SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Norfolk House - Phase 2 | Norfolk Street | 100 Studio Apartments | 9 Storeys

68K views 208 replies 28 participants last post by  scouse1980 
#1 · (Edited)
** For the avoidance of doubt, this is not the site on the cityside of Jamaica Street being developed by Pinnacle. That thread can be found here - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1821680 **

This thread is for a site in the Baltic Triangle, bounded by Norfolk Street, Watkinson Street, and Simpson Street. The site currently houses a vacant industrial shed.

The development will house 100 studio apartments, and was granted planning permission by the Planning Committee on 23rd June 2015.

This is the second part of a three phase development, with planning permission already granted to construct a building on the site immediately opposite on Simpson Street, to provide 156 student flats, and 12 office spaces, in a building up to 9 storeys. It is envisaged that the residents of the Phase 2 development will be able to use the facilities of the Phase 1 development, adding to the amount of street activity as people come and go. Phase 1 has its own thread here - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1825101 The third phase is a part 12/part 20 storey building further down Norfolk Street, fronting Chaloner Street, which has its own thread here - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1846087

From the Planning Explorer -

Application Number - 15F/0557
Site Address - Land between Norfolk Street, Watkinson Street and Simpson Street, Liverpool L1
Proposal - To erect 9 storey apartment building containing 100 studio apartments (Use Class C3a) with ground floor foyer, flexible lounge space, cycle, plant and bin storage.
Applicant - Baltic Development Ltd
http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/P...ins/Liverpool_WIP/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

The applicant is listed as Baltic Developments Ltd, however we know the developer is actually the Elliot Group, also known as Lawless, who are also behind Artesian House, as well as the Park Lane/Heap's Rice Mill, and Wolstenholme Square plans. Nothing should be read into Elliot Group or Lawless not being named as an applicant, as it is not unusual for developers to use different applicant names for different developments.

The site as it currently is -
https://flic.kr/p/tAwJYj

Renders, originally posted by Owl. -
 
See less See more
1
#36 ·
Meant to post the following the other day but I ended up on the wrong thread Just noticed that the yellow building the site of Norfolk house phase two has in parts no roof and where it is an entire structure is also being used for storage of building materials (looked like roof trusses and a telelifter).
 
#7 ·
From the Echo -

Baltic Triangle apartment block scheme approved by Liverpool planners

A nine-storey apartment block in the Baltic Triangle area of Liverpool city centre has been given the green light by city planning chiefs.

Despite last minute objections councillors on the city planning committee backed the plans for 100 studio apartments “for city centre workers” between Norfolk Street, Watkinson Street and Simpson Street close to the city centre.

Among those opposing the scheme was Maggie O’Carroll from The Women’s Organisation based nearby, who told the planning committee meeting in Liverpool town hall they had not been consulted on the proposals.
Article continues at - http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/baltic-triangle-apartment-block-scheme-9514328
 
#15 ·
They say they weren't consulted.....they should have been.... and I also suspect that they imagined that it would end up just being more student accommodation. Let's hope it doesn't! We have seen a few developments which are worded a little ambiguously and end up being exactly that. Why all studio apartments? Are they for sale or rent?
 
#10 · (Edited)
Maybe they have some concern that developers are eyeing all the available plots in the Baltic triangle to throw up student blocks rather than business incubators and office bases. That would only stifle business growth and the Baltic potential no?. I think if developers in London started throwing up student halls and and studio apartments in the heart of Old Street and the silicon roundabout.......hang on no that would never be allowed to happen.

Talking of developing in the Baltic triangle, with development of Heaps Mill and the Baltic Village and 1 Park Lane, what do people imagine will happen to the land prices in say the vicinity of the Ibis Hotel. They occupy a prime position no? Once this and the Police HQ and the Police headquarters are developed. As well as the old Kingston house plot that will be an impressive massing of buildings. There are still an awful lot of development plots in Liverpool in prime positions.
 
#13 ·
Maybe they have some concern that developers are eyeing all the available plots in the Baltic triangle to throw up student blocks rather than business incubators and office bases.
To be fair to both the developers and the council, the council asked the developers during pre-planning discussions to include such creative spaces in this development. The developers declined in this instance, as they argued, not unreasonably, that they had already allocated 12 office spaces for such use in Norfolk House - Phase 1 just across the road.

I strongly support the idea of furthering the Baltic Triangle as a creative hub. However, while an eye should be kept on ensuring there continues to be space for such endeavours, I don't think its harmful to the area's vitality to allow some new developments without such space.
 
#25 ·
I was at the committee yesterday and it does seem odd arguing against people moving into the area. Yes, we need to support the growing business committee down there but not every building can have the same mix. The scheme approved yesterday is on a very small footprint. By the time you get a good entrance lobby, deal with cycle storage, there isn't much left to play with. As was mentioned phase I has a large amount of commercial space available, so this issue hasn't been ignored.
Interesting height wasn't mentioned by anyone, which I thought might have been the case. I like the scheme personally speaking.
 
#26 · (Edited)
I was at the committee yesterday and it does seem odd arguing against people moving into the area. Yes, we need to support the growing business committee down there but not every building can have the same mix.
I agree to a point, and not so long ago you would find city centre residents championing dedicated living space for students, to relieve tensions between those of us who live and work and operate businesses here, and those who like to let their hair down and live hours incompatible with normal living.

The issues of concern are to do with balance, not height (it's the city centre, who cares how tall), and to do with who fills these places long term, due to the sheer number of these developments occurring. What effect will they have on the neighbourhoods around them, on the city's ability to attract other types of development? Particularly, if there were also a large number of normal (2-bed) sized residential developments happening in the city, along with a good amount of commercial activity, the concern about the subject would be a lot less.

Although I would prefer to see the city start to rebuild the the residential of the inner city now, ultimately we aren't complaining about people moving into the area. Having had the fastest growing and largest city centre population in the UK last decade, I would guess the number of genuine permanent residents of the city centre has been static since, as few new developments have been completed. There is a difference between people moving into the area, and those just staying in it temporarily.

You say "not every building can have the same mix", but at the moment it seems just about every building being announced recently does have the same "mix" (ie. little to none). It's our city, and we are the ones who have to live in it (or not, more to the point) once the developers have moved on.
 
#28 ·
As long as there is a demand for good quality city-centre student accomodation, I don't have too much of a problem. There has been a lack of stock for many years and even with the various developments taking place, it's a couple of hundred units here, a couple of hundred units there. Granted, we don't want saturation, but I would think that's a little way off yet.

The 'win' for me is that proper family homes in areas like Smithdown Road, that have previously been converted into student bedsits, might be converted back to traditional housing and make these areas much more desirable to families to move back in
 
#30 ·
The 'win' for me is that proper family homes in areas like Smithdown Road, that have previously been converted into student bedsits, might be converted back to traditional housing and make these areas much more desirable to families to move back in
This takes money, and in order to spend money you have to be sure you're going to make the money back.

It's just as likely that they'll be retained as bedsits and rented out as low quality accommodation, or converted as cheaply as possible because that's all the rents could command support for, leaving such areas in a state of terminal decline.

The whole thing needs to be managed, not just left to market forces.
 
#40 ·
Love the balconies & so will DM................

A new render has been released for this development which doesn't include the Elliot Group's artistic take on the surrounding area -
Cheers for the render Owl, with so much happening /in the pipeline/ proposed, I think Elliot will soon be able to say bye-bye to his artist.......:hi:

Fantasy will become reality
 
#46 ·
According to the recent development update, the Section 106 agreement for this has remained unsigned since June. Now baring in mind that from a developers perspective, a Section 106 is just a big bill that needs paying, that could be viewed more than one way.

It could be viewed badly that they don't have the money to pay it, and thus are holding back from signing it for that reason.

On the other hand, it could be viewed positively, that they are smart enough to know they have a lot going on at the moment, and therefore have sensibly decided against starting another project at this time, and will sign the Section 106 shortly before they need to start.

Given the fact they have several sites still with all systems go, and there does seem to be some sense of a pre-determined staggered approach to what they are doing - see the groundworks finishing at NHP1, and then shortly after starting at Parliament Place, and steelwork pausing at Queensland Place, before shortly after starting at NHP1 - and I'm more inclined to go with the latter explanation.

Of course, if they hold back any further, then the supposed August 2016 completion date for NHP2 is not going to be met. However, if come then, NHP1, Parliament Place, Queensland Place, and Royal Oak Court are all finished, I don't think we can grumble too much if NHP2, isn't done.

A final thought. Seen as NHP2 and NHP3 are effectively back-to-back on the same block, perhaps they have decided to build those concurrently, rather that NHP1 concurrent with NHP2?
 
#47 ·
I'm more than comfortable with the idea that, at some point, the wheels might fall off their plans. Who knows? It might have already happened with X1, they may have just decided that they ran out of steam before going public with any more plans and just reigned themselves in.

It's the fate of most property developers to develop until they go bust and start again. It pretty much happened to Urban Splash, who survived only by getting rid of all their staff apart from one planner and a tea lady.

That said, these guys have 1 scheme built and 4 on site. If they collapsed after just 5, that's still a contribution I'd be happy with.
 
#48 ·
I couldn't get a clean shot as the guy in the blue van was giving me the evils. However, I noticed for the first time the left-hand entrance (the dark one) was open. In there is a ramp down to maybe a metre or so below street level. At the bottom of this ramp was a skip with rubbish in it. It looks like they may be clearing out the offices that form the rear section of the building, and are accessible from the ramped access. The area behind the blue hoardings is the yard, which is now fully clear of rubbish, and is being used for impromptu car parking -
https://flic.kr/p/Bkpo3j

With some movement here, as well as the future site of NHP3 looking like it'll be a site compound for now, it does look like we're slowly creeping towards seeing this one on-site.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top