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 January 21st, 2013, 11:11 AM   #721
pixel2006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 29

Well done ... you are tenacious.
pixel2006 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 21st, 2013, 01:44 PM   #722
pixiepie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Salford
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 49

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.
pixiepie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 02:05 PM   #723
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiepie View Post
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.
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!

Last edited by moveupandon; January 21st, 2013 at 02:33 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 02:12 PM   #724
pixiepie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Salford
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 49

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).
pixiepie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 02:18 PM   #725
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiepie View Post
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
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 02:41 PM   #726
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixel2006 View Post
Well done ... you are tenacious.
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/f...-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!


Last edited by moveupandon; January 21st, 2013 at 02:46 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 06:41 PM   #727
tellmeastorey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 159
Likes (Received): 36

Britannia knows MCC has £5m to spend on another CPO. So they'll sit on the building until the cheque arrives.

And that's pretty much that.
tellmeastorey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 09:23 PM   #728
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

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..._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.

Last edited by moveupandon; January 21st, 2013 at 10:49 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 03:48 PM   #729
Farsight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,550
Likes (Received): 680

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.
Farsight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 07:21 PM   #730
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by moveupandon; January 22nd, 2013 at 07:30 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 09:54 PM   #731
Farsight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,550
Likes (Received): 680

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
...I think if Britannia attend (they won't) they'll have a lot of pertinent questions to answer...
Oh I don't know Adam. If I was Langsam I'd go along and say sorry sorry sorry and that I'm going to step up to the plate on this one and take care of it personally. But Adam I need your help. Meanwhile the beers are on me. Hurrah!
Farsight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 03:16 AM   #732
js1000
Registered User
 
js1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mcr / Lon / Sheff
Posts: 2,819
Likes (Received): 1324

Quote:
Originally Posted by tellmeastorey View Post
Britannia knows MCC has £5m to spend on another CPO. So they'll sit on the building until the cheque arrives.

And that's pretty much that.
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.
js1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 10:22 AM   #733
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Oh I don't know Adam. If I was Langsam I'd go along and say sorry sorry sorry and that I'm going to step up to the plate on this one and take care of it personally. But Adam I need your help. Meanwhile the beers are on me. Hurrah!
This man buy anyone a drink! http://menmedia.co.uk/macclesfieldex...non-dom-payout

Or say sorry!

Drafting and redrafting my letter to them and will be checked by my high up Barrister mate tonight who's involving her network! I think my loose cannon antics humour them and glad they're supporting me. i.e. I never usually redraft anything... I'm that impetuous sender who just presses 'send' and then thinks later (honest and spontaneous), so glad for the help.

Also meeting journalist and documentary maker tomorrow to see if we we can make small 2-3 minute piece to entice the media types into the story on a larger scale. Some bigger leads but they seem flaky so far.

And hopefully letters to Shadow Planning Minister, Planning Minster etc today, and there's the Student Paper that want to take on the story. Manchester Confidential and MEN due to write their releases on meeting. I think I'll manage a 2-3 minute introduction, but sure will wish I'd taken a sedative when I'm standing up there.

I totally respect Jonathan Schofield (Manchester Confidential) and how brazen and strong minded he is... admirably fearless and I imagine he will really go to town on that statement. He wants to speak alongside all the others confirmed and hope his will be a quippy speech, alongside other more serious speakers. He might pioneer the idea of demanding and creating public meetings for many other issues of Manchester redevelopment, which I fundamentally believe is so necessary. This isolationism has to end. It enabled the PO in that damn report to question the public support and interest of LRFS, as unless the documents or records are right in front of their face it seems, common sense cannot prevail.

As for English Heritage, I've had conversations and correspondence from high up people Nationally and North West. They are not fans and dislike how BritBrit have behaved. Unfortunately it was a part of their constitution to look at proposed plans and have to say which kept the heritage most in tact. Such a shame as there is almost a sweet naivety in that constitution that people will behave responsibly and do as they say. It seems that naivety needs updating very quickly!

Though I will always remain suspicious of anything Pickles would be involved with and if there is another CPO I'm sure there's another anti-democratic, anti-Manchester stance he could find and celebrate. (An opinion quite a few share).

Last edited by moveupandon; January 23rd, 2013 at 10:27 AM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 10:28 AM   #734
pixiepie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Salford
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by js1000 View Post
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.
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.
2. MCC haven't proven it is enough of a blight to prevent the regeneration of the area.
3. MCC haven't proven the fire station is in such poor condition that action must be immediate.
pixiepie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 10:34 AM   #735
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiepie View Post
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.
2. MCC haven't proven it is enough of a blight to prevent the regeneration of the area.
3. MCC haven't proven the fire station is in such poor condition that action must be immediate.
In my letter today hoping to convey idea they could almost be leaseholder and seek funds elsewhere to represent businesses within this huge building, because that 'private' pity me funding question really irks me after this many years. They totally lack being dynamic, sincere or strategic in finding other options. I'm going to ask the questions to suggest they think outside the box or give it to a company that can.

Essentially as a business model and new compromise and idea for the building, it would be sustainable if there were many organisations involved and the owner(s) sought other funding sources and collaborative investments. And of-course a small Brit* hotel with a statue of great Mr Langsam!

This is why this wonderful dissertation won the RIBA student prize 2010. (Sadly I haven't tracked her down) http://www.presidentsmedals.com/Entry-12630
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 10:50 AM   #736
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 870

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.

Last edited by moveupandon; January 23rd, 2013 at 11:46 AM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 11:06 AM   #737
Farsight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,550
Likes (Received): 680

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
This man buy anyone a drink! http://menmedia.co.uk/macclesfieldex...non-dom-payout Or say sorry!
Oooh, what a nasty piece of work. I stand corrected!
Farsight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 12:51 PM   #738
nerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,733
Likes (Received): 1855

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiepie View Post
Read the CPO report though.... nothing really has changed from then:
I think you are misrepresenting the report

Quote:
1. MCC still don't really have proof of a development partner who is better positioned to refurbish the fire station.
There is a Catch22 here; If MCC cannot produce an named alternative development partner, then Britannia argue that they cannot prove that such a partner exists; but if they do enter into any sort of explicit understanding with a nominated partner, then Britannia accuse them of collusion with their commercial rivals, invalidating the CPO.

Quote:
2. MCC haven't proven it is enough of a blight to prevent the regeneration of the area.
Any passer-by can see that this derelict builiding blights the area. MCC are the planning authority, assessment of the extent of area blight is their responsibility and within their statutory discretion. It is no business of the inspector to second-guess the judgement of the statutory authority, unless it is plainly perverse - which cannot be said to be the case here.

Quote:
3. MCC haven't proven the fire station is in such poor condition that action must be immediate.
They don't need to prove it; the building is on the EH 'At Risk' list.

The CPO did not fail because the inspector found that there was no urgent need for development to proceed; it failed because Britannia claimed that their 'approved' scheme was the best option for achieving such developement as quickly as possible; and were supported in this by English Heritage.

The case turned on the question of whether Britannia were acting in good faith in the proposals they presented and the promises they made. Essentially, the inspector ducked the issue on the basis that this was a judgement matter for the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State ducked the issue, on the basis that the inspector had recommended refusal, and that was reason enough for him to do so too.

The problem is that Britannia were acting in bad faith; and have acted in bad faith throughout the whole sorry affair. It is that, however, that MCC needed to be able to 'prove' and failed to do.

Last edited by nerd; January 23rd, 2013 at 01:00 PM.
nerd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 08:39 PM   #739
pixiepie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Salford
Posts: 239
Likes (Received): 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerd View Post
I think you are misrepresenting the report



There is a Catch22 here; If MCC cannot produce an named alternative development partner, then Britannia argue that they cannot prove that such a partner exists; but if they do enter into any sort of explicit understanding with a nominated partner, then Britannia accuse them of collusion with their commercial rivals, invalidating the CPO.



Any passer-by can see that this derelict builiding blights the area. MCC are the planning authority, assessment of the extent of area blight is their responsibility and within their statutory discretion. It is no business of the inspector to second-guess the judgement of the statutory authority, unless it is plainly perverse - which cannot be said to be the case here.



They don't need to prove it; the building is on the EH 'At Risk' list.

The CPO did not fail because the inspector found that there was no urgent need for development to proceed; it failed because Britannia claimed that their 'approved' scheme was the best option for achieving such developement as quickly as possible; and were supported in this by English Heritage.

The case turned on the question of whether Britannia were acting in good faith in the proposals they presented and the promises they made. Essentially, the inspector ducked the issue on the basis that this was a judgement matter for the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State ducked the issue, on the basis that the inspector had recommended refusal, and that was reason enough for him to do so too.

The problem is that Britannia were acting in bad faith; and have acted in bad faith throughout the whole sorry affair. It is that, however, that MCC needed to be able to 'prove' and failed to do.
You're wrong on every point here. Have you actually read the CPO report?

MCC have a development partner: Argent. However, Argent have no firm plans for the redevelopment, no business plan, no proof of funding, no implementation agreement etc etc.

The CPO found that the building has not blighted the area. For example, it did not prevent the Piccadilly Place development for happening.

Although it's on the at risk register, it's only grade C and EH are thinking of downgrading it to a grade D, i.e. it's in poor repair but it being maintained, albeit in a reactive way, and is not in serious or quick decline.

The case did not, as you say, turn on whether Brittania was acting in good faith. There were several reasons why the CPO failed. Read the report.

I agree that Brittania appear to have gone back on promises and appear to be in no rush to develop the building but I honestly don't believe a 2nd CPO will succeed. It would, however, give Brittania the perfect excuse for further delaying the redevelopment as who would spend money on a building where there is a threat of CPO hanging over it?
pixiepie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 11:42 PM   #740
Gerbil
11th March 2009
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 580
Likes (Received): 48

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.
Gerbil 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 08:25 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