultation over many months and what would seem to be a complete re-design has produced a much improved development.

Have a look through the planning committee agenda of the 20 odd plans that Lady D and chums are mulling over, only 2 have been marked " minded to refuse" and they were for pavement seating.

Not a bad approval rate :)

Yes, though most of the ones recommended for approval are also for pavement seating!

The Seymour St/St Vincent St block is interesting - apparently the result of a lengthy struggle.

I like the hotel extension a lot. Falconer Chester have done some excellent work in this district, round the Cathedral.

DP reports that the £100m Sefton St. Quarter was given planning permission yesterday, this is excellent news!! City centre now extends over the bottom end of Parliament St. it also improves the chances of the nearby Queens Dock tower being passed.

The only down side for me was that Vermont had to scale down its plans from a 30 storey tower to the 22 storey tower because of sight lines to the cathedral, still it's a hell of an improvement over whats there now.

new image showing re-designed top, I'm sure when this is built we'll all be saying how good it is but it would've been even better at 30 storeys!!

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6042/dsc02820gb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Don't knock the height Doug. It's a good start, and will make it more difficult for the planners to refuse slightly taller towers in the area, like whats happened at Old Hall Street. Remember the original masterplan for the area was a wafer-thin 20 storey tower on the Norton for Crap site, and we thought it was the dogs bollocks-at the time. This also looks a lot better then the original renders. :)

Don't knock the height Doug. It's a good start, and will make it more difficult for the planners to refuse slightly taller towers in the area, like whats happened at Old Hall Street. Remember the original masterplan for the area was a wafer-thin 20 storey tower on the Norton for Crap site, and we thought it was the dogs bollocks-at the time. This also looks a lot better then the original renders. :)


Agree Bunnyman however the question that needs to be asked is this.
What difference would an extra 8 floors make if you were standing on the other side of the road.
You still wouldn't be able to see the cathedral even if it was only 2 storeys high.
No,this sightline business only applies to the other side of the river and it's about time that notion was kicked into touch. :bash:

Too right Kung. If they can build skyscrapers in London, blocking 'important views' of historic St Pauls, why the fuck can't we build anything within a two mile radius of a big orange slab less than 100 years old? In fact, we should encourage developers to build in front of the cathedral because the roof is a fucking eyesore seen from miles around.

Vermont originally talked about this site as having the tallest building in Liverpool, the redesign, as they are suggesting came out at 30 subsequently reduced to 22.
Totally agree that this is a great start for this part of downtown but I think it shows very clearly the strangle hold that still exists with things like "sight lines from Moreton" and heritage issues, the staightjacket is still firmly in place.

Too right Kung. If they can build skyscrapers in London, blocking 'important views' of historic St Pauls, why the fuck can't we build anything within a two mile radius of a big orange slab less than 100 years old? In fact, we should encourage developers to build in front of the cathedral because the roof is a fucking eyesore seen from miles around.


:laugh:

Could Sefton Street (Upper Parly to the Garden Festival site) become 'Uptown' in the future?

Great news about the planning permision, and I'm liking the new renders too. This area is in such desperate need of a project like this that I'm happy to take the 22 storeys and run. However the reasons behind the reduction are sinister and damaging to say the least. Doesn't bode well for the Brunswick Quay tower, it's bound to impede the view of some poor Wirralite! Agree about the Cathedral roof too, I love the building, but that roof is a disgrace, someone should challenge the council to worry more about what's end the of that precious 'line of site' than what beautiful new building might be blocking it!

Could Sefton Street (Upper Parly to the Garden Festival site) become 'Uptown' in the future?

As it is geographically south down the current downtown, it will have to become downdowntown!

Puts a nice angle on the sanctity of the anglican cathedral... we need something to hide the fucker.... get onto WHS imediately!.. excellent!

DP reports that the £100m Sefton St. Quarter was given planning permission yesterday, this is excellent news!! City centre now extends over the bottom end of Parliament St. it also improves the chances of the nearby Queens Dock tower being passed.

The only down side for me was that Vermont had to scale down its plans from a 30 storey tower to the 22 storey tower because of sight lines to the cathedral, still it's a hell of an improvement over whats there now.

new image showing re-designed top, I'm sure when this is built we'll all be saying how good it is but it would've been even better at 30 storeys!!

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6042/dsc02820gb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
That is not as nice as the original design but still better than nothing at all.

I really hate those industrial warehouses that this is going to replace this development can't come soon enough for me,the tower's not bad and a million times better than we have at present so it should be welcomed with open arms,build the bastard.

build the bastard

If I worked in the planning department, that would be my signature. :cheers:

I think all planners should be given a giant rubber stamp with those words on it - how could they resist approving things then?

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=9742978#post9742978

No more hurdles for Sefton Street Quarter Aug 23 2006

By Sophie Freeman, Daily Post

A NEW £100m scheme on Liverpool's Waterfront was yesterday given the green light by city planners.

The Sefton Street Quarter, created by Liverpool-based Vermont Developments, will see the transformation of an under-utilised and low-quality industrial site into a prestigious mixed-use development including a luxury hotel and landmark 22-storey apartment tower.

Family homes, commercial, leisure and retail space together with public realm areas will be built on the two-acre site at the junction of Parliament Street and Sefton Street.

The Vermont team is headed by city living pioneers Paul Bolton and Mark Connor, who previously built-up Charlton Homes and its city centre development arm, Space, before selling it to Irish housebuilder McInerney Homes.

Space was responsible for one of the first major apartment schemes in the centre of Liverpool - the redevelopment of Liverpool's Hatton Garden parcel depot in 2001.

The original design for the Sefton Street Quarter scheme was modified after the city council and building watchdogs argued that it obscured views of the Anglican Cathedral.

Vermont scaled down its plans for a taller, 30-storey tower and revised the top of it so that it had a stepped design to improve sight lines to the Cathedral. The number of houses and underground car parking spaces was also reduced.

Mark Connor, chief executive of Vermont, said: "We had a comprehensive dialogue with the city in order to understand its aspirations for the area and how our scheme could contribute.

"We feel this collaborative approach and the input received from all stakeholders in the process has had tangible benefits on the proposals for the site. We wanted to ensure that the development will provide a lasting and positive legacy for the local community and also the wider city."

He said he was fairly confident that the scheme would be approved - but was always conscious of the fact that somebody could throw in a "wild card".

"There's always a healthy anxiety (at these meetings) but we've been working in conjunction with the city for two or three years," he said.

"If somebody had said we'd got it wrong, then we'd all have got it wrong."

"This wasn't a scheme that we just put on someone's desk and asked for a decision."

Work on the development, which is being funded with a combination of bank and private equity, should start on site within a matter of weeks, with construction phased over three-and-a-half years.

Mr Connor added: "This is a hugely significant scheme that will transform an under-utilised industrial site into a vibrant and sustainable mixed use development, generating considerable additional employment and opportunity for the local community.

We feel the scheme will both extend the boundary of the city centre, and act as a major catalyst for further investment on Parliament Street, Sefton Street and beyond.

"Sefton Street Quarter is within easy walking distance of Kings Waterfront and the new arena and convention centre. With the anticipated Cultural Quarter also intended for the area, it's clear the critical mass of the city centre is changing as all the pieces of the regeneration jigsaw come into place."

Because of its size, the scheme will now be referred to the Department of Communities and Local Government, or effectively, what was the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, for final approval, although this is not expected to be a problem.

Mr Connor said: "It has to be referred because it exceeds 150 units in total. There's also a policy designating that area for employment use, but we are going to be providing 300 plus jobs in the leisure, commercial and retail parts of the scheme so you would hope that the DCLG will say that's one of the boxes ticked.

"We don't see any further hurdles that we have to jump. I'm fairly confident."

LISTEN to Vermont boss Mark Connor explain more about the scheme - click here

sophiefreeman@dailypost.co.uk

Huge plan will include nearly 400 homes

* 145-bedroom 4-star boutique hotel.

* 30,000 sq ft of commercial and leisure accommodation.

* 265 underground car parking spaces

* 6,000 sq ft of neighbourhood retailing

* A high quality public plaza

* 374 homes which include townhouses and family apartments

* 53 homes available under a unique retained equity scheme

* 762 temporary construction jobs, with a commitment to local recruitment and training

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"There's always a healthy anxiety (at these meetings) but we've been working in conjunction with the city for two or three years," he said.

"If somebody had said we'd got it wrong, then we'd all have got it wrong."

"This wasn't a scheme that we just put on someone's desk and asked for a decision."

Interesting comments.

What then BQT and Cheiftain.....et al.

Great news this scheme is going ahead, a vast improvement to the area, and a pavement will be added along the front, making the area people friendly.

So "Norton for scrap", the spotlight must be on now...!

So "Norton for scrap", the spotlight must be on now...!

We'll definitely see a Norton proposal soon I reckon,I don't think the Queens Dock tower will be approved in its present form though so I can see rejection and a redesign coming for that one.

DP reports that the £100m Sefton St. Quarter was given planning permission yesterday,

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6042/dsc02820gb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Is it just me being a `Gerry Anderson` fan,

But don`t you think that there is more than a passing resembalance to the `World Auqanaughts Sea Patrol` H.Q. and `Stingray` about these renders.....

Maybe our `Liverbirds` are secretive operatives of the `Thunderbirds` clan.

Spooky. :)

Brilliant news, I think the tower is much improved in appearance but would have been even better at 30 storey`s, still as others have said, this is just what this part of town needed a large scheme that should encourage even more exciting developments in the near future.
As for "site lines" only the view down Lower Parliment St should have been considered, spoilt views from "over the water" are crazy,silly ,stupid and should be dumped.

It looks great. I'm not convinced that site is right for anything very tall anyway, that fits nicely.

Brilliant news, I think the tower is much improved in appearance but would have been even better at 30 storey`s, still as others have said, this is just what this part of town needed a large scheme that should encourage even more exciting developments in the near future.
As for "site lines" only the view down Lower Parliment St should have been considered, spoilt views from "over the water" are crazy,silly ,stupid and should be dumped.

"still as others have said, this is just what this part of town needed a large scheme that should encourage even more exciting developments in the near future.

As for "site lines" only the view down Lower Parliment St should have been considered, spoilt views from "over the water" are crazy,silly ,stupid and should be dumped.....


and just how many sight lines block `Westminster Abbey and Cathederal if not St Pauls.....

However I still believe in `Vista Vista Vista` :)

isnt the whole joy of having nice buildings, turning a street corner, and seeing part of the building in an aspect that you havent before, this works in the CBD, you see parts of beetham, and unity that you never see from the general pictures of the sites, these are the most impressive views

I mentioned recently, that walking towards the metquarter from williamson square, you can see the unity penthouse peeking out, and walking near the town hall and the egg box building you can see the beetham bright yellow doka sticking out aswell

Too right Kung. If they can build skyscrapers in London, blocking 'important views' of historic St Pauls, why the fuck can't we build anything within a two mile radius of a big orange slab less than 100 years old? In fact, we should encourage developers to build in front of the cathedral because the roof is a fucking eyesore seen from miles around.


They've already blocked the views of the Catherdrial, shouldn't this be the best about the best vantage point, rather than somewhere of the Wirral?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a366/robinsonworld/HPIM0635.jpg

Exactly! It's our fucking cathedral. We should get priority viewing. Screw the Wirral!

Exactly! It's our fucking cathedral. We should get priority viewing. Screw the Wirral!

One could argue that a cathedral belongs to everyone :cheer::angel::baeh3:

Theologically sorta..... :)

One could argue that a cathedral belongs to everyone :cheer::angel::baeh3:

Theologically sorta..... :)

You could also argue that the cheif aim of a Cathedral is to give glory to God - therefore it's only His view that matters - and so it's only clouds we need to worry about blocking his 'sight line'. If that is the case, we should also be more worried about the state of the roof, what kind of message is that sending to the Almighty? :runaway:

You could also argue that the cheif aim of a Cathedral is to give glory to God - therefore it's only His view that matters - and so it's only clouds we need to worry about blocking his 'sight line'. If that is the case, we should also be more worried about the state of the roof, what kind of message is that sending to the Almighty? :runaway:


I'm sure God can see through clouds. :)

i think its a good starting point... this nonesense about preserving the views of the cathedral is utter shite!

take a walk down the albert dock and they have managed to block the view of the cathedral with a friggin car park.. bunnyman knows the view i mean and i am sure someone has a relevant photo!


Maybe we should consider a 5 mile no build zone around our cathedrals to preserve the view!!!!!!!! What utter bollox. The building is there and if people are that bothered about how it looks perhaps they should pay it a visit!!!

Image from Move magazine, shows a bit more detail of the pavement area around the tower.


http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4739/seftonstqimage4dt8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Yes I was looking at that yesterday Paul the new tower's not bad at all,it's a whole lot better than the low grade industrial warehouses that are there at present so I'll look forward to seeing this one rise. :)

The government dept. of Communities and Local Government gave the final approval for this scheme yesterday. The referral was required because the site required a change of land use and because it has over 150 residential units.

__________________
"To assist in attracting the great cruise liners back to Liverpool we require appropriate but large scale magnificent waterfront development."

Peel Holdings 19/07/06

lets just sit back and watch now!


Yes, watch. See all the docks being filled in so they can build on them and make tons of lolly.

There are metal hoardings around this site, so some activity looks imminent.

I really like this project, are there any more renders of it?