search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Manchester Metro Area

Manchester Metro Area For Manchester, Salford and the surrounding area.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 18th, 2012, 10:14 PM   #681
loweskid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,033
Likes (Received): 1265

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner View Post
Thankyou Loweskid, i did not know that that page existed.
You're welcome...
loweskid no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 19th, 2012, 01:40 PM   #682
timo
Weaste Infection
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Manchestoh
Posts: 613
Likes (Received): 108

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Miles Platting View Post
Shouldn't say this, but a bolt of Jewish Lightning might be the only answer to this dilemma.

We lose the building, but clear a large chunk of real estate for a new development.
nope
timo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2012, 02:33 PM   #683
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by timo View Post
nope
I ignored that too! What could be said to such a comment. Sometimes not even worth the energy.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2012, 02:35 PM   #684
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

A really kind reply from Sir Howard Bernstein, so anyone really genuinely concerned about this building, Manchester City Council will be running a public meeting soon.

Dear Mr Prince

The City Council shares your concern about the Fire Station. It is our
intention that this fine building is brought back into use as soon as
possible so that it can make a positive contribution to the regeneration of
the Piccadilly area rather than blighting it. We also share the dismay at
the record of Britannia who have owned this landmark building for more than
a quarter of a century and allowed it to fall into decline and disuse. At
the public inquiry into the Council's proposed CPO last year, Britannia's
owner promised to fund the implementation of planning and listed building
consent which the building has. So far Britannia have not honoured this
commitment to implement the scheme despite prompting by the Council.

We are actively considering how to secure the earliest redevelopment of
this building and will continue to positively encourage the owners to do
the same. We also remain interested in acquiring the building. I would be
very happy to meet you to discuss your very welcome interest in the
delivery of what remains a key regeneration priority for the City. My
office will contact you to set up an early meeting to discuss this.

Best wishes

Sir Howard Bernstein
Chief Executive
Manchester City Council
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2012, 10:22 PM   #685
newdoader
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 438
Likes (Received): 99


Last edited by newdoader; December 19th, 2012 at 10:30 PM. Reason: mistake
newdoader no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2012, 10:41 PM   #686
madferret
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,080

Well done. Meetings with Langsam and Pickles next!
madferret no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2012, 11:55 PM   #687
js1000
Registered User
 
js1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mcr / Lon / Sheff
Posts: 2,795
Likes (Received): 1276

I think MCC are slowing catching on to the fact that if they are going to get London Road back they need public support - or people power as I like to call it! I know many who like the building but have just admired it rather than be proactive - until now of course. However we should delude ourselves and understand it may be years rather than months. Nevertheless good work Moveupandon

Also any new CPO must have the support of English Heritage. Still mystifies me how they believed Langsam's offer to "redevelop the hotel" in 2011 despite the building being put on the at Risk Register in 2001! What made them think he would suddenly redevelop it when he hasn't done anything with it for 10 years? Bad stuff from an organisation which is supposed to be saving historic buildings. I am tempted to send an email to seek an explanation. Authorities (EH, Highways Agency etc.) are normally asked to comment on applications.

If English Heritage back a CPO to save a Grade II* building then the situation becomes a whole different decision and one Pickles cannot simply ignore as an over-zealous council CPO.
js1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2012, 01:13 AM   #688
Sir Miles Platting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,912
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
I ignored that too! What could be said to such a comment. Sometimes not even worth the energy.
Nevertheless it looks like you found the energy and made the effort anyway.

Just to clear the air, my remark was meant in a more sardonic nature, rather than something to be taken seriously. Emoticons aren't mandatory to make a humourous point.

I support the salvage of this building and have said as much in earlier posts if you'd bother to check before going off on one.

On the other hand if you were offended by what you have suspected as being 'racist', I'm sure my many close Jewish friends will forgive me.

I've a feeling that this didn't bother you as much as the suggestion that the building should/could be destroyed (before it deteriorates).

It would be great if a solution can be found but time is ticking. Manchester has lost lot's of gems in the past, whether to the blitz or the wrecking ball... BTW, I signed your petition and made an impassioned plea to save it!!! (as soon as you posted it)

Last edited by Sir Miles Platting; December 20th, 2012 at 01:24 AM.
Sir Miles Platting no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2012, 10:22 AM   #689
hulmeman2
Registered User
 
hulmeman2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 606

Ha! Wonder if they were closing the open windows?

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...d-fire-station

Quote:
Firefighters rescue workmen stuck in cherry picker at London Road fire station
Pete Bainbridge

December 20, 2012


Firefighters made an unexpected return to their old fire station - to rescue two workmen stuck in a cherry picker.

The contractors were working on the third floor exterior of London Road Fire Station this morning, when the controls got jammed.

They became stranded 20 feet above the ground, a fire spokesman said.

Police and fire crews were called to the building, near the junction with Whitworth Street, in Manchester city centre at 6.50am this morning.

Fire teams used a special extending platform to bring the two men to safety within half an hour.
hulmeman2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2012, 10:55 AM   #690
slipdigby
Registered User
 
slipdigby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 683
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by hulmeman2 View Post
Ha! Wonder if they were closing the open windows?

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...d-fire-station
What the feck were they doing working on the exterior of a building at 6.50am in a morning? Presumably the flats opposite were happy about this?

Best,
Slip
slipdigby no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2012, 12:26 PM   #691
miffmoff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 27
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by hulmeman2 View Post
Ha! Wonder if they were closing the open windows?

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...d-fire-station
Probably opening a few more just to wind up MCC!
miffmoff no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2012, 06:32 PM   #692
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by js1000 View Post
I think MCC are slowing catching on to the fact that if they are going to get London Road back they need public support - or people power as I like to call it! I know many who like the building but have just admired it rather than be proactive - until now of course. However we should delude ourselves and understand it may be years rather than months. Nevertheless good work Moveupandon
Dear All, email I sent just now! Sorry about the length! Thought I'd make it clear, get everybody involved!

_________________________________________________________

Dear Sir Howard Bernstein

Thanks so much for your very kind reply. What is wonderful about having started this petition is that more and more people are discovering of its existence and feel similarly about how shocking the case of London Road Fire Station is, despite Manchester City Council persistent efforts and though there are rumbles of some the inevitable background grumblers, I think you will find extensive support amongst Manchester. Often in terms of a petition it is getting the message out making people aware of the situation. This remains our key challenge and a group has gathered to continue our efforts in the New Year.

For the CPO to have been rejected is unfathomable and angers so many, as did the ‘impassioned’ declarations of Britannia Hotels at the CPO that have amounted to nothing and clearly required a certain ‘gullibility’ for the Secretary of Communities and Local Government to have believed them (amongst other predictions). That in this time of austerity that Pickles made his decision to make you liable for the costs in December 2012 reverberates with anger throughout Manchester, especially seeing the heart wrenching sacrifices your Council is having to make in terms of job losses and cuts. I genuinely believe it when people have begun to label London Road Fire Station one of the worst cases of neglectful corporate ownership of a Listed II* At Risk Iconic building in a City, not only in the North West but the whole of the UK. I believe this is also a story many deserve to hear and understand. Too many people have said to me, knowing little or nothing about the case, something along the lines of, “I have always wondered about that building and what I have learnt is shocking and disgusting”. Others have cared so much and have been worn down by apathy that something might ever happen for our City.

I very much look forward to your department getting in contact for a personal meeting in view to discussing how a strong, inclusive and diverse meeting of Manchester’s industries, public opinions and history that can be held in a representative and structured way. Of course an open meeting with key invites would be a great way for Manchester to reach the media in this case and gain support to show any resistant parties that our city not only deserves better. But should not have its most important buildings or interests held hostage by the greed and unethical inactivity and destruction by this corporation. Pickles contentious decision in many peoples opinion has given a green light to corporate neglect and deceit and no wonder a Council under all these economic pressures are reluctant to pursue clear cases of justice or the abuse of English Heritage.

I firmly believe if such a meeting is held and publicized it could be an effective way for Manchester to unite. This could be in terms of assistance from Manchester City Council representatives, English Heritage, the Royal Institute of British Architects, other relevant professions and the media present to witness and publicize a public meeting with a structured agenda. I think to unify and harbor the public anger in this case might the impetus to enhance Britannia Hotels realization that for the majority they are unwanted and disliked. I think a message also needs to be given to Parliament, that such contentious rulings with the continued inactivity of this company cannot be tolerated regardless of what cynical tactics are used to delay a dynamic and sympathetic redevelopment any further. Quite simply such destructiveness cannot continue.

I have been offered meeting rooms for the petition group, but I wonder if this meeting for the large public meeting would need to be arranged within your town hall offices so that the media and other representatives could be invited. I agree with what Councilor Pat Karney said in Manchester Evening News this week “This needs to change and we must make sure 2013 is the year we finally do that”.

I wonder if it is permissible for Communications within Manchester City Council to feature a piece on the petition as this could also increase the impact of the signatories unless this was a conflict of interests. I will keep pursuing and make investment in leafleting for January, many kind people are coming forward with their own energies and initiative to whom I hope the City will be thankful.

I await you advice, your reply and contact from your department with interest. I attach my details for contact to this email. Apologies for the length of my email; being succinct has never been my strong point but I hope it communicates my sentiments of support and in gathering unity and exposure.

I hope you have a wonderful festive period and enjoy rest after this difficult year for the public sector.
Yours sincerely


Adam Prince
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2012, 07:10 PM   #693
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Miles Platting View Post
Nevertheless it looks like you found the energy and made the effort anyway.

Just to clear the air, my remark was meant in a more sardonic nature, rather than something to be taken seriously. Emoticons aren't mandatory to make a humourous point.

I support the salvage of this building and have said as much in earlier posts if you'd bother to check before going off on one.

On the other hand if you were offended by what you have suspected as being 'racist', I'm sure my many close Jewish friends will forgive me.

I've a feeling that this didn't bother you as much as the suggestion that the building should/could be destroyed (before it deteriorates).

It would be great if a solution can be found but time is ticking. Manchester has lost lot's of gems in the past, whether to the blitz or the wrecking ball... BTW, I signed your petition and made an impassioned plea to save it!!! (as soon as you posted it)
Oh I'm not bothered! I have foot in my mouth disease most of the time! I just couldn't work the comment out let alone have a context of who posted it.

Being slightly paranoid, I'm just used to people on forums trying to start an argument. Probably I do that, especially too spontaneous or sometimes points without good evidence, especially if I've had a glass or two and often border on the controversial and obtuse humour (slapped hands). But its all in the vivid nature of discussion of the forum world!

Have a great Xmas and New Year and thanks for the support.

Last edited by moveupandon; December 20th, 2012 at 07:19 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2012, 11:16 PM   #694
Sir Miles Platting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,912
Likes (Received): 8

fair do's moveup. All the best!
Sir Miles Platting no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2012, 08:27 PM   #695
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

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
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2012, 08:47 PM   #696
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

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.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2012, 09:19 PM   #697
madferret
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,080

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View 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)!
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!
madferret no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2012, 09:53 PM   #698
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by madferret View Post
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!
Probably right! Reading and fuming through some of the bits, but meant to be out!

The planning inspector was Paul Griffiths.

HE IS CHOSEN BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Talk about making a biased "report"!!!!!!!! Shocking!!!!!

by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Last edited by moveupandon; December 21st, 2012 at 10:00 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2012, 10:18 PM   #699
tomegranate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,076
Likes (Received): 137

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.
tomegranate no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2012, 10:45 PM   #700
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegranate View Post
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.
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!

Last edited by moveupandon; December 26th, 2012 at 03:57 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu