SkyscraperCity Forum banner

London Road Fire Station | Refurb

425K views 2K replies 260 participants last post by  flange 
#1 ·
Went inside the the courtyard today! The two images I took show the appalling state of this fantastic building! The outside looks bad, but the inside is even worse! The current owners should be ashamed of themselves!

That is disgraceful!

London Road Fire Station, Manchester
London Road, Central Manchester.
Designed and built by Woodhouse, Willoughby & Langham from 1904-1906 this fine Grade II listed building was headquarters of the Manchester City Fire Brigade for the first half of the 20th century. It also housed a police station and a coroner's court, the latter still being in operation.
This exuberant buff, terracotta and red brick building occupies a triangular plot and is located opposite Piccadilly Railway Station. The central courtyard includes a series of balconies, whose tenements were once home to 40 firemen, and a training tower. By any measure it was a well equipped and sumptuous complex, with its own library, stables, bank and gymnasium.
A fine baroque building, which presently is under utilised and awaiting a major cleaning and refurbishment. It was in continued occupation until the late 1980s, but its future is presently unknown, despite several plans to convert the building to another function, including one abortive plan to make it into a hotel.
Taken today!







 
See less See more
4
#695 ·
How did I know any response from Eric Pickles would be thus? Literally came five minutes ago. But, I have the full reports which I will post the URL for in the next post.

Possibly I am over interpreting this but this letter says "the Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction and cannot reconsider these matters". I wonder if that also means he could not chair another CPO? (I so hooray)!

Dear Mr Prince

CITY OF MANCHESTER (FORMER LONDON ROAD FIRE STATION) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2010

Thank you for your e-mail to the Secretary of State about his decision not to confirm the above order. The reasons for that decision are set out in his letter of 28 November 2011.

On the matter of the inquiry costs, the Secretary of State's reasons for his decision to award costs in favour of Britannia are set out in his letter of 10 December 2012.
Having given his decisions not to confirm the compulsory purchase order and to award costs in favour of the objector, the Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction and cannot reconsider these matters.

It would, therefore, not be appropriate for us to enter into further correspondence.
I attach for your information, both decision letters referred to above, together with a copy of the Inspector's Report.

Yours sincerely

Robert Putnam

Planning Casework
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 1/H1, Eland House, Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU
Tel 0303 44 44398
 
#697 ·
Possibly I am over interpreting this but this letter says "the Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction and cannot reconsider these matters". I wonder if that also means he could not chair another CPO? (I so hooray)!
I wouldn't get your hopes up yet. I read that as meaning he has a statutory role in considering the CPO and can't do anything more about that CPO decision once it is made.

If he wants to intervene in a future CPO then I don't see that prohibits him from doing so as it will, in law, be a different application. But others may know differently!
 
#696 ·
The first PDF essentially says the reason that Britannia were awarded 1.5 million, was that the refusal to develop and broken promises do not convince him that Britannia should be liable for the costs!!!!!!

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?xvcel9s36s2lhyj

The next is the 80 page CPO report. Will not be light reading!

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?xvcel9s36s2lhyj

The next is a letter that says why the CPO was rejected because it did not convince them that it was in the 'public interest'! This is why this petition has to become bigger and the public have to come forward and demand better in true protest.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?p574uigc16zv67x

Will be forwarding to journalists before I go out tonight, as this must be written about in the press especially in regard to the first letter, which gives the green light from Pickles for a company to go back on their word. Appalling.
 
#699 ·
That's not bias, that's the planning inspector making a delegated decision in the name of the SoS. The responsibility of the decision lies with the secretary of state - it's in his power to appoint someone else to consider cases on his behalf - that's just the process - you're reading bias into it where there is none.
 
#700 · (Edited)
Shocks me! I'm naive I think! I can't see its impartial at all.

What would stop Mr Pickles (or any other SofC&LG) expressing his/her bias and being 'good old pals' that will be prone to agree with whatever the SoC&LG says?

Read 10/12/12 letter for Pickles clear, 'I don't care' attitude re: costs! and clearly disregarding the evidence.

If this is "Good Practice" (cough, cough), then The Law is An Ass!
 
#703 ·
Let's Own It Ourselves!

Well done for resurrecting this issue Adam.

I wonder if there may be an opportunity here for a fresh approach with those of us that signed the petition taking the lead rather than cheering on the benevolent dictator, Sir HB.

FC United raised £1.6m from supporters in community shares towards the new stadium. At the time that they raised the money they did not know where the stadium would be and they did not own any land. However, the share issue helped them to secure further money and do the deal with MCC. These are community shares and so the governance is like a co-operative - one member, one vote and the shares are not to be traded on the open market. You can read more here:

http://www.communityshares.org.uk/

I am thinking that a solution for London Road Fire Station could be to establish a Community Development Trust with the intention of acquiring and developing the building for the benefit of the people of Manchester. This means that neither Britannia or Argent will get to build their hotel, but there are other things that the building could be used for and it was once mooted by MCC that it could become a cultural centre.

The Development Trust would seek funding from MCC and Heritage Lottery Fund to develop the building as well as putting public pressure on Britannia to sell it. If 500 or more people bought shares then they would own the Trust and have an equal say in what went on the site. There is more to it than that, but it is a fairly new concept. It might not be enough to persuade Britannia to sell, but it could be. There could also be an (un-connected, of course) campaign to boycott Britannia's other hotels in Manchester and to encourage visitors to do the same that might hurt their profits.

I read recently that in Hastings a Community Development Trust has received a grant of £11.4m from Heritage Lottery Fund to redevelop the historic pier. This is towards a total project cost of £13.8m of which some will be raised through donations and some through community shares - less than £0.5m.

There is such interest in this building and its fate in Manchester that it might be possible to do something like this. The problem up to now has been that this interest has been passive and those people that are concerned about it have felt powerless to do anything. The City Council tried to do what they could, but they failed. Perhaps it is time for another approach and for the people to act.

I think that other investors would come on board too, like the co-op group and gmpvf or rich people like Hucknall and Hook, but the crucial thing is that there is a community of interest that wants to do something and that can bid for funding such as Heritage Lottery and others. As I said earlier it still may not be enough to prise the building from Britannia, but then that is the case with all options now that the CPO has failed.

If you and some other people on here want to have a meeting with the Community Shares Team, I can introduce you. Could this virtual forum become the driver that leads to a physical development project in Manchester? Maybe we should be careful what we wish for!

Cheers G
 
#704 ·
Well done for resurrecting this issue Adam.

I wonder if there may be an opportunity here for a fresh approach with those of us that signed the petition taking the lead rather than cheering on the benevolent dictator, Sir HB.

FC United raised £1.6m from supporters in community shares towards the new stadium. At the time that they raised the money they did not know where the stadium would be and they did not own any land. However, the share issue helped them to secure further money and do the deal with MCC. These are community shares and so the governance is like a co-operative - one member, one vote and the shares are not to be traded on the open market. You can read more here:

http://www.communityshares.org.uk/

I am thinking that a solution for London Road Fire Station could be to establish a Community Development Trust with the intention of acquiring and developing the building for the benefit of the people of Manchester. This means that neither Britannia or Argent will get to build their hotel, but there are other things that the building could be used for and it was once mooted by MCC that it could become a cultural centre.

The Development Trust would seek funding from MCC and Heritage Lottery Fund to develop the building as well as putting public pressure on Britannia to sell it. If 500 or more people bought shares then they would own the Trust and have an equal say in what went on the site. There is more to it than that, but it is a fairly new concept. It might not be enough to persuade Britannia to sell, but it could be. There could also be an (un-connected, of course) campaign to boycott Britannia's other hotels in Manchester and to encourage visitors to do the same that might hurt their profits.

I read recently that in Hastings a Community Development Trust has received a grant of £11.4m from Heritage Lottery Fund to redevelop the historic pier. This is towards a total project cost of £13.8m of which some will be raised through donations and some through community shares - less than £0.5m.

There is such interest in this building and its fate in Manchester that it might be possible to do something like this. The problem up to now has been that this interest has been passive and those people that are concerned about it have felt powerless to do anything. The City Council tried to do what they could, but they failed. Perhaps it is time for another approach and for the people to act.

I think that other investors would come on board too, like the co-op group and gmpvf or rich people like Hucknall and Hook, but the crucial thing is that there is a community of interest that wants to do something and that can bid for funding such as Heritage Lottery and others. As I said earlier it still may not be enough to prise the building from Britannia, but then that is the case with all options now that the CPO has failed.

If you and some other people on here want to have a meeting with the Community Shares Team, I can introduce you. Could this virtual forum become the driver that leads to a physical development project in Manchester? Maybe we should be careful what we wish for!

Cheers G
Excellent idea, even if it fails, it would still create vast amounts of publicity for the cause, and create lots of bad publicity for Langsam and his dire hotels, which might just scare him into action.
 
#705 · (Edited)
Well done for resurrecting this issue Adam.

I wonder if there may be an opportunity here for a fresh approach with those of us that signed the petition taking the lead rather than cheering on the benevolent dictator, Sir HB.

FC United raised £1.6m from supporters in community shares towards the new stadium. At the time that they raised the money they did not know where the stadium would be and they did not own any land. However, the share issue helped them to secure further money and do the deal with MCC. These are community shares and so the governance is like a co-operative - one member, one vote and the shares are not to be traded on the open market. You can read more here:

http://www.communityshares.org.uk/

I am thinking that a solution for London Road Fire Station could be to establish a Community Development Trust with the intention of acquiring and developing the building for the benefit of the people of Manchester. This means that neither Britannia or Argent will get to build their hotel, but there are other things that the building could be used for and it was once mooted by MCC that it could become a cultural centre.

The Development Trust would seek funding from MCC and Heritage Lottery Fund to develop the building as well as putting public pressure on Britannia to sell it. If 500 or more people bought shares then they would own the Trust and have an equal say in what went on the site. There is more to it than that, but it is a fairly new concept. It might not be enough to persuade Britannia to sell, but it could be. There could also be an (un-connected, of course) campaign to boycott Britannia's other hotels in Manchester and to encourage visitors to do the same that might hurt their profits.

I read recently that in Hastings a Community Development Trust has received a grant of £11.4m from Heritage Lottery Fund to redevelop the historic pier. This is towards a total project cost of £13.8m of which some will be raised through donations and some through community shares - less than £0.5m.

There is such interest in this building and its fate in Manchester that it might be possible to do something like this. The problem up to now has been that this interest has been passive and those people that are concerned about it have felt powerless to do anything. The City Council tried to do what they could, but they failed. Perhaps it is time for another approach and for the people to act.

I think that other investors would come on board too, like the co-op group and gmpvf or rich people like Hucknall and Hook, but the crucial thing is that there is a community of interest that wants to do something and that can bid for funding such as Heritage Lottery and others. As I said earlier it still may not be enough to prise the building from Britannia, but then that is the case with all options now that the CPO has failed.

If you and some other people on here want to have a meeting with the Community Shares Team, I can introduce you. Could this virtual forum become the driver that leads to a physical development project in Manchester? Maybe we should be careful what we wish for!

Cheers G
A great idea! All I know is if the old way isn't working something fresh has to come along. The Manchester Mechanics has offered me premises beyond the 'big meeting' where I think MCC needs a few home truths and people certainly deserve to express their opinions. They would be great contacts for a Manchester group. Most Mancunians do hope for something better, something cultural, multi purpose venue above some shite Hotel or private dominated place. I know that this message needs to be very clear and steered beyond MCC's drive to immediacy and their bias. For once the Cities opinions needs to count and the public being ignored, patronized and overlooked has to stop. Yes it's an idealism but MCC are too guilty of this.

All starting in January again. I don't know what the interest will be... but... this bloody deserves lottery funding!

As for the dreadful Pickles I love this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/feb/12/eric-pickles-local-government-cuts Eric Pickles: Public enemy number one? "Could the coalition's "public chum number one" be becoming its public enemy number one"?

Best quote Pickles's mix of relentlessness and slipperiness: "He's a wily old fox. He plans out what he wants to achieve."

I am naively going to wade through this zenith of a leader and 'decision' making background! 80 pgs but doesn't copy text from this pdf!

Totally agree Manchester's High and Mighty attitude needs to truly embrace the public opinions and stop railroading and estranging a massive talent pool, true visions for the city and the sensibilities of the public deserving a great legacy rather than some knocked up BS by the 'Big Wigs'. Transparency from both sides is what we've needed and never got, especially seeing what the decision process 'is' and being clear that as the public we exist and have bloody good opinions too.

I am certainly not going to meet SHB and be like a fan club cheerleader. I wanted to uncover the passion and the best opinions Manchester has! I am not going to sit there and go whatever you think! We deserve better, just happens I am on the Councils side re: injustice of CPO, but certainly did not start a petition to be compliant small fry's in supporting 'whatever they decide'.

Meeting me only and yes I am naive is going to be no good if I meet them alone without a view to facilitating knowledge, opinions and professionalism that far exceeds mine! So going to demand it!

Throughout the CPO on first glance there's a lot of reference to there not being a sense of what would be good in terms of the public interest but then of-course, we were never asked! That's why we need to speak up.

Speak soon... train soon and off for Xmas. Enjoy all
 
#706 ·
In the christmas spirit... maybe a good use for this building after redevelopment would be a new home for the Salvation Army facilities that are due to be relocated from First Street. This potentially, provides guaranteed income over an extended period of time to justify the investment by all parties now. Having said that, I am sure that the Salvation Army will not want to get embroiled in the Britannia ownership issue.

This sort of social housing/hostel project could be a valid use of what was originally a housing complex for public sector workers - as well as their place of work. Happy holidays!
 
#715 ·
I think a big positive step would be to, somehow, slip this thread into the other UK City forums under the guise of fantastic British architecture/heritage at risk from the corporate money-making machine!

Perhaps a UK-wide version of this thread across all city forums would be a good idea:
I.e. "Buildings at risk in your city, which would you save?"

Then, next step; a combined petition for better management of cultural/heritage buildings that could potentially hit 100k signatures on that HM Govt ePetitions page.

If you can get this project adopted in the London forum, those signatures will shoot up - but you will never get sufficient public backing for LRFS in isolation.

Good luck! I hope 2013 is a good year for this project.
 
#716 · (Edited)
Thanks good advice. Such a huge project, and so need to join ranks with others being impacted by

a) bad business
b) bad politics
c) implications of destruction by bad politics
d) people interested in legal precedents set by bad decisions
e) public pressure groups for public interest in sympathetic redevelopments for Heritage & History

Its kind of you especially when there are a few really cruel and obstructive people jumping on the petition offering no constructive advice and celebrate in being critical and hostile without offering any possibilities, genuine support or desire for change in this case.

Doing more with LRFS but mostly been a lone adventure and all alongside paid work.

It really is like unravelling the threads to discover how knotted together the issues of corporate neglect/ heritage abuse / beauracacies / red tape/ funding/ political agendas / policies that aren't working are. There's such paralysis and I genuinely believe this political paralysis is so much greater in the North West/ Manchester.

Out of my depth at times so all support needed and any advocates that can assist most welcome!

I've made some leigh-weigh but not enough! Makes me think this could be a full time job for someone. It certainly makes me wonder how productive English Heritage are! Is it a lack of strategy or awareness or power and political assistance that impedes them? After all 2013 is the 27th year of this bullshit! MCC certainly have to accept blame also on this and many city issues. Their lack of dynamic strategies and doing things in isolation without consulting or listening to the public really needs to change also. BUT the public also have to take accountability beyond apathy also. Perhaps a new and effective Think Tank needs to be made for Manchester that is apolitical?

Really hoping something can be gained by this venture. Something has to be done. I refuse to accept this situation is powerless BUT I so need the help people can offer and good advice and people taking leads up themselves! Letters, contacts, media, images, support are just so needed!

People please do read the reports, write letters to Langsam, Pickles, Boles, Griffiths our MP, whoever! I'm sure a great job can be done. Do post all updates on here and keep us all informed if you want to get involved and build momentum!


Though I've been accused by some real rotten trolls as having no interest in this building/ this building should be knocked down/ the decisions were fair /Langsam is an innocent victim of circumstances / 100% decision were completely without political agendas (so don't question them) / it is only the Councils fault / Britannia should be able to do as they want as they "own" #LRFS - I really feel strongly about this case else I wouldn't have begun! But I do not think the message of the petition is so horrible! How can it be? (Except for those who celebrate in crabbing and ripping everything to shreds while they sit doing NOTHING about the cases they pertain to care about, but pre-empting and delighting in failures and any of my misunderstandings and experiential limitations). People can start their own campaigns, raise their own voices or think there is no twisted agenda behind this petition FFS!!!

Just made me so aware (& beginning to discover) how Manchester is really being effected and impeded by so many factors that mean as a city its dynamic and great future is being limited in so many unacceptable ways.

The time I can devote to this and enhancing the cause I will do and I do agree, finding the links and getting into the wider picture is so necessary. Just hope the message of justice is heard and taken up by people and organisations that can help!

Best wishes
 
#717 ·
Dear All

Public Meeting: London Road Fire Station on Wednesday 27th February at 7pm
The Mechanics Centre, 103 Princess Street, Manchester, M1 6DD

I would like to invite anyone who is interested to come to the meeting for London Road Fire Station and how as a city we can progress past the inept politics and neglectful ownership that has marred this great At Risk (1998) Grade II* Listed Building (1974).

The Manchester Mechanics centre has kindly given us their venue to hold this meeting next month. I hope to get as many parties involved and am asking key figures to speak about this tragically abused Heritage Icon. I hope this meeting will be inspiring and inclusive to opinions about how our city can move forward with this extraordinarily shameful case.

Key invites will include the MP Lucy Powell, Manchester City Councilors, Manchester City Council leaders, English Heritage, media representatives and Britannia should they choose to face the questions and concerns of the public.

This is the 27th year of Britannia’s inactive ownership. In December 2012 ruling by MP Eric Pickles awarded Britannia 1.5 million legal fees for breaking their promises and commitment to the redevelopment of this building by 2014. The failed and controversial Compulsory Purchase Order was successfully appealed by Britannia in November 2011, then in February 2012, after such an impassioned appeal, declared: “Developing the scheme as it stands, would not be sustainable either in the current climate or the foreseeable future”.

We as a city either face the incredulity and sadness of witnessing this building in further decline or we must discover action and unity in achieving a just and dynamic future for this unique building.

There are many implications that this ruling has had for Manchester politically and the hope is to to overcome such rulings through public involvement and pressure. Similarly the implications of how corporations are permitted to abuse, neglect and destroy English Heritage has wider implications beyond our city.

Please bring your questions, ideas, strategies, opinions and commitment to assist where you can with this ongoing case. Your involvement and assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely


London Road Fire Station Petition Founder
 
#718 ·
Hi All!

Updates!

Meeting above. (Invites still being sent, so will confirm).
Media attending meeting.
Head of English Heritage North West Attending.
City Councillors Attending
A documentary being done as 'taster' to see if can gain more media.
Still to invite Britannia. (Doubt they'll intend and is an intimidating letter to write, not that I 'have anything they could 'sue' for but debts and I'm running things by a Barrister friend)

See letter to Planning Inspectorate below.

(& please to the haters, please don't attend the meeting if you have nothing constructive to offer apart from support for Britannia/the Planning Decision). This meeting is hoping to move things forward and gain expsoure).

_________________________________________________________________


Dear Planning Inspectorate

I hope this email can be passed on for formal comment by the Planning Inspector Paul Griffiths. If this is not possible, I hope your department will offer a formal statement for the Public Meeting on 27th February in Manchester.

Key invites that have accepted will be MP Lucy Powell, English Heritage North West Planning Director, representative of Manchester City Council, the media and other key speakers. As I believe in the right to protest and also in transparency, this document will be made available online and any replies will be sent to the media. I would also like to invite for this a representative from the Planning Office to attend the public meeting (please find invite below of details of the time and venue).

I have read the November 2011 report in detail, where Paul Griffiths (appointed by the Secretary of Communities and Local Government) gave the recommendations to Eric Pickles to not confirm the CPO for this iconic building in Manchester.

I have also read of the controversies surrounding Paul Griffiths decisions in the Sunday Times (8th April 2012) and that a passionate Parliamentary Debate MP Chris Heaton-Harris described “overrule all elements of democracy, local and national, including parish and district council opinion”. Similarly in this case I hope instead of working in isolationism the Planning Inspectorate can offer Manchester assistance and afford our city respect and an apology or condemnation of Britannia in this case.

As you may be aware three months after the appeal for the CPO, Britannia hotels made the following statement three months later in February 2012: “Developing the scheme as it stands, would not be sustainable either in the current climate or the foreseeable future”.

Infuriatingly and distressingly for the people of Manchester, this inaction looks to continue risking dire consequences for this At Risk (1998) Grade II* (1974) Heritage which in point 89 of your report you (Paul Griffiths) agreed there is evidence of neglect and no reparation for over twenty years.

In point 11 of your report you said the main reason to reject the CPO would be "is there certainty, or at least near certainty the Britannia will complete the conversion of the LRFS to a 4* hotel with equivalent by 2014? If so then the CPO should not be confirmed”? Now the reality is they have not, so does this change the implications of this entire report and its recommendations?

Your question in point 96 that if Britannia does not adhere to the timetable presented then "the building condition will deteriorate and the cost of repairs will escalate". This now is clearly happening and as a member of Manchester public and all those who sign my petition we are witnessing the reality of seeing this building and its uncertain future each day. It has led many commentators to conclude that this is the intention behind not continuing with the proposed redevelopment as promised, i.e. decline and demolition.

You say yourself in point 114 that "to refuse to confirm the CPO would be to continue the present unsatisfactory state of affairs which has already continued far too long".

Britannia's flawed argument that there is no economic development for the hotel industry is being directly contradicted with the Olympus hotel premises being built opposite the LRFS on Whitworth Street and the buoyant tourist market. In Point 184 you discuss how Mr Langston "rejected the assertion Britannia had no intention to redevelop", yet at the risk of being rhetorical this is now untrue. Commentators have asserted in believing this position took a certain gullibility with over 25 years of evidence to a lack of care, or commitment and I wonder if you care to defend against this allegation? In conversations with other Planning Inspectors and retired Planning Inspectors they have confirmed and said they would not have made this decision and find similar outrage in Manchester’s current position.

In recent business news it has been suggested that £25 million has been given to Pontins and so therefore this directly contradicts with his position of the importance of the redevelopment of LRFS or the immediate willingness to release these funds.
In Point 278 you predicted correctly "if the CPO is not confirmed there would appear to be no reason why Mr Langsam and/or Britannia might decide once again to put the LRFS on the backburner and focus attention elsewhere".

Yet a direct contradiction is found in point 191 you say “Britannia's evidence is clear and compelling: it has the expertise of the financial resources and the commitment to start the development once the shadow of the CPO is lifted". This however has clearly not been the case and our city has recently incurred the 1.5 million legal costs of this inactivity and broken promises that came three months after your writing this report.

Now considering the recent evidence within this case I would like to ask you the following questions:

· Would your position to reject the CPO remain the same at this current time?
· How do you propose for Manchester to progress with this case? Indeed considering the current developments do you think that a new CPO should unequivocally be supported?
· Do you consider it fair that Manchester City Council was asked to pay for the legal costs after promises were made and broken?
· What do you consider to be the legal implications of this case in terms of corporate ownership of At Risk Heritage and the national implication this has?
· In your report, though you question Britannia's commitment I wonder how close you were to confirming the CPO?
· In your report you question and suggest a lack of public interest in the building being redeveloped. How do you justify this position?
· How do you defend against the allegation this case represents a political bias and regionalism that influenced this planning decision?

As a city we are dealing with the consequences of having to see the distressing position of seeing a Great Heritage Icon decay. I hope that rather than being estranged from the public and political decisions that a representative of the Planning Inspectorate would be kind enough to attend the meeting or indeed make a written statement on these questions and comments about the reality facing LRFS.

Please find relevant attachments and I hope to hear from you or a relevant contact as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely



Adam Prince
Petition Founder
 
#720 ·
Thanks! On some forums (always get the provokers and some awful stirrers especially in comments on stories) and one user on here! MEN MCon definitely confirmed, but want the TV News and trying to persevere for feature in At Risk Heritage UK Documentary! Will keep on until I get there!

PS: Any help, letters writing, exposure, contacts and speakers people might know, do contact me:

manchesterfirestation@yahoo.co.uk

Best wishes. (I'm off for a glass of wine and some chillaxing as been on this all day).
 
#726 · (Edited)
and a perhaps a tenacious fool too! but sometimes it takes the risk and willingness to blunder blindly into trying to achieve and go for something! Fools rush in where angels fear to tread... well guess it has to be like that sometimes... http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fools-rush-in-where-angels-fear-to-tread.html

As I live right next to LRFS, seeing its disgraceful decline makes my blood boil. I think the tipping point of having had enough of seeing it has kept me going.

If nothing can change, then in just a few years this debate will too easily become like Ancoats Dispensary and irretrievably decaying Heritage that crumbles to nothing before our eyes.

Anyway, MEN item coming very soon with the meeting dates released.... this is all distracting me from my real work that must get to soon. And later tonight the zillions of tweets, emails and letters will try to get out. Knackering for the bluest Monday of the year!

:cheers:
 
#722 ·
Adam,

Having (finally) read the CPO report, I don't think you're right to be going after the planning inspector. In your email to the Planning Inspectorate, you wrongly quote sections from the report as being the planning inspector's views. What you're actually doing is quoting MCC's case as set out by the inspector. The planning inspector's views on the case are from paragraph 249 onwards. To be honest, from reading the inspector's report, I don't see how he could have come to a different conclusion. The problem lies with MCC's case, not with the inspector's interpretation of it.

However, since then, Brittania have backtracked once more and have done what most people thought they would do once the pressure of the CPO had gone. Therefore I think you're right to try and put pressure on them. I just don't think the Planning Inspectorate or the SOS are the correct targets for your anger.

Good luck anyway.
 
#723 · (Edited)
Perhaps it will elicit a response though! To have the Planning Inspectorate condemn Britannia would be a good outcome!

I'm no legal expert clearly(!)... but naively trying to make a difference or provoke widespread condemnation. If the PI point out my errors and help this case to be understood and progress forward, this is all we can hope for.

I do think I'm right to target SoS though, as the legal costs of 1.5 million is additional to the 80 million cuts in the Council. I believe that decision 10th Dec 2012 is so unacceptable.

I may be wrong, but in some ways and to some people who share my viewpoint, unwittingly or not, LRFS has almost become a symbolic political hostage.

If I'm wrong about any of these things, (which are all perceptual) I still feel there is benefit in eliciting publicity and debate!

That why I want an open meeting!

Currently I'm typing an invite to Britannia which getting a barrister friend to go through. Have to say not an enjoyable thing to write!

I have had an anonymous threat and threatening call for my viewpoints in the LRFS case, obviously a call I cannot trace. Still intimidating but... oh well.

At the end of the day I have nothing to be sued for and with the widespread condemnation of this case, I feel this viewpoint is not especially a rare one. Also a legal right to protest and have opinions and questions, even misunderstandings.

"In the financial settlement for 2011-13, Manchester was the fifth hardest hit local authority in the country despite having the fourth highest level of deprivation. This time round, using the government's own Spending Power calculation (which understated the real level of cuts) a reduction of 8.2 per cent over the two years 2013-15 – has been handed the biggest percentage cut of any of England's core cities (the eight largest cities outside London), the biggest in Greater Manchester and the largest of any large metropolitan area outside the capital".

I know people will say he would say that but Richard Leese tweeted me:

Man-Fire-Station-CPO ‏@ManFireStation
#AskTheLeader How can Pickles justify his anti-Manchester position despite census ev, recent rulings & cuts? Do you consider Tories anti-us?
Details

Following

Sir Richard Leese
‏@SirRichardLeese
@ManFireStation He can't. of course the Tories are anti-us #AskTheLeader

Well the wheels I hope are in motion and this is causing some stir and demand for answers!
 
#724 ·
Well we're never going to agree on this but if my understanding of the CPO process is correct, once the decision was made in Brittania's favour, it was inevitable that costs would be awarded against MCC. The fact that MCC's facing huge financial cuts does not count as exceptional circumstances so cannot be taken into account when awarding costs. MCC will have known the risks they were taking when they decided to pursue the CPO (that's what they have a legal team for).
 
#725 ·
Well we're never going to agree on this but if my understanding of the CPO process is correct, once the decision was made in Britannia's favour, it was inevitable that costs would be awarded against MCC. The fact that MCC's facing huge financial cuts does not count as exceptional circumstances so cannot be taken into account when awarding costs. MCC will have known the risks they were taking when they decided to pursue the CPO (that's what they have a legal team for).
I don't think it matters we do not agree. All that matters is this is getting exposure and questions are being asked. People who've not heard of the case and walked by the building, now have seen the information and have their own opinions. At least it gets people involved and perhaps might have the benefit of meaning change, debate and public pressure can occur.

After all 90% of people seem to agree something needs to be done! (Apart from some comments who tend to come from some on the right of things or who like the outrage their comments cause)!

If Britannia does come to this meeting I hope they will respond to the widespread anger and accept it humbly! That's a big hope!

Best wishes
 
#732 ·
English Heritage supported Britannia first time & advised Pickles a CPO was not necessary.

Britannia then reneged on their promise to renovate the building and EH said they were disappointed.

I can't imagine EH will support Britannia if MCC go for another CPO. If they do, then there is clearly some corruption going on at the EH offices.

Without English Heritage support, Pickles can't really enforce the CPO as he hasn't been advised to by the authority who (apparently) know best. A bit like the Queen, she is effectively advised by the politicians and can only sign off what they do.

If MCC go for another CPO over the next few years, support from English Hertiage is vital.
 
#728 · (Edited)
A friend just posted this to me! No idea why they didn't just contact me! I have never hid my identity or how to contact me! Hopefully then they will attend the meeting. Still WAY at odds with ALL correspondence (provable) conversations I've had but maybe they CAN justify their position!!!!?!?!!!?!! hyperbole I am! Clearly an instigator that ruffles feathers too! Like the X-files the truth is out there (well shades of it).

http://www.britanniahotels.com/media/526877/lrfs_v_nov_dec12.pdf

London Road Police and Fire Station
Redevelopment Proposals
Image: Whitworth Street Elevation (Purcell)
[V]
November/December 2012 Update
Information on the Fire Station and the Recent Redevelopment History
There is a wealth of information on the recent history of the building and the
redevelopment proposals available as public documents to all with an interest in the
Fire Station.
One of the best sources of information up to recent times are the Inquiry documents
upon which the Planning Inspector recommended a rejection of Manchester City
Council’s attempted Compulsory Purchase.
The information enclosed within the Inquiry documents is from a variety of sources
and will give a full and balanced view.
CPO Inquiry
It was on the recommendation of the Inspector in charge of the Inquiry that the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government rejected the CPO.
An Order as to Costs was subsequently issued and Britannia is to be awarded its
costs of the Inquiry from Manchester City Council.
Whilst satisfied that the not inconsiderable Inquiry costs are to be paid by
Manchester City Council, it should be pointed out that Britannia will not profit from
the CPO and will not be able to recover all its resources (and time) spent
unnecessarily in dealing with the Council’s pursuit of the CPO.
This has also delayed the availability of Britannia’s funds which should have been
directed into developing the hotel business and creating jobs. 2
Progress since the Inquiry
Britannia has not rested on its laurels since the Inquiry.
We have been actively seeking to progress the redevelopment proposals, with the
guidance of our expert Conservation Architects, through the demanding procedures
that the Local Authority require for a sensitive site such as this.
We have had a number of meetings and have been in communication with
Manchester City Council and English Heritage so both organisations have been
made aware of the current position.
With the scale and sensitivity of this building, the finances of the scheme do not
justify the redevelopment based purely on a commercial decision. It remains reliant
on private funding.
The commitment made at Inquiry, however, to fund the capital cost, remains
unchanged, but the redevelopment must put into place a sustainable business to
ensure its continued success.
Manchester has seen far too many hotel projects fail, even in recent months (some
with the direct financial involvement of the Local Authority) and we have a duty to
ensure that this project is not added to that list.
With the continued poor performance of the economy (and that of the hotel sector in
particular), we approached English Heritage and the Council, following the Inquiry, to
discuss a possible further intervention to gain a few more rooms to increase the
revenue of the scheme as approved. This was incorrectly interpreted and publicised
as an attempt to resurrect the previously abandoned multi-storey scheme.
Britannia met with representatives of the Chief Executives office, the Planning
Department and English Heritage in an attempt to open dialogue between the parties
to explore and guide the emerging proposals.
It should be noted that the Council’s sole potential partner developers, RAM Argent,
submitted a statement during the CPO Inquiry, which was accepted by the Local
Authority, which outlined their intention to re-visit the proposals to further investigate
the maximising of the potential of the site following a CPO.
We have arrived at our proposal through a similar, iterative, process.
Britannia’s Directors also met separately with the Leader of the Council in a further
attempt to garner support from the Council.
During a more recent update meeting, MCC Planning, MCC Conservation and
English Heritage all stated that they were pleased that noted Conservation
Architects, Purcell, remain involved on this project.
With the support of Purcell and our financial team, a package of information in regard
to the relatively minor additional enabling intervention has been submitted to MCC
with a view to hopefully gain their support and help us to bring this project to fruition. 3
LRFS in the Media
The redevelopment of the former London Road Police and Fire Station is a sensitive
and important project and it has been Britannia’s policy not to respond to articles
which are opinion pieces or PR exercises.
It is disappointing, however, that there are news articles that include information that
is factually incorrect and do not show a reasonable understanding of the building or
the issues surrounding the redevelopment proposals.
Although we understand that there is a vast quantity of information on this subject, it
is available on public record to those with an interest.
We have felt it necessary to express our disappointment to Manchester City Council
in the way that our efforts to progress are met and portrayed publicly, following
statements released to the press, as we have been clear with MCC and English
Heritage about our intentions.
Recent articles (Manchester Evening News 17 and 18 December 2012, for example)
expose the level of regard that MCC hold for Britannia and its ambitions for the
building, using language that can only be described as confrontational and contrary.
This doesn’t bode well and we are preparing ourselves for a hard ride with this
redevelopment, but it is still hoped that Manchester City Council will act in a positive
manner with regard to our proposals.
We also note the recent personal campaign and petition to have Manchester City
Council bring forward a new CPO for the former Police and Fire Station on London
Road. Although we recognise the campaigner’s obvious passion for this fine
building, key facts are either not known or omitted from the campaign and the
petition notes are selective in their choice of source material and they are
accompanied by a certain level of hyperbole throughout.
Britannia
What is often ignored is Britannia’s track record in regard to the refurbishment of
Listed Buildings. Thirteen of Britannia’s hotels are buildings Listed Grade II or II*
(see elsewhere on this website for more information).
Whilst other national hotel groups have either gone into administration, into the
control of the banks or put up for sale, Britannia Hotels remain a successful company
and a large employer both locally and nationally and Britannia also remains one of
the few hotel groups to be expanding in the current financial climate.
Britannia has already invested a huge amount of money and has allocated
considerable resources into maintaining the building and bringing the proposals
forward and it can only be in everyone’s interest to have the Local Authority support
Britannia in its efforts to redevelop this fine building.
Britannia remains steadfast in its desire to redevelop the Fire Station.
 
#729 ·
I really don't believe any of that. MCC put in the CPO because they lost faith with Britannia, who have now sat on this building for the thick end of thirty years. And play the violins, are trying to elicit public sympathy but will doubtless still be sitting on this building in another thirty years. Snake tongued, crocodile-teared, avaricious gits. I won't be staying in any of their hotels.
 
#730 · (Edited)
:lol: Well I was speaking to a journalist today who is going to delight in ripping that statement apart!

Also speaking to a barrister friend who is coming to the meeting and she is bringing a property expert who she also says will delight in going through these statements with a fine comb.

I think if Britannia attend (they won't) they'll have a lot of pertinent questions to answer!

I love how that statement makes it seem like this issue is overnight and a new issue, like no mention of HOW LONG! Great PR release! I hope that person gets a promotion! It is almost comically lackadaisical.

But I do give them one thing... I am as prone to hyperbole and being verbose as much as this CEO is prone to procrastination and lacklustre spin.
 
#736 · (Edited)
Reply

Read the CPO report though.... nothing really has changed from then:
1. MCC still don't really have proof of a development partner who is better positioned to refurbish the fire station. Argent were clearly better and more open to ideas and at least would do something rather than nothing for over a quarter of a century. Not perfect and this is why I think the public meeting can give ideas over stale vested interests, for a true vision than a shoddy one. I simply think the PO's position was at best naive.
2. MCC haven't proven it is enough of a blight to prevent the regeneration of the area. That argument presented in his report really pisses me off. That PO doesn't have to walk by it and see it everyday. So many people in the petition allude to the bad image it presents and it's prevalence, which somehow he questioned! Why wasn't there market research questionnaire taken before he can assume or TELL the public what they think?
3. MCC haven't proven the fire station is in such poor condition that action must be immediate. Again, what legal precedent does that set? Unless it is beyond help organisations can hold a building hostage, increasingly damaging it and neglecting their civic duties and respect for a city? Plus what bias does that rejection of so much testimonial suggest? Why is it other planning officers have told me they would NEVER have made that decision? He wrote that report, wrote its recommendations, crafted its style, crafted its conclusions. If another PO had written it would have been different in content, there is no question in my mind. Still the planning inspectorate have promised me a reply by 15th Feb and if they condemn Brit or express disappointment that can only be helpful to the cause.
 
#740 ·
Response to ^^

Plans for LRFS: Britannia don't have any firm plans either, and furthermore, they haven't for the last 25 years.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Blight on the area: Piccadilly Place did well because it's on one of the main routes out of one of the most used stations outside of London. What about the buildings to the South of LRFS?

Risk to Building: Britannia's argument that the state of the building is fine is based on discrediting the man who did the survey. If a second person had done a survey, it would have taken time, and they would probably have discredited the new guy as well. All of this fits with Britannia's main desire: delay, delay, delay ...

Reason for the rejection: see para 298 of the final conclusion:

"... it appears that redevelopment of the LRFS, with the attendant regeneration benefits, would be more likely to come forward under Britannia's auspices than the Council's."

i.e. the inspectorate believed Britannia. This is incredible given that Britannia's claims as to their intentions seem to go up and down depending on the level of threat to their ownership of the building. In fact, now that the threat of the CPO has been lifted, and despite their claims that they would do something once that happened, they have in fact declared that the scheme is unviable and they will do nothing in the foreseeable future.

This is exactly as everyone predicted. Somehow the planning inspector was unable to see this.
 
#741 · (Edited)
So agree. If I could be bothered I'd pull out the biases in that report, but exhausted! Others will and are going to. Regardless if PixiePie is more inclined for unquestioning faith in authority than most, many don't! I think there might be a little evidence to the contrary!

>>>>>

Here's my letter just sent for the invite.

Dear Alex Langsam and Britannia Hotel Group,

Public Meeting: London Road Fire Station on Wednesday 27th February at 7pm
The Mechanics Institute, 103 Princess Street, Manchester, M1 6DD

Please find your invitation to attend this public meeting to present your position over your ownership, entering its twenty-seventh year, of the London Road Fire Station (At Risk 1998, Listed II* 1974). In encouraging your attendance at this open meeting, I hope all parties can have an open dialogue and achieve a way forward to protect this building. It is hoped we can accomplish a re-development that will make Manchester proud.

I hope you will accept this invitation for you or a spokesperson for Britannia Hotels to face your critics from the public, Manchester City Council, English Heritage, media and other key parties and speakers.

As a concerned member of the public, I hope you appreciate that, without your input, I can only proceed on the information which I have discovered and have been given by those willing to communicate with me. At present, I am inclined to trust the opinions of the people I have liaised with whose views are at odds with yours. They are highly respected in their professions. Of course, I know there are two sides to every story. That is why I feel it is essential that you answer my questions and, thereby, those of the citizens of Manchester. Please understand that this is a highly emotive issue. If you refuse to attend the meeting please at least consider providing a statement to be read at the meeting and responding to the minutes following the meeting.

One matter of particular concern is that the Compulsory Purchase Order report from November 2011 was based on the premise that redevelopment would be achieved by 2014. I understand that your argument for delaying re-development is based on changes in the economic climate. However, I cannot see how changes in the economic market were so prevalent in the three months after the Compulsory Purchase Order report was published in November 2011 that a drastic change in position by February 2012 was justified. In just three months, the promise to redevelop was retracted.

Please understand that change in position and commitment is something that rightfully raises questions and strong feelings. Indeed my passionate 'hyperbole', which you criticise and I admit to, is due to having seen the majestic building in question standing neglected the entire time I have lived in this city, since 1997. The petition alone reveals how distressing people find this situation. The situation is made worse by the fact that significant financial costs arising were paid from the Compulsory Purchase Order process, to your organisation by a city suffering budget cuts and austerity. As the petition shows, the public are critical of your position. They find the decline of an ‘At Risk’ heritage icon emotive, upsetting and damaging to the reputation of the City of Manchester.

The Compulsory Purchase Order report from November 2011 clearly asserts at point 275: “There seems to be no good reason why Britannia could not have pressed ahead with a hotel scheme at any time during its ownership”. I am in communication with Compulsory Purchase Order experts and heritage lobbyists, who are calling for reform to heritage legislation so that organisations not achieving redevelopment within a critical time frame face sanctions and have their ownership put out to tender.

In the Compulsory Purchase Order report your witness Mr Quarme (at Point 89), “conceded that there was a clear 20 year period of lack of maintenance by Britannia”. I am an individual without legal expertise, position or wealth and I am struck by the extent of your self-acknowledged neglect. To my knowledge, you have not answered or publicly apologised in response to Sir Howard Bernstein’s fundamental point that twenty-seven years of ownership have resulted in little progress; a time-frame during which there have been three economic periods of boom and other businesses could have, and would have, thrived.

It is mine and others’ opinion that the way forward might be that you remain the leaseholder, seeking other private investments, forming a conglomerate. I wonder if you are aware of the wonderful RIBA Presidents Award Winning Student Dissertation on London Road Fire Station and its proposed uses? The lack of success in your redevelopment is clearly at odds with the creative potential for sensitive re-commissioning that is proposed therein.

In considering relinquishing your ownership, you might even focus on your considerable portfolio and allow new enterprises to have business, investment or even community involvement in various forms of funding options that would no longer require your exclusive private investment. Owning ‘At Risk’ heritage brings civic responsibilities and is a privilege, not a right. The Compulsory Purchase Order report from November 2011 is, as I am sure you know, being scrutinised by many people; legal, professional and the casual observer alike. It is one of notable controversy.

I am sure you wish to avoid being associated with setting a negative precedent for treasured national heritage being treated badly by corporations. Surely, it cannot hurt to consult with the public about their visions for this treasured building? I hope in choosing to attend this meeting you will assist by presenting your concerns and being receptive to others’ opinions of how this situation can move forward in a public forum, rather than in isolationism.

I have only just seen your press release today (21 January 2013) on www.britanniahotels.com. This is because someone within my petition group discovered it and sent it to me. I am disappointed I was not contacted sooner, since you are clearly aware of my campaign. I have never concealed my identity and am easy to contact should you have wished to clear up any misunderstanding or clarify your position. If you feel that there are facts that people – myself – are not in possession of, I am not unreasonable or dogmatic and would welcome your input. Likewise, I am not someone whom you would find it difficult to contact to discuss your concerns, although ultimately there may be significant perceptual differences of opinion, ethics and views on civic responsibilities.

This petition became personally important for me as a member of the public who, like so many others, sees this wonderful building each day and felt a civic duty to protest out of sheer frustration. I hope you agree something has to give and that there must be a way forward with or without your organisations’ ownership. Please attend so that you can express your views in a public forum as part of a productive mutual dialogue.

In anticipation of a swift response,

Yours sincerely,

Adam Prince
Petition Founder
 
#743 · (Edited)
Hopefully bringing parties and public pressure and criticism together to the point of no escape, where woolly excuses and rhetoric as to why nothing has been achieved since 1986 is no longer viable.

(When you hear about a headless midget torso being dragged from the canal after a mysterious hit, you'll know it's me)!

Speakers being told to give 4- 5 min max speeches and then hopefully getting discussion facilitator or compare to do Question Time style panel, answering questions from attendees.

Hoping varied speakers,
MP, Councillors, English Heritage, Journalist/Historian confirmed.
Asked CPO expert, accomplished architect who has fought this sad case previously, a speaker from Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

and of-course statements from Planning Inspectorate, Pickles, Planning Minister and Shadow Planning Minister.

Hopefully will be filmed and make news & a good turn out might encourage journalists of documentary makers to take further. Trying to write little script for short 2-3 minute documentary to start with, as someone's kindly offered to help and voiceover.

Will design a questionnaire for all attendee's (bring an pen!), so we can concretely analyse the opinions and ask Britannia to comment on this. And thinking a good end might be taking a few questions from that survey and doing a mock parliament with a select few questions, "those who think Britannia should relinquish their ownership of LRFS say aye". That (if news camera's make it), would send a clear message.

& of-course, dear sweet Britannia now have their invite!

If they come might be like a Springer show! :bash:
 
#748 · (Edited)
The recent news makes the #LRFS redevelopment even more important with two new stations proposed. Time for a business that can make this area great and add to it, not diminish it!

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-will-get-two-new-stations-for-super-fast-1247837

20 years though! Better than nothing and all assuming smooth ride. Super smooth.

"The line will then enter a 7.5 mile tunnel under south Manchester, which will surface a short distance from the new station next to Manchester Piccadilly".

Will it be the resurrection of Mayfield? or a new build by there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Mayfield_railway_station

PS: Update, CPO expert & professor confirmed for LRFS meeting 27/2. Manchester Confidential article tomorrow.
 
#749 ·
New station will be to the north of, and alongside the existing one - extending up to Store Street.

I agree that it potentially makes a hotel on the LRFS site more of a viable proposition; as well as probably making it much easier for a developer to attract external finance. Which can be linked back into the inspector's recommendation against the CPO, where he expressed strong doubts as to whether Argent (or any other alternative developer) would be able to find funds for a hotel scheme in the building.

But then again, HS2 is still a long way off.
 
#761 · (Edited)
Sorry Simon! Was out with Louise Bolotin who's now going to take lead on campaign... told her of my faux pas by saying you were a MEN person! Hope the assumption didn't offend you. It's true, I'm a bungler!

This is the pathetic reply from Britannia. How ironic their critics are coming to speak at the meeting. Denial and don't care. Infuriating (see below). NORMAL channel (so deep in time we're drowning in their wake 27yrs later)!!!

As for that £5 million they deserve something like that in fines, a High Court case and a new CPO down a different route. Organising protests for March too after meeting. Hope will gain press attention and you might cover it in - (I'll get it right this time sorry) Estates Gazette! :nuts:

Best wishes


___________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Prince,

RE: Redevelopment of London Road Fire Station

We are in receipt of your email of 23 January 2013 and invitation to the Public Meeting on Wednesday 27 February 2013, regarding the former London Road Fire Station.

We are, however, dealing with this through the normal channels of liaison with the City Council and English Heritage.

Yours sincerely,
Customer Services (?)
Britannia Hotels Ltd

Tel: +44 161 904 8686
Fax: +44 161 904 5331
This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. Any offers and/or commitments made within this document are subject to contract and without prejudice. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information within it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please return it with the subject line ‘received in error’ to administrator@britanniahotels.com then delete and destroy any copies
 
#762 ·
#764 · (Edited)
Thanks! I'm a pessimist and it seems to be running too smoothly. I hope the guests don't pull out/ fall ill/ cancel at the last minute or something. Events can go so wrong... but hopefully will go well and lots of support, media coverage and enough to shame all 'decision' makers and especially the awful Britannia (who won't even offer a statement).

There is an open bar too for the more social aspect, so won't be completely 'dry'. A success would be every speaker turning up and it be so full there's the need for people to stand and squeeze around the edges. Hoping!
 
#766 · (Edited)
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=803FFFE3AE9F5EEA!198

Talking about weak responses, this is from the Planning Inspectorate.

They 'Can't' answer anything about this case so referred on to Communities and Local Government to 'answer'. And round we go again.

Weak, weak, weak. And the response will be, the decision was made in Nov 2011 and in Dec 2012 (for the £1.5 million legal costs, despite so many community projects failing after this 27 yr legacy of broken promises on this Heritage Hostage).

Shameful, bureaucratic and as per usual, no accountability or explanation, opinion of how to rectify this injustice, or even offer an attempt of one.
 
#768 · (Edited)
I know, so bogus.

Thought worth one last prod at the BS bureaucrats! :bash:

I don't expect anything of-course and so didn't spend ages on it!

The emails if anyone wants a go!

Robert.Putnam@communities.gsi.gov.uk
laura.shand@pins.gsi.gov.uk
john.blakeway@communities.gsi.gov.uk
enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk

____________________________________________________

Dear All

Unfortunately it seems there is an unwillingness to consider the concerns that Manchester residents have about the London Road Fire Station and the implications of the CPO report that have left our city with the continuing legacy of a Heritage Hostage. This is now the 27th years of this situation and my replies are simply passed back and forth.

The Planning Inspectorate do not seem willing to answer questions on the report in November 2011, or if the recommendations made would indeed be the same if it could have been foreseen that Britannia would go back on their promises. I then get passed back to Communities and Local Government Department (who I have already had an unsatisfactory response from) and so on and so on.

A panel of experts are coming together to discuss this case at the end of the month, including the MP for Manchester, the Head of North West English Heritage and CPO experts. Our city is struggling under austerity, yet we face 1.5 million legal costs, 14 months after what this company promised (with no view to definitive action) at this appeal where Paul Griffiths made his recommendations and Eric Pickles his controversial decisions http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Property/Public-Meeting-London-Road-Fire-Station-27-February

Britannia Hotels have had planning permission several times and this time promised that as soon as the CPO was removed that they would implement their redevelopment immediately. Of-course this is history repeating itself. Please refer to the numerous questions I have asked about these issues in past emails (including the last response from DCLG).

Why was there no consultation with Manchester public by the Planning Inspectorate? Simple licensing changes warrant this, yet the CPO makes clear assumptions on the public opinions. With an issue that is so important, why are the public not consulted or involved, instead “told” what they think by the biases of an expert?
Eric Pickles reasserted this in his letter 28/11/11. “For all the reasons given by the Inspector, the Secretary of State accepts that a compelling case for the public interest has not been made to justify the confirmation of the order” (Point 10).

In the Inspectors Conclusions he states in point 278: “Britannia’s Witnesses made it very plain that the scheme is read to proceed as soon as the threat of the CPO is removed and the funding is in place to allow that to happen”. The inspector essentially believed Britannia (despite the overwhelming past evidence of 27 years). One of the main reasons to reject the CPO was belief in the immediacy of the redevelopment and the genuine commitments.

However, Manchester finds itself with a Heritage Hostage that many wish could be rescued by businesses that can and will develop it or at least have the options to secure its usage and safety, away from Britannia Hotels. So I ask again:

• How do you propose for Manchester to progress with this case? Indeed considering the current developments do you think that a new CPO should unequivocally be supported?
• Do you consider it fair that Manchester City Council was asked to pay for the legal costs after promises were made and broken?

What do you consider to be the legal implications of this case in terms of corporate ownership of At Risk Heritage and the national implication this has?
• In your report, though you question Britannia's commitment I wonder how close you were to confirming the CPO?
• In your report you question and suggest a lack of public interest in the building being redeveloped. How do you justify this position?
• How do you defend against the allegation this case represents a political bias and regionalism that influenced this planning decision?

I hope instead of being passed around the “bureaucratic” roundabout of denial of accountability, where no-one is prepared to criticize this company, admit a poor decision or to offer advice to how to proceed with this clear case of injustice.

I hope all readers can consider how serious Manchester is taking this issue and the unfair impact this case is having on Manchester’s image, development and its already struggling services. I hope both Paul Griffiths and Eric Pickles might consider the extent the city is having to go to to consider a way forward with this case and therefore are due respect and transparency with these concerns. I may not be an expert but the pursuit of a genuine reply is not forthcoming.

I hope for a lucid and considered reply rather than a fob off from somewhere else in the Country other than Manchester.

Yours sincerely

Adam
 
Top