Looks like its 'game on' again fellas.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/Waterfront36/brunswick1.jpghttp://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/Waterfront36/2465_brunswick_quay.jpg



2nd February 2006 Enquiries to:Contact No:Our ref: Mr M Loughran0151 233 302105F/1009

Gra


Dear Sir/Madam

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS) REGULATIONS 1992

Site: Brunswick Quay, Brunswick Way, Liverpool, L3
Proposal: Erection of a mixed development consisting of a building of 51 storeys (with a height of 166.25 metres A.O.D) and two buildings of 10 storeys, incorporating:- offices, residential accommodation of 414 apartments, hotel, retail uses, community use, plus servicing areas, basement car parking, landscaping and associated works
Appeal No: 2997


On 23rd August 2005 the City Council as local planning authority refused to grant permission for the above-mentioned proposal.

An appeal against this decision has now been lodged on behalf of the applicant to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The appellant has chosen the Public Inquiry process for dealing with this appeal. Documents relating to this appeal will be available for inspection in the Planning and Building Control Service, Millennium House, 60 Victoria Street, Liverpool, L1 6JF, you are advised to make an appointment with the case officer on the telephone number listed above.

Any comments made at the application stage will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate, if you want to make additional comments the Planning Inspectorate must receive 3 copies by 1st March 2006. If they receive your representations after the deadline, they will not normally be seen by the inspector and they will be returned. Please address any letters to:
The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN, quoting reference APP/Z4310/A/06/1197765.
A copy of the Planning Inspectorate booklet ‘ Guide to taking part in planning appeals’ is available from this service.
The Planning Inspectorate will not acknowledge your letter unless you specifically ask them to do so. Interested parties, who wish to be notified of the appeal decision, should write to the Planning Inspectorate at the same address, requesting such notice.

Yours faithfully

Development Control Division

Would be interesting to see in proportion terms how many times odpm sides with the local councils when big development appeals come their way.

I'm please this proposal has been resurected and the developers havn't given up. It's a shame that a few of the private developers that have come to this city have had to take this route. Future planners should allow a liability premium in their proposals when coming to Liverpool ie - expect to have to take the planners to court over any plan more interesting than a three storey building and incorporate the court cost. Is there any sign of Chieftian doing the same over the Skelhorne Street tower at Lime Street? News would be appreciated.

Sorry folks, been away for a while. Zod returns.

Just found something on the Drivers Jonas site. They say that appeals for both applications of Brunwick Quay will be heard in June, so we have two chances.

Zod, if I remember correctly the Skelhorne Street tower has been put in for appeal but the 28 storey redesign has quietly been withdrawn from planning.

so Skelhourne is defo not getting built and we won't know about this one til june, it could have been U/C now if they had of accepted 1st time

The Secretary of State will appoint a planning inspector to consider the case. The inspector will repeat the process that the original planning officer and committee underwent. The inspector will first have to consider whether the council considered all material considerations, and that they did not take account of any irrelevant (in planning terms) considerations. Even if LCC's decision was lawful, the inspector may very well decide to give more weight to considerations that favoured the development. It seems to me that there are more things going for the development than against it. As the grounds for refusing this application were a bit on the shallow side, I reckon it has a good chance of gaining permission. Incidentally, the ODPM has overturned refusals like this one in the past. -he tends to be more pro than anti development.

If it is overturned then LCC will be able to appeal against this decision in the courts (although they will have to be very confident of success if they are to waste tax payers money on fees and potential costs.)- or Maro will be able to if the ODPM upholds the decision.

The fact that Chieftain are pursuing the same course of action might suggest that these developers are confident of success. I

Good knowledge Blabs. I'm pleased to know that my taxes are being well spent. ;)

Wasn't Brunswick Quay a very close vote? It has the support of the Chair of the Planning Comittee who has publically said that she hopes Maro win the appeal.

Blabbs, I take it the repeat planning process has already have begun with the outcome in June?

Dude,

Maro have opted for the public inquiry option, which is only utilised in 4% of cases.- It is by far the most time consuming and is appropriate to complex cases where there is a lot of public interest. It enables interested parties- Maro (the appellant), LCC and members of the public, to have representations. So there is a lot of information gathering, etc. to be carried out which takes a long time. I'm assuming they will start working on it soon, but maybe they will start later due to work load pressures.

It's nice to do some revision (-although it's a bit foggy in my mind so don't quote me!) :)

It might be a good idea for people to make written representations to the inspectorate offering their support.- this might go a little way to counter balancing the NIMBYites.

I'm assuming they will start working on it soon, but maybe they will start later due to work load pressures.

But the first appeal must have went in nearly a year ago and the second last August (I think) surely they would have started work then? Does the fact that the inquiry will be held in June mean we should have a decision then?

But the first appeal must have went in nearly a year ago and the second last August (I think) surely they would have started work then?

So what happened to the first appeal? Was it withdrawn or something.

I think it usually takes around 65 weeks for Inspectors to reach a decision. and around 100 weeks for the Secretary of State.
Work loads are presently very high in the planning system so unfortunately things like this take ages to be sorted out.

I've noticed you follow the applications a lot- so you might find the Planning Inspectorate website useful (-this is relevant to appeals, i.e. after the planning authority has made their original decision- and the applicants decide to appeal against a decision.)... hang on...

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

I've noticed you follow the applications a lot

I just check the planning explorer every so often...when it works! :)

wow. this is great news. if this one gets through it should go a long way to losening the stranglehold the lcc and nimbys (EH) have on building proposals. hopefully make them consider applications like central station more carefully

There was something in yesterdays Echo saying Maro gave all the small businesses a months notice to leave the site so the gloves are well and truly off.

Daily Post and Echo carry the story today, asking businesses to leave before a date in April.

Some agreements have been reached, some are still not in agreement. The thing is, this was the next logical step for the developer after the planners used the existing businesses as an excuse for declining the planning application. Instead of managing change and working with all involved to ease the process while developing new businesses, new homes and a whole new economic dynamic, we have a situation were conflict was used to repel the developer without a solid base.

Talk about picking your fights.

These small businesses would have been relocated if the planners had agreed to this development,now they have been evicted with nothing and the taxpayers will have to foot the bill to fight Maro,where's the logic in that?

Not sure logic came in to it, personal preference and ego seems to have played a part.

Good luck to the small businesses, I know one affected company, while at the same time good luck to Maro.

Will attitudes change with Henshaw and Storey gone or did they have little influence over such matters?

Can't see why Storey would have played an active role in knocking it back.

Sames goes for Henshaw, I mean why would the CEO of a major cit turn away inward investment on such a large scale, for something that would enhance it's neighbourhood and have a positive and sustainable effect upon residents and businesses?

Probably a planning issue with associated lobbying. Shame we're making a show of ourselves while costing money at the same time.

Do you think Maro's latest move will work in their favour in June or do you see another huge dissapointment?

Do you honestly believe they'll win this one because I'm not so sure?

it looks cool, i hope it goes ahead this time

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y187/rob*******1/DSCF1334.jpg

Saw this in Leeds town today. It looks like an Ian Simpson. Looks class IMO and will complement the 30 storey Bridgewater Place (under construction) very well.

I'm still awaiting a response from the Leeds forummers as to whether Criterion has permission. They will be putting Liverpool to shame if it has.

Criterion Place is another Ian Simpson design. Looks pretty much like it will be going ahead.

Got my letter from the planners today telling me how I can comment on the development to the public inquiry.

In the Echo, there was an article about how the tenants of the Small Business Centre are being forced out by Maro.

Have to say that however much I like the idea of the tower, I don't like the way that Maro are operating. There has been absolutely no consultation in the area and the developers just seem to be relying on purely legalistic procedures to get their way. From what I have heard, there has been very little consultation with the tenants of the Small Business Centre who are obviously fearful about their jobs.

However much we disagree with their decision, the Planning Committee are elected to represent our interests and I feel uneasy that their decision can be overuled in this way.

If the tower goes ahead, I will do my best to update the site regularly with news and pictures but I am less enthusiastic about it than I used to be.

I thought Maro had found an alternative location that the small businesses had agreed to move to?

Today's Echo stated that they had been offered help with moving but they did not believe it was enough to cover the costs of relocation. As far as I know, no alternative site with planning permission has been found.

At the expense of sounding a bit cruel... The small businesses have known for some time now ( 15 months or more?) that they are on somebody else's land and need to find alternative premises. Surely they have some responsibility to get their shit together and find alternatives. By rights, Maro could just tell them to get off of the land and give them nothing. Whereas they have at least given them some support.

Also, Brunswick Tower will itself create a lot of long-term jobs- and add extra consumers and tax payers to the area (in the form of residents) to sustain local services and add vitality.

Hmmm, it's a tough one. Also, do the Echo really know what negotiations are going on behind closed doors? It's hardly a candidate for investigative newspaper of the year award.

Actually, I don't even live or work there so I'll shut my trap. :sleepy:

I wouldn't mind betting that this is just a negotiating tactic, similar to the 5 shops on the Lime St. concourse. And why not?? if these small business can persuade the developers to part with a few bob extra, good on 'em, it shouldn't put off Maro from pursuing what is an excellent scheme.

I kinda agree with Blabber as they know it will be redeveloped in some way, so why not go on your own terms instead of being pushed

I agree- the businesses should try to get everything they can out of Maro. I would. But i don't think the small businesses should be used to prevent the new scheme.

...

If this is true, Maro mus be in a strong position as far as this tower is concerned

They will be removing one of the excuses the planners used to reject the scheme by getting rid of the business' before the appeal is heared... good move!

They will be removing one of the excuses the planners used to reject the scheme by getting rid of the business' before the appeal is heared... good move!

Surely that is not how we want downtown to act?

"They will be removing one of the excuses the planners used to reject the scheme by getting rid of the business' before the appeal is heared... good move!"

I would however like the scheme to go ahead but I well remember the effort it took to get `Brunswick Business Park` up and running.

And I`m certainly a fan of `Central Village` and `Chieftain Tower` but their location circumstances are not the same and I don`t think any more critical.

I have personally worked for various companies who have relocated and mostly for those `companies` benefit and not their employees.

Of which Liverpool and Merseyside has a lot of experience - usually for the worse.

Scroll to far right. In English Heritage we trust, do we fuck:cheers:
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3131/skyline41xp.jpg

The opinion of myself is that this tower will not get built. Something will get built on the Business Centre site but not the tower as it stands.

Maro/Matalan have acted disgracefully in trying to push out the Business Centre tenants before the planning appeal in June. No service work has been done on the centre in the past four years and it has been closed to new tenants for the past couple. All whilst the existing tenants are paying a monthly service charge...

Since Maro/Matalan bought it, it seems that they have been attempting to run it down so that they can get planning for something else.

I'm not that up on the history but wasn't the Business Centre built after the Toxteth riots as a way for local people to get an opportunity to create businesses?

It seems sad that it is being forced closed by (yet another) block of poncy apartments.

Oh, and I think it very unlikely that the Centre will be emptied by the supposed closing date (14th April) as imposed by Maro/Matalan.

This may very well become something of a political issue in Liverpool.

Im ambivalent really as to the business there. Primarily because, as tenants, you will always be subject to the wishes of the landlord as regards your occupancy.

They paid rent, so they were allowed to stay there. If according to the terms of the agreement they can also be asked to leave. Well, they signed it with open eyes.

However, I understand the concerns about replacing business property with flats. My organisation learned today that it's bid to the council for a city centre building (currently an empty church) which we were to convert into office space, meeting rooms, exhibition space etc for local groups...was turned down in favour of flats......grrr.

However, in Brunswicks case, they have been offered alternative property. This should easily satisfy concerns in relation to existing business.

In addition, whilst there may be a moral argument against asking tenants to leave, if they arent there by the time of the inquiry, then that arguement is completely undermined.

Someone has managed to recruit a canny lawyer.

The case continues it would seem...

As I have said many times, enterprise is the most important elament of the city to foster. I meant that it was a good move for Maro to remove one of the main objections, by removing the cause!

This sort of thing happens al of the time... I imagine that tenents will have been dislodged where ever there is a major building in the city.
The solution surely is to provide some sort of active agency to help these types of firms (3345 are Arena are other examples of the dislocation that goes on) to ensure that we don't lose the business...either by them closing down...or getting off to another place?

If Maro want to risk their money on such a scheme I see no reason to stop them...ANY.

brunswick business centre is a great example of the sort of facility we should have hundreds of in the city. This idea of having 'one' is nuts. If we did then the companies would already haave somewhere custom made for their needs...with a few exceptions... the poor caterer is in a bind and he should be helped or compensated substantially.

However, in Brunswicks case, they have been offered alternative property. This should easily satisfy concerns in relation to existing business.

That is simply not true. Last year the businesses were offered a choice of compensation or alternative premises if they vacated quietly. Subsequently the offer of alternative accomodation was withdrawn leaving many of the tenants with no-where to go and no compensation. Further, there is doubt among the remaining tenants that any compensation will be forthcoming even if they vacate to the timescale imposed by Maro/Matalan.

IMHO Maro/Matalan bought the Business Centre under false pretences and then proceded to run it down so it could be redeveloped.

The recent move by Maro/Matalan is obviously intended to get the property empty before the June planning appeal.

However I think it very very unlikely that the Business Centre will be empty on April 14th or even in June. There is a winning legal argument against the way that Maro have recently served the 2 months notice to vacate on the existing tenants.

We'll see what happens!

Like I said, I can see this becoming a bit of a political football.

LCC Council should be responisble for finding alternative premises for these businesses or the Mersey Partnership or some other quango, it's what they're paid to do. It shouldn't be a choice of either or, we should be able to have both. The problem lies with the faceless bureaucrats who designated the Brunswick Dock as non-residential in the UDP, this can't be altered to accommodate a world class development?

It would be good to hear the argument from both sides (Maro & The Brunswick Business Centre) to gain a better idea of who, if anyone is at fault. Is there a role for arbitration?

IMO the term ethical capitalism seems like a misnomer! (Although the Quakers seemed to manage it in their own paternalistic way). I'm not well informed about Maro's dealings with the Business Centre but from what I have read on the Liverpool forum, its recent dealings seem to be a bit suspect. Maybe I dreamt it but last time around weren't they offering to pay for the small businesses to be relocated elsewhere? If so why did Maro change its mind?

LCC Council should be responisble for finding alternative premises for these businesses or the Mersey Partnership or some other quango, it's what they're paid to do. It shouldn't be a choice of either or, we should be able to have both. The problem lies with the faceless bureaucrats who designated the Brunswick Dock as non-residential in the UDP, this can't be altered to accommodate a world class development?

Presumably it was designated as non-residential because it had always been so? If developers choose to challenge this classification in order to make money shouldn't they be a major part of finding a solution to the problems they will be create by evicting existing tenants rather than expecting LCC and the tax payers of Liverpool to shoulder the entire burden of relocation?

I know someone who runs a business from there, he went in undestanding the short term nature of the deal. One thing he's not happy about is that the landlord agreed to give them 6 months notice (although they don't have to) and this isn't the case now.

The problem goes back to the corpy, they used the tenants as an excuse, now that excuse can't be used again so will they have to approve the project?

If the corpy was that concerned with the start ups and small businesses there then why didn't they help to manage the disruption rather than delay the inevitible?

My guess is Maro have considered the previous verdict, looked at the application again and realised that the tenants being in situ prejudices their case in the planners eyes, so they've taken appropriate action.

One other thing it highlights is the lack of easy in/easy out rentals in the city and those that are, are for a reason - pending development/speculation etc. The city really could do with incubators, places for people to have a go rather than be put off by sky high rents of long leases.

Presumably it was designated as non-residential because it had always been so? If developers choose to challenge this classification in order to make money shouldn't they be a major part of finding a solution to the problems they will be create by evicting existing tenants rather than expecting LCC and the tax payers of Liverpool to shoulder the entire burden of relocation?
The whole dock estate was non-residential at one time obviously. Brunswick dock is in one of the poorest areas of Britain, it's needs private investments like these,it needs repopulating.There are plenty of areas along Caryl st,Sefton st, the businesses could move to.Liverpool can't afford to turn away investors or to be seen to be awkward to deal with.

I know someone who runs a business from there, he went in undestanding the short term nature of the deal. One thing he's not happy about is that the landlord agreed to give them 6 months notice (although they don't have to) and this isn't the case now.

The problem goes back to the corpy, they used the tenants as an excuse, now that excuse can't be used again so will they have to approve the project?

If the corpy was that concerned with the start ups and small businesses there then why didn't they help to manage the disruption rather than delay the inevitible?

My guess is Maro have considered the previous verdict, looked at the application again and realised that the tenants being in situ prejudices their case in the planners eyes, so they've taken appropriate action.

One other thing it highlights is the lack of easy in/easy out rentals in the city and those that are, are for a reason - pending development/speculation etc. The city really could do with incubators, places for people to have a go rather than be put off by sky high rents of long leases.


That last paragraph sets out a business opportunity for someone who might be interested! Assuming, of course, that someone is not already doing it. Check out:

http://www.liverpoolventures.com/

http://www.liverpoolventures.com/

The whole dock estate was non-residential at one time obviously. Brunswick dock is in one of the poorest areas of Britain, it's needs private investments like these,it needs repopulating.There are plenty of areas along Caryl st,Sefton st, the businesses could move to.Liverpool can't afford to turn away investors or to be seen to be awkward to deal with.

Also the area will retain economic commercial activity, it's not just a residential phallic. Certainly the make up will change but local people will gain access to jobs and spending will be brought to the area from the suburbs etc.

I often walk from the Pier Head to St Michael's station and anything that makes the area from Kings dock to the former festival site seem less of an urban desert (in terms of non-residential amenities) has my vote. If the tower can acheive this, all well and good. If it just adds to the current malaise - I guess it will still have my vote as a welcome piece of eye candy in that part of town! There is something reassuring and genuinely urban about the area around St Michael's station with its proximity to the shops on Aigburth Road and restaurants along Lark Lane that is entirely missing from the aforementioned area.

How could the council not have foreseen such a tactic on the part of the developers and their lawyers? It shows how inept these people really are! I feel sorry for the small businesses but their councillors have surely let them down.

It's a shame it has come to this but I side with the developers. The business owners and their employees appear to have become victims in a cut-throat affair when last year, they might actually have benefitted from a reasonable, above-board and thoroughly healthy process that would have benefitted all concerned, including all present and future residents of this city.

Incidentally, how many people have, in this city in recent times, been turfed out of good rented homes due to landlords deciding to sell or drastically upgrade their stock? It has happened to many people. If you had a rented abode in a half decent neighbourhood (Lark Lane/Sefton Park and other arts of Aigburth spring to mind here) but were struggling on a low-ish income, you were probably f**ked, as were your kids if they were under school-starting age. Totally squeezed out of decent neighbourhoods, decent homes and decent schools! It's harsh and it's inconvenient but it's progress for the many at the cost of a few. And I suggest that it's much worse when it's people's homes, shops and schools being taken from them but it's all part of the economic upturn we're all here celebrating. Isn't there always a bigger picture?

Spot on Percy, in fact how many 'victims' have suffered such development issues at the hands of the council, did the planners kick off at the disruption, job losses, closures etc of businesses due to PSDA or the tram? The businesses were an excuse and not a reason - now the businesses are getting a hard time.

As for the development, local councillors should be fighting for it - more rates, more jobs, more people, more services, enhanced mix. The locals should bear the actions of the standing representatives in mind at the next elections.

I think you're spot on Toad. It seems as though the likes of Mumby were using the businesses for their own silly, political motives. Like they were trying to make some sort of evil capitalism vs. the workers type of statement. But ultimately nobody has benefitted from this, not least the city's tax payers who may end up paying costs in court, or the businesses that the council claimed to care so much about. They would do a lot better if they just learn to work with the economic system and make it work for the city and its people, rather than making dated and stupid statements that waste money and hold back progress. If they'd worked with Maro and maybe tried to get a planning agreement to see the businesses ended up alright then everybody would've been happy.

Ultimately, the blame does lie with LCC- they could have played a co-ordinating role from the beginnning that sought to find a beneficial situation for everyone. Instead, Maro have thought "fuck this! we're looking after ourselves from now on"- and their decision to get rid of the businesses will undoubtedly help them win the court case- they didn't have a lot of choice.

Silly old socialists are still making egotistical statements and ultimately wasting loads of money in the process and helping nobody, least of all the city they are supposed to serve.

Silly old socialists are still making egotistical statements and ultimately wasting loads of money in the process and helping nobody, least of all the city they are supposed to serve.[/QUOTE]


That in one statement sums up Liverpool City Council. I and I assume everyone else on this board completely agrees with you. Well said.

Looks like the scheme that will be taken to appeal will be the later one with a reduced number of apartments (414) and about 25,000 ft2 of office space. I had a look at the planning application last year (the original one) and wrote this summary mainly for local residents:

Brunswick Quay Tower

Notes from the Planning Application and Environmental Impact Assessment
(First Application – 490 apartments)

The developer is Maro, a relatively small firm based in Clitheroe, Lancashire and owned by the founder of Matalan. The only other significant Liverpool development that they have been involved in is 'The Place', an apartment complex in Concert Square that includes the Lloyds Bar.

The architect is Ian Simpson, a graduate of Liverpool University and head of a Manchester architectural practice. Other designs by him include the Urbis development in Manchester and the Manchester Beetham Tower which will be the tallest apartment building in Britain and the tallest building outside of London. Other designs by Simpson, yet to be realised, include the Criterion Place office development in Leeds and the Gallowgate apartment tower in Newcastle. He also has plans for a 600' high apartment tower south of the Thames. All of these towers have similar design characteristics to Brunswick Quay, using curved glazed facades and wedge shaped elevations.

Simpson is getting a name for himself as a designer of very tall buildings and has even submitted a design for the replacement of the World Trade Center that was highly commended.

The Brunswick Quay Tower will consist of three blocks. The 51 storey tower forms block A and is the most northerly of the three, occupying a prominent position overlooking Brunswick Dock. It has an arrowhead shape in plan with the arrow corresponding to the angle of the dock wall on the east side of the south dock entrance. The tower will have 342 apartments on levels 1 to 45, with triplex (three storey?) on levels 47 to 49, garden space on level 50 and retail at ground level.

Blocks B and C fan out from Block A and are further south. Block B is on the west (river) side and has ten storeys. It will have 53 apartments on levels 2 to 9 and one live / work unit on level 1 with retail on level 0.5.

Block C is also ten storeys and has 95 apartments on levels 3 to 9, retail on level 1 and 3 live / work units. There will also be a 35 bed boutique hotel with a restaurant and bar.

The total number of apartments under this scheme would be 490 (414 under the revised scheme). The mix of apartment types will be 271 single bed and 219 double bed and penthouses.

455 car parking spaces will be provided. Of the total area of the development of 11,494m2, 2,596m2 will be taken up by the building footprint with the remainder (75%) taken up with publicly accessible open space. Landscaping will be provided as a buffer to the prevailing winds.

The height of Brunswick Quay Tower will be 168.8m. (554') which will make it the tallest building in Liverpool, (the present tallest is St Johns Beacon at 125m. (410') ). It will also be the highest in the city centre with a roof level of 168.8m. (554') AOD (above ordnance datum). This compares to the Anglican Cathedral, which at 143.4m. (470') AOD is the present highest. However, it will not be the tallest ever building in Merseyside as the short-lived New Brighton Tower was 173m. (568') tall and reached to a height of 189m. (621')AOD.

Incidentally, the tower could not have been made any taller without penetrating the Obstacle Limitation Surface for John Lennon Airport. This is why the two ten storey blocks have been added. Even so, obstruction lighting will be required.

The building will be clad in a mixture of clear double glazing and double glazing with a 'silk screen frit'. (This is a means of preventing excessive glare from the cladding). There will also be clear and obscure glazing with insulated panels behind. Opening lights and ventilation will be provided behind a perforated metal panel flush with the adjacent facade. The design is optimised to allow the building to breathe in summer and stay warm in winter.

The tower falls outside of both the World Heritage Site and the 'buffer zone'. However, both English Heritage and CABE (Committee on Architecture and the Built Environment) were consulted. CABE commented that the tower was a 'welcome contrast to the low-rise development' and 'beautiful architecture'. It did, however, question the appropriateness of the site for a tall building. In response to the CABE report, Maro added the live / work units and the boutique hotel. (The second application adds 25,000 sq ft of office accommodation).

Being such a tall building, Brunswick will have an impact due to overshadowing of neighbouring property. This will obviously be worse at mid-winter when the shadow at 09:00 will extend to the Wirral shore and at 12:00 to Mariners Wharf. At Midsummer, the shadow will extend to Tranmere at 05:00 but by mid-day will not extend the full length of Brunswick Dock. Wind tunnel tests have been carried out and some wind mitigation will be required.

Another feature of the development will be its visual impact on the surrounding area. The planning application contained a large number of renderings of the tower from different viewpoints, which were supplemented by photographs of a tethered balloon fixed at roof height of the building. The viewpoints chosen extended from Birkenhead Park to the top of Frodsham Hill. There will be an impact on some well known views of the city for example:

View from Woodside - The most well known view of the Liverpool waterfront. The tower will be visible over its full height but at such a distance from the Pier Head and the Cathedral Ridge that it can hardly be described as intrusive. The tower merely extends the city skyline southward in much the same way as the 'cricket stumps' of the old Clarence Dock power station used to extend it northward.

View from Lime Street by St Georges Hall - Only the very top of the tower can be seen, again it is difficult to describe as intrusive.

View from Pier Head - The top of the tower will be visible above the Albert Dock warehouses. Due to the distance of the tower from this point, it is unlikely to have the impact of a much smaller tower placed immediately behind the warehouses and tends to give the impression that the city extends a long distance beyond.

View from Birkenhead Park - mainly obscured by trees, other Liverpool buildings much more prominent.

View from Frodsham Hill - need binoculars to see it.

Undoubtedly the best view of the tower will be from the Queens / Mariners Wharf bridge where the building will be seen for its full height above the water.

Most intrusive view is probably from Northumberland Street in Dingle where part of the view of the river will be obstructed by the full width of the tower. It can, however, be argued that the houses in this street face north south and few have a view of the river.

Another questionable view is from the Mersey promenade opposite the Harbourside Club. Although the only view available is a photograph of the tethered balloon, it is possible that the tower will look extremely dominant over the five storey buildings below.

The developer was criticised for not providing views of the tower from certain other locations. Although the renderings provided were quite comprehensive, it was notable that there was no view from the Rock Ferry Esplanade where, from certain locations, the tower will probably obscure the view of the Anglican Cathedral. However, again this is a very long distance view of two buildings that are very far apart, so the view should only be obstructed over a very short length of the promenade. A view from Grafton Street should also have been provided.

Other likely effects on the environment will be traffic impact at the junction by the former Harry Ramsdens. The Environmental Impact Assessment for the building predict an increase of only 1.8% on traffic flows along Sefton Street arising from the tower and a noise increase of 0.1 dB. This does sound small and it may pay to do some further research here.

At present, all traffic flows from the Brunswick Business Park are directed onto the roundabout at Harry Ramsdens. The tower is unlikely to affect this as there is no through route for vehicles onto South Ferry Quay. Delivery lorries will have a loading bay on the south side of the site. From the plans, it seems that the existing security fence that separates the Business Park from the riverside promenade and South Ferry Island will remain so it is very unlikely that tower residents would want to park cars in South Ferry Quay due to the locked gate separating the two areas. No doubt people living in South Ferry Island will want access to the tower for its shops, bars, restaurants and public space.

Looks like the scheme that will be taken to appeal will be the later one with a reduced number of apartments (414) and about 25,000 ft2 of office space. I had a look at the planning application last year (the original one) and wrote this summary mainly for local residents

Both applications are going to be taken to appeal according to the Drivers Jonas site. http://www.driversjonas.com/showpage.aspx?doc=14871

Very thorough summary, did you distribute it? :)

Both applications are going to be taken to appeal according to the Drivers Jonas site. http://www.driversjonas.com/showpage.aspx?doc=14871

Very thorough summary, did you distribute it? :)

I did but I haven't had any response yet. Actually my decision to write this was a reaction to the Federation of Liverpool Waterfront Residents Association trying to coordinate an objection. However, I didn't want to write something in support of the tower, just an objective description and assessment of the likely impacts. I might have got a more positive response if I had used terms such as 'monstrous carbuncle' and 'greedy developers'.

The Drivers Jonas submission is very interesting. I don't understand why they are taking both applications to the inquiry unless they are hopeful that the first will be passed and they will make more of a return on the apartment sales.

interesting. I don't understand why they are taking both applications to the inquiry unless they are hopeful that the first will be passed and they will make more of a return on the apartment sales.

Yeah, most likely.

An update:

The possible 6 month delay due to the the notice to leave being served illegally has turned out to be a blind alley. On closer inspection of the contracts Maro have acted legally in arbritarily closing the Business Centre on 12th April.

All of you who want the Business Centre turned into yet more yuppie flats are one step closer to having your dreams realised.

All tenants of the Business Centre are likely to be out by mid May. Most have gone already. All without a sniff of the compensation offered by Maro. Maro have refused point blank to talk to tenants throughout and those who have left are now looking forward to battling in the courts to get anything.

The whole saga stinks. Maro have consistently bullshitted everyone since they bought the building.

If I for one second believed that the planned scraper would get built then I would be more supportive but I will eat my own face if this tower gets built. What we will get is more dubious quality mid-rise apartments built on the cheap to sell in our inflated property market.

All at the expense of a building full of small businesses that were serving a genuinely productive role in creating JOBS and WEALTH in Liverpool.

Without jobs and wealth you will end up with a lot of empty yuppie flats in a few years time..

People are so dam shortsighted!

An update:

The possible 6 month delay due to the the notice to leave being served illegally has turned out to be a blind alley. On closer inspection of the contracts Maro have acted legally in arbritarily closing the Business Centre on 12th April.

All of you who want the Business Centre turned into yet more yuppie flats are one step closer to having your dreams realised.

All tenants of the Business Centre are likely to be out by mid May. Most have gone already. All without a sniff of the compensation offered by Maro. Maro have refused point blank to talk to tenants throughout and those who have left are now looking forward to battling in the courts to get anything.

The whole saga stinks. Maro have consistently bullshitted everyone since they bought the building.

If I for one second believed that the planned scraper would get built then I would be more supportive but I will eat my own face if this tower gets built. What we will get is more dubious quality mid-rise apartments built on the cheap to sell in our inflated property market.

All at the expense of a building full of small businesses that were serving a genuinely productive role in creating JOBS and WEALTH in Liverpool.

Without jobs and wealth you will end up with a lot of empty yuppie flats in a few years time..

People are so dam shortsighted!

Nice to see you're concerned about us.

hmm.. theres plenty of business parks being built in the outskirts of the city and bringing in much needed regeneration to those areas, a fairly large part of this proposed complex is commercial office space, liverpool has been certainly lacking quality office spcae in recent years. i dont think the developer would be taking this to a public enquirey if they werent 100% commited to this scheme. it simply would be far too expensive an option to do that if they where going to change their minds about it

I know of one of the businesse's that sells computer parts used to occupy/rent space in the Brunswick building, they have moved about 150m into an adjacent dock warehouse. If they are able to move of their own accord then the others must be entreprenurial enough to do the same. There are plenty of small business/trading estates and areas within the city.

I agree Maro should work with these businesses to find a solution, but they shouldn't be allowed to scupper a massive investment into the city centre. Using the term "Yuppies", as a sort of insult or idea that these people will not be good for us is a bit well worn also, considering that the current business occupiers of Brunswick could be considered as "well off yuppies", who may not even live in Liverpool...!

There is a picture in todays DP of the proposed Brunswick Tower with a caption "Property sector fights back against red tape." Will have to wait until wednesdays DP though to see what its about, its just advertising the business week page!!

There is a picture in todays DP of the proposed Brunswick Tower with a caption "Property sector fights back against red tape." Will have to wait until wednesdays DP though to see what its about, its just advertising the business week page!!

I hope this is built to the highest it can be. It will bring life to the South End Docks and prompt residential/leisure developments in Toxteth and Harrington Docks which I would hope would mean excavating the docks re-instating the waterways.

I wish the developers all the luck in the world.

Exactly i dont think that this building will be totally isolated, as southern development is strong down the docks, (kings dock, herc' quay building, sefton street, and brunswick) would be a massive expansion to the skyline.

I hope this is built to the highest it can be. It will bring life to the South End Docks and prompt residential/leisure developments in Toxteth and Harrington Docks which I would hope would mean excavating the docks re-instating the waterways.

I wish the developers all the luck in the world.

Oh my god I'm agreeing with John M-K! :runaway:

Actually the plan is to build it to 51 storeys which is not the highest the developer wanted to go but the highest permitted without infringing the Obstacle Limitation Surface for John Lennon Airport.

I think this is a totally appropriate development and one that would go a long way to restoring the scale of the docks which were, after all, designed for large ships.

On that theme, when the shipbuilding industry in Malmo was closed down, it meant demolishing a large shipyard crane which had been a landmark for the city. Instead of preserving a redundant crane, they got Santiago Calatrava to build this building - the Turning Torso - one of the tallest residential buildings in Europe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Malmo-TurningTorso2005August15.jpg/150px-Malmo-TurningTorso2005August15.jpg

This is what we should be doing. By all means re-excavate Toxteth and Harrington Docks but not just for the sake of it. Many people work in the Brunswick Business Park, which could not function if the docks were reopened.

If the docks were to be excavated, it needs to be for a development that will be on a scale and employment potential that justifies the inevitable loss of jobs.

Exactly i dont think that this building will be totally isolated, as southern development is strong down the docks, (kings dock, herc' quay building, sefton street, and brunswick) would be a massive expansion to the skyline.

It will vitalise that area bringing much needed life, and encourage Toxteth and Harrington to be excavated and re-instated as docks with prime developmets around them. It may even work inland. Many of the ticky-tacky council houses could be purchased and prime developments built.

Oh my god I'm agreeing with John M-K! :runaway:


This is encouraging, this is progress.


Actually the plan is to build it to 51 storeys which is not the highest the developer wanted to go but the highest permitted without infringing the Obstacle Limitation Surface for John Lennon Airport.

I think this is a totally appropriate development and one that would go a long way to restoring the scale of the docks which were, after all, designed for large ships.

On that theme, when the shipbuilding industry in Malmo was closed down, it meant demolishing a large shipyard crane which had been a landmark for the city. Instead of preserving a redundant crane, they got Santiago Calatrava to build this building - the Turning Torso - one of the tallest residential buildings in Europe:


Good move.


This is what we should be doing. By all means re-excavate Toxteth and Harrington Docks but not just for the sake of it. Many people work in the Brunswick Business Park, which could not function if the docks were reopened.


Move industry out of the docks. The waterways should be a centre of life for the city. The core of activity. There is an abundance of land available in other parts of the city for small business units. The dock waterways are not their place in the regeneration of the city.


If the docks were to be excavated, it needs to be for a development that will be on a scale and employment potential that justifies the inevitable loss of jobs.


Just move the small businesses out. Replace with waterway bound top quality developments that vitalise the area.

ticky-tacky.

Christ, haven't heard that for a while. My dad would sing it when I was a kid.

Little Boxes

by Malvina Reynolds

Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses all went to the university
Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and there's lawyers, and business executives
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

Christ, haven't heard that for a while. My dad would sing it when I was a kid.


Thank you for your solid contribution to this thread.

:runaway:

...and I was really enjoying reading this thread :bash:

Sorry, Kev. If I've upset a nice bloke like you, I must have been out of order. I'll delete.

So Brunswick Dock, when is the appeal?

Sorry, Kev. If I've upset a nice bloke like you, I must have been out of order. I'll delete.

So Brunswick Dock, when is the appeal?


No offense taken and yes, I am nice :cheers: :runaway:

So what would of been the height if not for the airport then?

So what would of been the height if not for the airport then?

The BQT is to be flanked by two ten storey blocks which are quite large. I think it was the developer's original intention to incorporate all the apartment's in them into one tower. How high that would be, I don't know but it might be as tall as Simpson's 60+ storey proposal for London's South Bank.

Would of been really cool. So hopefully it will get PP and will look amazing, and should be seen from most parts of Toxy

There is a painting by Alex Corrina being displayed at 3345 parr St that has a load of ships up ended to signify the city's maritime commerce... looks good, all those really big ships reaching far higher into the sky than our rather stumpy buildings, and also using that analogy helps to highlight what tall buildings are about.. they are about doing the same things we pride ourselves in as a commercial city!


Anybody got a pic?

Actually the plan is to build it to 51 storeys which is not the highest the developer wanted to go but the highest permitted without infringing the Obstacle Limitation Surface for John Lennon Airport.

I:

[.



Martin,
Is this height restriction for all of the city or just because of the close proximity to the Airport?
I must admit I hadn't heard about it before.

I think its just because of the close proximity to the airport.

So whats the latest on Liverpools tallest skyscraper, and one of the biggest in Britain.. Is th plan going ahead? It would be fantastic, we have other skyscrapers belting up in the city, was thinking the other day how amazing it will look, the cluster of over 40-50 floor towers and dotted out other ones like lime st, grand centeral, central station, vermont tower, the psda towers, kings towers, and the others that are going up.. The cluster is going to be great, our city was designed well for the skyscraper effect, imagine on a late sunday evening in summer, when its setting, and the orange fills the city, belting against every tall tower, reflecting its glass, visable from our massive cathederal or in everton views. No other city will beat it ever, and the skyline.

Brunswick will stand out becuase of its shape and look..

Our city is massive and this will throw us even bigger and further if done.

Martin,
Is this height restriction for all of the city or just because of the close proximity to the Airport?
I must admit I hadn't heard about it before.

As I understand it, every airport is surrounded by an imaginary saucer shaped 'Obstacle Limitation Surface' which dictates how high a building can go. This is imposed by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority). The further from the airport, the higher a building can be built, so taller buildings should be acceptable, say in Central Docks.

I remember there was a lot of fuss in Birmingham about this some years ago as it restricted the height of the proposed Arena Central Tower.

Don't some cities actually have a cap on the height of their buildings because of airports, I think Singapore and Perth (Oz) fall under that catagory?

i wouldnt build your hopes up with this project. it is much the same as the proposed super tower on the king edward pub site in that it will never happen in our lifetime. sad but true. :bash:

All we can do is to see how the public inquiry turns out. If the inquiry comes out in favour of the tower (and I accept it is a big 'if'), then the chances we will see the tower within the next five years become much stronger.

After all, the 40 storey West Tower is now well underway and a tower of that height would have seemed very ambitious only a few years ago.

It has been announced that the public inquiry for the Brunswick Quay tower is to start on Tuesday 6th June @ 10:00am, at the Local Solutions, Northern Conference Centre, Mount Vernon Green, Hall Lane, Liverpool. The inquiry is scheduled to last 16 days and members of the public may attend and at the discretion of the inspector express their views.

I will attend this inquiry as much as possible and to that end have already booked a days leave to be there on the first day. At 16 days this sounds like a very different event to the Chieftain inquiry but I think we learned valuable lessons there ie. we need better preparation of any evidence that we may want to bring before the planning inspector.

I think this is the most important single new build project in Liverpool since the the Metropolitan Cathedral for a number of reasons and again let's not forget that Lady D. backed this plan only to be narrowly out voted by her own Lib-Dem colleagues.

What seems odd about this inquiry is that both plans that Maro have submitted are up for consideration.

In another article in todays DP Chris Ives Maro CEO, said "they gave us 3 reasons for turning us down. They said the site was allocated to employment use, that our plan conflicted with HRMI and that they felt the location was inappropriate for a tall building. We have always felt the city council did not like our scheme for other reasons: that it would conflict with the Kings Waterfront. We believe that the market should be allowed to decide where to build. There may well turn out to be a surplus of houses and apartments in Liverpool, but if that is so the prices will come down and they will sell. That's the way markets work. We have a strong case but we won't count our chickens yet."


"It doesn't conflict with the employment issue as there will be a net gain in the number of jobs at the site. It is a mixed use development that includes commercial space. Nor is there any problem with being a tall building as both English Heritage and CABE have looked at it . We have addressed all the issues they raised and we now have letters of support from both of them"

Very significant this.

If this gets the positive decision (in terms of Maro), the knock on will be developers assesing their own ideas and plans from the south docks right up to Central Docks.

Totally agree, BQT will redefine Liverpool city centre, it's skyline, it's aspiration. If it gets the green light it may encourage other developers to look beyond the confines of what is now the accepted limit of downtown.

The significance can't be played down. A green light in time for 2008 and the statement of confidence that a building site 2 miles or so from the Pier Head will eventually be home to a real 'iconic' 'world class' building, a building supporting jobs, services and homes would be massive.

Fingers Crossed :)

Absolutely.

Fingers crossed - I`m in a total tangle :cheers:

Absolutely.

Fingers crossed - I`m in a total tangle :cheers:

Oi! Only your fingers crossed I hope :runaway: :) http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/images/smilies/PDT_Aliboronz_24.gif

This project needs approval, with the regeneration thats happening all over, you start seeing te potential in these areas doncha?

We are so lucky, regeneration is starting to spread, lets take it by the horns!!!!!!!!

yeah fingers crossed. perhaps miracles do happen afterall. what i dont want to see though is another central station development fiasco where a potential spectacular 40 floor tower is modified to say a 25 and a 20 tower (congealed in the centre!). that would really finish me off! :bash:

if this gets built i will eat my own hat... would love to eat my hat though

if this gets built i will eat my own hat... would love to eat my hat though
Yer..It's probably a Pork Pie hat you have got. :)

Or one of these French Berry's.

I'll eat my Marshmellow Shoes if this gets built. :runaway:

i will gladly eat a huge slice of humble pie :cheers:

I'm writing to the inspector asking if there is a day on which I would be likely to get an opportunity to speak. I might be the only local resident prepared to speak in favour of the tower so I'm keen to have a go.

The comment by the planner in yesterday's LDP was a classic. Referring to the successful Illiad appeal against height restrictions on Elysian Fields, he said 'It was not a big deal. It is not a major blow to world heritage status'.

So why the hell were they spending council tax payer's money trying to stop it?

Tony has highlighted that on the Downtown website, it shows the attitudes we are up against.

Good luck Martin.

I wish the planners would start to get things right, not just in terms of economics, ideology and urbanity but legally. How many times have they made a mistake then spent months, years and hundreds of thousands of £s fighting a losing battle?

Well if thats the case, they can be acted upon and steps taken. Also how do you get on to the planning committee, as I wanna be on it!

Lady Doreen wants this one. What Lady Doreen wants, she gets ... eventually.

^^Etiquette requires that she is addressed as "Lady Jones", Liverpool8.

^^Etiquette requires that she is addressed as "Lady Jones", Liverpool8.


Sounds a bit B & Lady D to me. ;)

Or Lady DJ!

Or Lady DJ!


Can anyone post a pic of the beauty?

(The lady not the tower)

I'd love to see her right here where she belongs.

Camera shy perhaps? :tyty:

Not photogenic? :crazy2:

Here she is:

http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/img_200/champ.jpg

Here she is:

http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/img_200/champ.jpg


:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
;)

It maybe useful to remind ourselves that when BQT was rejected in August last year this is how the voting went:

In favour; Lady Doreen Jones, Dave Hanratty, Violette Bebb, John McIntyre

Against; Peter Allen, Elaine Allen, Joan Lang, Dave Antrobus, Jean Seddon, Steve Hurst (all Lib-Dem)


Of the 6 that voted against Brunswick Quay, Peter & Elaine Allen are husband and wife. That means that 20% of the planning committee came from the same house and 33% of those voting against, came from the same house!! of course they voted independently!!

Peter Allen retained his seat in the St. Michaels ward at last Thursday's local election.

It maybe useful to remind ourselves that when BQT was rejected in August last year this is how the voting went:

In favour; Lady Doreen Jones, Dave Hanratty, Violette Bebb, John McIntyre

Against; Peter Allen, Elaine Allen, Joan Lang, Dave Antrobus, Jean Seddon, Steve Hurst (all Lib-Dem)


Of the 6 that voted against Brunswick Quay, Peter & Elaine Allen are husband and wife. That means that 20% of the planning committee came from the same house and 33% of those voting against, came from the same house!! of course they voted independently!!

Peter Allen retained his seat in the St. Michaels ward at last Thursday's local election.


Booooo Hissssss - that does sound very much like a stich up doesn`t it! :bash:

whats happened to this project? is it still in planning?

Mr and Mrs Allen should not be allowed, its biast and not in the interests of Liverpool

This project has to go ahead before the end of the current market cycle to have any tangible regeneration benefits to that end of town. Any individual who sites that it may jeopardise world heritage status as a legitimate ground for not allowing this development is quite simply an idiot. Revenues brought in by world heritage status are nominal and do not benefit Liverpool in the way that this kind of mixed use scheme can. Are such individuals also turn away Peel Holdings' £5.6BN regeneration scheme for unused Mersey Docks & Harbour land solely because it maximizes land value by building up? Would world heritage status be preferred to an economically viable city world class city? Perhaps these individuals would like to repay the EU for their objective one funding out of their own pockets, as the city they wish to create will clearly be unable to.

Great first post:), i dont tihnk its impact on the WHS is an objection it is to do with it not having enough of this and too much of that, this has been ammended though so bite your nails until november 16 is it??

This project has to go ahead before the end of the current market cycle to have any tangible regeneration benefits to that end of town. Any individual who sites that it may jeopardise world heritage status as a legitimate ground for not allowing this development is quite simply an idiot.

It is outside the WHS zone and the buffer zone. See:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
Go to Menu and page Brunswick Quay.

Liverpool docks buffer zone don't count, it does not fill in any docks so there is no reason it should be rejected again

Brunswick Quay won't fill in any docks (shame) but it will be a major change of use in an area designated as part of a business park. The Small Business Centre employed some 200 people but these have now been relocated and the building appears empty.

There have been many arguments raised against it. The effect on the housing market in Dingle has been one, the impact on residential properties in the immediate area another.

I don't think that the impact on WHS has ever been a serious objection. As City on the Water says, it is outside of the buffer zone. All the same, someone on this forum sent an e-mail to Mike Storey about this last year and got the reply that this building would ruin the World Heritage Site.

Brunswick Quay won't fill in any docks (shame)


That is a shame and no choo, choo trains on it either. Why don't you go an live in one of those place with no water like Leicester, if you hate water so much.


but it will be a major change of use in an area designated as part of a business park. The Small Business Centre employed some 200 people but these have now been relocated and the building appears empty.


That is good.


There have been many arguments raised against it. The effect on the housing market in Dingle has been one,


In working class Dingle? Nota chance.


the impact on residential properties in the immediate area another.


The tower raises the tone of the place as most of the hoems there are 3rd rate.


I don't think that the impact on WHS has ever been a serious objection. As City on the Water says, it is outside of the buffer zone. All the same, someone on this forum sent an e-mail to Mike Storey about this last year and got the reply that this building would ruin the World Heritage Site.

Mr Storey is a very silly man - that is clear. Also Maro were talking of excavating part or all of Toxteth Dock.

:okay: :wave: welcome to ssc steve7!

Just had a scroll through this thread but cannot find the date the outcome of the hearing is known. Westie suggested Nov 16th is this correct.
Doug might know ?

The Secretary of State will issue her decision on or before 16th November 2006.

Thanks Doug,
Fingers crossed!

Thanks Doug,
Fingers crossed!

and everything else:)

The Secretary of State will issue her decision on or before 16th November 2006.

It's a shame Prezzer still isn't in charge of planning matters. He seemed to have a fondness for these tall buildings.

This Ruth Kelly could be unpredictable :ohno: Although her decision will probably depend on the Planning Inspector appointed on her behalf.

Fingers crosed because this has to be the finest proposal outside of London.

Last June seems such a long time ago, I wonder why it takes such a long time on making a decision?? maybe to allow things to cool down?

Over the next couple of weeks we should put our bets on the table.

I think the objections will be overturned and planning permission granted, confidence level? 80% I know it's not too high but that's my call.

Over the next couple of weeks we should put our bets on the table.

I think the objections will be overturned and planning permission granted, confidence level? 80% I know it's not too high but that's my call.

Very Timid :ohno: ,Doug i`ll go 100% that this baby will rise:banana:

Yeah I know it is a bit on the low side but I don't feel able to post a higher mark than this, having said that remember the Maro brief, Christopher Katkowski QC is one of the best in the country with a long list of planning tribunals on his CV.

I can't believe people are so confident, im just not, i don't see any reasons for rejection but due to not hearing about it for such along time i just haven't thought about a 50 story scraper up that end, may they see sens and build it, and maybe even fill the dock and put a few 30 40 stories there;)

I can't believe people are so confident, im just not, )

Come On Westy,:ohno: you are afraid that your" little baby" will cease to be the tallest.:lol:

Woody i hope you are right mate

Ditto.

Ditto.



this would be real gem if it were to come to fruition.


When will we find out for definite!?

this would be real gem if it were to come to fruition.


When will we find out for definite!?

In about 2 weeks.

cheers ... i will be keeping my fingers and toes crossed on this one

I'm with Doug on this one, optomistic, but still somewhat cautious. Everything about the case itself suggests that it will win the appeal, from the quality of the design to the location, to the rediculous arguments about the usage of the site and business district targets etc... but, everything about our recent experience with LCC and planning decisions suggests that the buggers might just manage to somehow get their twisted little way again. Any other city and we'd already be cracking open the bubbly, but Liverpool, well, I've got a few tinnies in the fridge jsut in case!

I'm not so sure. The council have loosened up somewhat since the change in leadership, however, this seems to just too good to be acceptable to them. I'll remain pessimistic as that way, I can be pleasantly surprised if proved wrong.

Read it and weep boys and girls. If it was Manchester City Council i would rate the chances of it getting built (in its present form) at about 75% (even higher if it was in Salford - a Council that would have the balls to allow such a wonderful visionary tower to be built). But we are talking Liverpool City Council here for fuxsake! And with the negative albatross of English Heritage around its neck, objecting to just about any proposal, i would say the chance of it going head must be in about 1%.

If, however, you dont mind mind 2 * 20 towers being an acceptable watered down development (as seems the norm for compromised developments we ultimatly end up with here) then your very much in luck! :bash:

^^Liverpool City Council no longer have anything to do with this. It's been in a planning inquiry. The decision will be made by a planning inspector and ratified by the Department of Communities and Local Government.

^^Liverpool City Council no longer have anything to do with this. It's been in a planning inquiry. The decision will be made by a planning inspector and ratified by the Department of Communities and Local Government.

that gives me more heart but i will still be amazed, no make that flabber ghasted, if it is rubber stamped.

Can't we just wait and see what is going to happen here? Not long to go now. If the decision goes against the tower, lets just forget about it - there's plenty more going on in this city. If it goes ahead then great. It will be something to look forward to.

Judging by some of the comments above from people who are complaining about the decision before it is even made, they are planning on having a field day if the decision goes against the tower.

^^Liverpool City Council no longer have anything to do with this. It's been in a planning inquiry. The decision will be made by a planning inspector and ratified by the Department of Communities and Local Government.

Officially,yes but we all know how these things work, decisions are arrived at privately and released to the public after a decent time lapse.

Still have high hopes however that this will sneak through.
Can't quite explain the reason for thinking this but,ever the optomist...:cheers:

surely it will go up after the mann island decision?

surely it will go up after the mann island decision?

Lady D, did cast the winning vote for Mann Island, maybe she will bow out with all guns blazing , and back Plot 3A and New World Sq. in Princes Dock.

Lady D, did cast the winning vote for Mann Island, maybe she will bow out with all guns blazing , and back Plot 3A and New World Sq. in Princes Dock.

Now that's something to dream about,hope you're referring to the original New world square.

Now that's something to dream about,hope you're referring to the original New world square.

Yeah me too, the original proposal was superb, but the new one from the renders looks simply woeful.

Looking back this was the strangest council planning dept decision ever!!
I take it EH were not to bothered because of where it was located and cabe not overly concerned and yet it was refused.
The council's defence in the appeal if i remember reading from ( I think Doug's reports) was woeful and the feeling was that the present leader and chief exec quite keen so why we are in this position I have no idea.
If the appeal fails I think a planning application should be put back in (but maybe a little taller) and it would probably be approved the next day:lol:

Looking back this was the strangest council planning dept decision ever!!
I take it EH were not to bothered because of where it was located and cabe not overly concerned and yet it was refused.
The council's defence in the appeal if i remember reading from ( I think Doug's reports) was woeful and the feeling was that the present leader and chief exec quite keen so why we are in this position I have no idea.
If the appeal fails I think a planning application should be put back in (but maybe a little taller) and it would probably be approved the next day:lol:

Can you re-submit the same planning application for the same site if it's been rejected? I thought you could only appeal.. Either way, someone's going to build something big on this site or someone's going to get a slappin'. So there. :bash:

The thing to remember about the Brunswick Quay site is that it already has 2 planning applications submitted (and rejected) for it. I don't know what the legal position is for submitting a third scheme, so let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that we don't need to find out, inquiry decision next Thursday.

Not long to wait now then. This truly will be a landmark building if built, unlike the nice but ultimately nothing special stuff we currently have approved/under construction.

That's right, the totally amazing thing is any city in the world would love to have a development of this quality!! but not Liverpool. Maro are to be applauded that they have stayed in the game for this long considering the ludicrous objections raised against them, oh and also the amount of money its cost them up to now!!

Yep, you're got to give them credit for not cutting and running, though that would definately mean they'd have wasted time and money. I think Maro definately want this to happen and won't be put off.

not long now, i'm confident this will be accepted as i think that after moving the small businesses out the government or whoever make the final decision wont see the point in moving out all the small companies without actually building anything, well i hope so anyway.

http://www.marodev.co.uk/

Come on baby!

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4757/brunquayry4.jpg

I'm feeling a bit nervous about this, just thinking through the highs and lows of emotion depending on the result.


I hope the e-mail is sent out early or I will miss it when I leave for work, c'mon Maro!!!!!

what will happen if this is given to go ahead, will it be held up with people appealing against the decision??

Do you think Maro know the result already?



Sometimes the verdict is given to the developer early and if the decision is against them they will let things out of the bag in frustration.
So on that basis, no news is good news.

Fingers crossed on this.

Kung I don't know but there have been no leaks as far as I know, all very quiet.

The public inquiry was the place to voice opposition to the project, I'm not sure if a counter appeal is permissable at this stage?? The Edge Lane people did take their fight to the High Court but I can't see Liverpool CC going down that road in pursuit of Maro.

Sorry if Im being dumb. Just got back fromj a conference and havent had my office cuppa yet. Is it today?

The Secretary of State will issue her decision on or before 16th November 2006.

Aparently, hence the excitement/anticipation....... :crazy2: (why don't we have an emoticon biting it's nails when we need one?)

I'm sure decision day is tomorrow lads.

I'm sure decision day is tomorrow lads.

i thought that

Yep, tomorrow at the latest... fingers crossed that no news is good news.. but how will I sleep tonight? It's gonna be worse than Christmas eve!... :banana:

We await in anticipation. I refuse to work myself up this time though. I remember the reaction on this forum when it was originally knocked back along with West Tower. Dark days they were.

I'm not getting worked up either, i'm letting the little banana men do that for me.. :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana2: :banana2: :banana2:

Whats the name of the street that this will hopefully be on?

Whats the name of the street that this will hopefully be on?

It's on Brunswick dock.:)

Just tried to look it up on a map but couldn't see it!

Just tried to look it up on a map but couldn't see it!

It's not there...YET.:) :)

YET! mean the dock, wondered if it was on a road or something?

YET! mean the dock, wondered if it was on a road or something?

Brunswick Dock,off Sefton street.:cheers:

Ta

You need to be subscribed to read the whole article but it think the headline says it all!

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/news/news_article/?aid=55848&sid=49

If this gets through, hopefully the floodgates will open with regards to other proposals...

I really hope this is true. What's the date of the announcement?

You need to be subscribed to read the whole article but it think the headline says it all!

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/news/news_article/?aid=55848&sid=49

Cheers, Longybongy. That's the news we want to see! :banana:

I really hope this is true. What's the date of the announcement?


As i am aware, TODAY!! i have to sit in college all day not knowing what is going on, i wonder if i coud spare my curry and chips for one day and get into the IT room, where would ifind it (the news i mean)

Here is the whole article from AJPlus

The long-awaited outcome of the planning enquiry into Ian Simpson’s 51-storey Brunswick Quay tower in Liverpool is set to be revealed.

Sources close to developer Maro are growing increasingly confident that the £120 million scheme will be given the go-ahead by the government inspector – ending almost three years of speculation about its future.

The project’s backers will hear whether the contentious waterfront development will be allowed to go ahead early tomorrow (16 November).

Simpson’s skyscraper scheme was knocked backed twice by Liverpool City Council, even though the head of the city’s planning committee, Doreen Jones, had backed the scheme (Simpson turned down for the second time on Merseyside ).

The public enquiry was triggered by Maro’s appeal following the committee’s rejection of the first application in January last year. It is understood Maro is waiting to hear what the planning inspector says about the original scheme before deciding whether to launch an appeal in respect of the second, doomed application.

According to insiders, the developer may not have to go down that route which, if true, would delight Simpson, who has repeatedly voiced frustration at Liverpool’s sluggish planning system.

Wow, that sounds encouraging! I had no idea they had an option to appeal against the second planning application if this one fails -

I can see the planning committee dealing with the next application already...

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2677/burns2os9.gif"Simpson eh?..."

keep refreshing the page to see what happening, the suspense is drivin me mad!!

I know, same here, aint it annoying when someone's posted something but it isn't the announcement, ooh what a tease!

How are we actually going to hear about it? Where's the announcement going to be made?

i thought that when i posted, hey!! really not sure, looked on the developers web site but no clue on that either!!

It looks 99.9% now after reading that article.

what page do you lot keep refreshing

guys, can i give someone my mobile number so u can text me when every1 finds out, im going to london, and wont have access to the internet and it will really annoy me not knowing!

if anyone will do it for me, or give me ther mobile number so ican text them asking i would be very thankful!

guys, can i give someone my mobile number so u can text me when every1 finds out, im going to london, and wont have access to the internet and it will really annoy me not knowing!

if anyone will do it for me, or give me ther mobile number so ican text them asking i would be very thankful!

Would love to Dups but unfortunately I don't have a mobile.

Visiting the Planning Inspectorate website and getting their phone number might be a good idea. Although, the person you speak to won't know the outcome until the inspector involved logs it onto their system.

Otherwise, I'd give Maro a call becuase I'm sure they will be the first to have news to dish out.

Failing that, the local press will be the best bet. Altohugh they may not report it until tomorrow or the day after depending on how news worthy they consider it to be.

guys, can i give someone my mobile number so u can text me when every1 finds out, im going to london, and wont have access to the internet and it will really annoy me not knowing!

if anyone will do it for me, or give me ther mobile number so ican text them asking i would be very thankful!

Hey Dups, PM me your mobile no. and I'll try and let you know (assuming I hear before I leave work tonight)

Im out of the office all afternoon. if you still want me to send you something when i hear, PM me ur number and i'll see what i can do.

Not knowing is so bad, for all we know Maro could be holding a big party and we wouldn't even know, i can only find Maro's website, hehe im doing rise and fall contours in Land Surveying as we speak, gret view from the 5th story across liverpool, will bring a camera in one day.

thought that was the result then, been on line all day!!!

There's been nothing on the local news on telly has anyone had the local radio news on?

when will we know if the

RESULT = APPROVED

Or if the result = rejected?





:lol:

had you for a second eh?

HaHa

gah twiz you are evil :D

when will we know if the

RESULT = APPROVED

Or if the result = rejected?





:lol:

had you for a second eh?


You realise if this gets rejected you're gonna burn..... :evil:

lol I know :ohno:

Shouldn't we know by now?! Jeez, there must be an official place where it gets announced straight away.

if you cant stand the pain

tel: 0845 2254080- Maro Developments

if you cant stand the pain

tel: 0845 2254080- Maro Developments

Erm, are you implying you already have?... Oh god someone tell me something! :gaah:

I couldn't stand the pain (I'd be rubbish in an interogation) - so I rang the number and said I was ringing 'on behalf of The 21st Centaury Society' and did they know the outcome of the Brunswick Quay appeal - got myself all psyched up, but I think I was talking to a secretary because she told me they weren't expecting to hear the result until January/February?.. I said I was sure it was today and she said 'ooohh, riiiiight, I'll afta speak to da developmunt managa. Eees not in tuday.' I thanked her for her time and hung up before I started screaming obscenities down the phone and got myself arrested (because that's exactly what English Heritage were wanting me to do...)

So er... none the wiser, sorry lads, I tried!

Wow, 13 people reading this thread..... oh no! :doh:

are we sure its today then??

Thanks for trying though. God, JAn/Feb? what an anti-climax....

Here is the whole article from AJPlus

The long-awaited outcome of the planning enquiry into Ian Simpson’s 51-storey Brunswick Quay tower in Liverpool is set to be revealed.

Sources close to developer Maro are growing increasingly confident that the £120 million scheme will be given the go-ahead by the government inspector – ending almost three years of speculation about its future.

The project’s backers will hear whether the contentious waterfront development will be allowed to go ahead early tomorrow (16 November).

Simpson’s skyscraper scheme was knocked backed twice by Liverpool City Council, even though the head of the city’s planning committee, Doreen Jones, had backed the scheme (Simpson turned down for the second time on Merseyside ).

The public enquiry was triggered by Maro’s appeal following the committee’s rejection of the first application in January last year. It is understood Maro is waiting to hear what the planning inspector says about the original scheme before deciding whether to launch an appeal in respect of the second, doomed application.

According to insiders, the developer may not have to go down that route which, if true, would delight Simpson, who has repeatedly voiced frustration at Liverpool’s sluggish planning system.


That's from the recent article in Achitects Journal.... to be honest it didn't sound like the woman I spoke to had much of a clue...

Looks like we are going to be finding out tomorrow morning fellas

I am needing to know this decision now.

Have been searching all over the net and can only find the following link to a cancelled planning appeal earlier this year, but cant find the current one.

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.Brunswick (http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/Z4310/A/06/2006375&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.2.3477740)

Just accessed my e-mail and nothing yet in about BQT, disappointing, I thought the result would be publised by now but I will keep checking.

Just accessed my e-mail and nothing yet in about BQT, disappointing, I thought the result would be publised by now but I will keep checking.

apparently they are holding the news back so that the DP can break the newsin the morning.

or maybe not!

Buster you may well be right but if you read the post I've just put on the Cruise liner thread I think the Daily Post are a bunch of lazy bastards. The CLB is being built up the road in Canada Dock but it takes a national journal, Construction News, based God knows where, to report the story right under the noses of the DP. They need their arses kicking, as I say the lazy bastards!!!

Buster you may well be right but if you read the post I've just put on the Cruise liner thread I think the Daily Post are a bunch of lazy bastards. The CLB is being built up the road in Canada Dock but it takes a national journal, Construction News, based God knows where, to report the story right under the noses of the DP. They need their arses kicking, as I say the lazy bastards!!!

i just fear we may have got alittle too excited early on this. i hope not!

Just sent Maro an e-mail asking about the planning decision.

So will wait for any response....!

As an attendee of the public inquiry, I was included on the mailing list for the result announcement. This was done by the inquiry co-ordinator, the subsequent e-mail I recieved from her confirmed the announcement date as being today.

If they are holding off the e-mails to allow a big press splash for the announcement, then I'll be well pissed off, that was not the process discussed at the inquiry for the result announcement.

it better be good news after making us wait this long

2BH though i know a 51 story (53 if you count the 2 story top bit) is big for england but a big news splash isn't really needed, although maybe being 3rd time lucky it will make other developers push and push for success

Just sent Maro an e-mail asking about the planning decision.

So will wait for any response....!

I sent an email 3 days ago,as yet no reply.
It does indeed seem like they are holding back.

2BH though i know a 51 story (53 if you count the 2 story top bit) is big for england but a big news splash isn't really needed, although maybe being 3rd time lucky it will make other developers push and push for success

In normal circumstances you'd be right.
Don't forget however this is Liverpool and to get such a whopper approved is big BIG news.

Nothing in todays DP!! what going on

I have just spoken to someone from the legal department at LCC, they tell me the announcement has been delayed (being diplomatic!!) by the planning directorate in Bristol.

They are frantically trying to sort this out and I have been advised to check again with them after 11:30am, I hope they have the result then!!

great news, i will stop refreshing the page every minute till half eleven then!!

thanks again for sleuthing doug. sterling work once again.

Sorry chaps :(

From Architect's Journal:

Government Rejects Liverpool Tower in Shock Move

Ian Simpson’s 51-storey Brunswick Quay tower in Liverpool has been turned down by Ruth Kelly – even though the planning inspector had recommended the scheme should be given the green light.

The shock decision by the communities minister could finally spell the end of a bumpy three-year journey for the contentious £120 million waterfront project.

Kelly, the MP for Bolton West, said she was not convinced by the planning inspector’s argument that the ‘excellent inherent’ architectural merit of the project outweighed other considerations, such as the conflict with the city’s development plan.

The ongoing tug-of-war between allowing new development in Liverpool and preserving the city’s historic environment was a contributing factor.

In her decision letter, released today, Kelly says: ‘[I] consider that the harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site, and to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas, weighs against the proposals.’

The letter goes on: ‘[I] consider that the proposals would be of a high quality, though [I do] not consider that the proposed buildings would be appropriate in this location.’

This was one of the most interesting towers in the UK. Maybe it can be built elsewhere in Liverpool?

I've just been advised that Maro have lost their appeal for BQT.

It seems the Inquiry Inspector upheld their appeal for the second scheme, but when it went to the minister she refused permission for both schemes.

I don't know where this leaves Maro but another unbelievable example of the crazy planning process in the country.

Extremly disappointing to say the least, although I personally was never wholly confident that Maro would win.

From AJ Plus:

Ian Simpson’s 51-storey Brunswick Quay tower in Liverpool has been turned down by Ruth Kelly – even though the planning inspector had recommended the scheme should be given the green light.

:bash: bloody hell

Piece of crap. :mad:

PROPER GUTTED!!!!!

It would be interesting to hear what Warren B makes of all this. I'm sure that this is the sort of development that he'd welcome. I don't know if he can have any influence over planning though?

If not, build the bastard on King Eddy's

liverpool will not be allowed to be any thing more than its history allowed it to be.

Well chaps, I'm sure we all know that this...

In her decision letter, released today, Kelly says: ‘[i] consider that the harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site, and to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas, weighs against the proposals.’

...is utter bullshit. Does Ruth Kelly actually have any idea about where this tower was supposed to be?

Clearly not.

It's a shame Prezzer still isn't in charge of planning matters. He seemed to have a fondness for these tall buildings.

This Ruth Kelly could be unpredictable :ohno: Although her decision will probably depend on the Planning Inspector appointed on her behalf.

Fingers crosed because this has to be the finest proposal outside of London.

I'd hoped when I posted this several weeks ago that I was just being paranoid, but it looks like this very stupid woman has turned out to be every bit as inept as I thuoght she would.

She has gone against the advice of people who are experts and professionals in the planning field, and I find it utterly disgraceful that this woman, who has no qualifications or background in the field of planning and architecture has been allowed to make such a massive decision based on such subjective criteria. It is disgraceful.

I might add that John Prescott would definitely have passed it. It's a sahme the inquiry wasn't a year earlier.

‘[i] consider that the harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site, and to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas, weighs against the proposals.’


Fuck me we really do live in a museum.

Tell me why some woman, elected to parliament by the people of Bolton, can use that 'excuse' to with hold REAL investment in the city.

This goes back to the old argument of the state wanting to keep the plebs down, they want to control and manage the economy. Liverpool is the wrong place for such development.

Makes me glad Birmingham is'nt a world heritage site.

What a shitter :(

That's the thing you see Sim. This tower, uniquely out of all the significant tower proposals that are currently under construction, is NOWHERE NEAR the World Heritage site.

Shitter indeed.

Ruth Kelly looks like a mid-op transexual

is this the end? or are any other avenues available to down?

The heritage issue shouldn't really have featured as the tower is miles from it. It would look smaller from the Pier Head than Unity or West Tower. The fact that the proposal went against the development plan is an issue, but even so, the qualified and experienced Inspector who dealt with this appeal would have been well aware of these issues and still decided to support it.

Maro will have had every right to think they were on to a winner once they had had the support of the Inspector. As far as Kelly goes, this was all about being able to exercise power, and very little to do with planning matters. These are the downsides to democracy I'm afraid.

Very sad news. I know people are disappointed, but I don't think it's helpful to personally abuse a Minister who has made a decision we disagree with. It would be interesting to know what advice and representations she received on this issue, given the statement about WHS, as it looks as though it may not have been very good advice.

Anyway, I think this is now the last straw, and it is necessary for the city to discard WHS status more or less immediately. If it's going to hinder redevelopment of areas as far away as Brunswick Dock, then that is a luxury the city and in fact the country cannot afford. Liverpool has a major role to play in building overall economic growth for the wider region and country, and it cannot fulfill that role if development is absurdly stifled in this doctrinaire fashion.

This has to stop. Please everyone, go to the 21st Century Society thread, and very quickly fill in the 5 questions - I will then summarise it all, and hopefully we'll have clear aims for a society, and can quickly get to work on a press notice about this issue.

What does WHS do for Liverpool anyway?

Very sad news. I know people are disappointed, but I don't think it's helpful to personally abuse a Minister who has made a decision we disagree with. It would be interesting to know what advice and representations she received on this issue, given the statement about WHS, as it looks as though it may not have been very good advice.

.

I think you will find that the Planning Inspectorate was created with the express purpose of advising the Secretary of State on planning matters. In this instance the minister has ignorred the advice of her Inspector to the huge detriment of the city of Liverpool.

Up to now, fuck all from my perspective.

From AJ Plus:

Ian Simpson’s 51-storey Brunswick Quay tower in Liverpool has been turned down by Ruth Kelly – even though the planning inspector had recommended the scheme should be given the green light.

just got up to check this (5.46am here)

Put a real damper on the whole day

pissed off big time.

My dad was at a conference which this cow attended last week, if i was at that conference and it was this next week be sure although im 16 i would give her a nasty piece of my mind, i would face diciplinary action just to tell that bitch what i think of her

Just don't know what to say... :(

She wonders why she gets egged...

Pile of shite cheer up everyone it wont change anything.

I'm really gutted about this one for Liverpool. I've been waiting weeks hoping that this one would get approved. Then this silly cow goes and rejects it. How the hell are cities like Liverpool ever supposed to progress and get wealthier when they are constantly held back by history. I wish somebody would bomb the Liver builidng and the like just so Liverpool could actually move with the times. This building would have surpassed anything else in the city both in terms of height and quality.

Email Contactus@communities.gsi.gov.uk to rant. Certainly made me feel better.

The real issue here is LCC planning dept and planning committee.Maro were refused planning permission by LCC,not because of WHS but because Brunswick dock was not in a residential zone in the Unitary development plan and because it might impact on housing renewal areas.LCC planning dept and especially the planning manager,Nigel Lee,doggedly refused to accept that this development was of such merit that it should allowed to proceed and that a truly world class building and muti million pound investment was of sufficient import to merit a change to the UDP. The planning dept,the planning committee have been proved wrong and have ultimately cost this city millions in lost investment,the planning inspectorate have said this development should've gone ahead at the planning stage,which would've prevented the intervention of the Secretary of State. There are now very serious questions to be asked about the competency of LCC planning dept and it's recommendations.

Ruth Kelly looks like a mid-op transexual

:lol:

But it really is sad that the city is being ravaged by poor decisions from people who know nothing.

all i can say is am am on a p2p comuter because the email i sent to her is not worth the tracking of my IP, i am that angry at her

kellyr@parliament.uk

Enjoy

As far as I am aware no announcement has been made locally. All this reaction is based on a storyline in AJ (which also claims that Lpool is favourite for the rainforest project, and it will be located on the festival site). How reliable is this journal? What is its reputation for accuracy?

Maro have also stated it

Its possible that Maro/Simpson will appeal.

I think you will find that the Planning Inspectorate was created with the express purpose of advising the Secretary of State on planning matters. In this instance the minister has ignorred the advice of her Inspector to the huge detriment of the city of Liverpool.

Yes, but Ministers also receive other advice, including political and general policy advice. Her Dept have only just published a White Paper on Local Government, the thrust of which is to entrust greater responsibility with local authorities. It might, therefore, appear counter-intuitive for Kelly to go against the wishes of the democratically elected planning committee of Liverpool and its specialist planning officers. Instead of blaming the Government, let's look at those who elect councillors in Liverpool who are anti-development. The real problem starts and stops there. It is those who vote - and don't vote - in Liverpool City Council elections who decide if the city will regenerate into a wealthy city or stagnate into a low-wage Museum town. The Government can arbitrate, but if the city itself wanted this development it would be built by now.

Its possible that Maro/Simpson will appeal.

Don't they have to go to court next, if they want to take it further? And need grounds for that appeal over and above simply not liking the Secretary of State's decision? I do wonder the extent to which this decision is based upon a sound and well-informed judgement, as the WHS reference - at least on the surface - appears to lacks rationality.

Only just discovered this news and am absolutely bewildered at the decision.
As Poli says above,the real culprits here are the planning people in Liverpool who turned this down originally.
They should be shot at dawn,the whole stinking lot of them.

Yes, but Ministers also receive other advice, including political and general policy advice. Her Dept have only just published a White Paper on Local Government.. .

Well the Minister is supposed to follow the planning advice given her by the Planning Inspectorate, which incidentally, is maintained at huge expense to the taxpayer for the express purpose of adivising the secretary of state.

Of course, the Minister is entitled to ignore the Inspector's advice, but that is when we start to move away from planning reasons for making a decision, which is exactly what this decision should have been based on.

Never mind what other people might tell her, or what she thinks she ought to be seen to be doing. She holds one of the highest posts in the land for christ's sake, she is supposed to have at least some balls (metaphorically speaking of course), not be some mamby pamby, mindless fool.

This decision, her decision, has led to the loss of jobs and homes and a marvelous building to a city of people. This decision will affect real lives, and i'm afraid it doesn't endear me to the Minister to know that political expediency has influenced what is supposed to be a planning decision. She is a waste of space, and I for one am tired of these fools, who lack the proper skills and knowledge, having the power to decide on such matters.

The same goes for the mindless fools who operate locally. It is the same through out the country.

Don't they have to go to court next, if they want to take it further? And need grounds for that appeal over and above simply not liking the Secretary of State's decision? I do wonder the extent to which this decision is based upon a sound and well-informed judgement, as the WHS reference - at least on the surface - appears to lacks rationality.

There's plenty of schemes that get refused, called in, get refused... and then get approved. If Maro can afford to knock a few floors off then they may re-submit, or they may fight. It's a money game for them... Simpson's fees may depend on whether or not it gets planning so they might continue to support it... its been going on a while already though hasn't it....