Brunswick Quay

Waterfront · February 2nd, 2006, 06:00 PM

Looks like its 'game on' again fellas.

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

Gra

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

Development Control Division

Delboy · February 2nd, 2006, 06:27 PM

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

General Zod · February 2nd, 2006, 06:54 PM

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

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

Liverdude · February 2nd, 2006, 09:20 PM

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

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

westisbest · February 2nd, 2006, 09:24 PM

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

Blabbernsmoke · February 2nd, 2006, 09:38 PM

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

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

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

Awayo · February 2nd, 2006, 10:02 PM

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

Liverdude · February 2nd, 2006, 10:27 PM

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

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

Blabbernsmoke · February 2nd, 2006, 10:56 PM

Dude,

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

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

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

Liverdude · February 2nd, 2006, 11:02 PM

Quote:

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

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

Blabbernsmoke · February 2nd, 2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liverdude

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

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

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

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

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

Liverdude · February 3rd, 2006, 12:59 AM

Quote:

I've noticed you follow the applications a lot

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

maggie · February 3rd, 2006, 11:05 AM

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

Paul D · February 4th, 2006, 06:02 AM

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

Toadboy · February 4th, 2006, 12:27 PM

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

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

Talk about picking your fights.

Paul D · February 4th, 2006, 03:50 PM

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

Toadboy · February 4th, 2006, 03:53 PM

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

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

Paul D · February 4th, 2006, 03:59 PM

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

Toadboy · February 4th, 2006, 04:06 PM

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

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

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

Paul D · February 4th, 2006, 04:10 PM

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

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

February 2nd, 2006, 06:00 PM	#1
Waterfront Registered Drug User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: two dogs fightin' Posts: 775 Likes (Received): 0	Brunswick Quay Looks like its 'game on' again fellas. 2nd February 2006 Enquiries to:Contact No:Our ref: Mr M Loughran0151 233 302105F/1009 Gra Dear Sir/Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS) REGULATIONS 1992 Site: Brunswick Quay, Brunswick Way, Liverpool, L3 Proposal: Erection of a mixed development consisting of a building of 51 storeys (with a height of 166.25 metres A.O.D) and two buildings of 10 storeys, incorporating:- offices, residential accommodation of 414 apartments, hotel, retail uses, community use, plus servicing areas, basement car parking, landscaping and associated works Appeal No: 2997 On 23rd August 2005 the City Council as local planning authority refused to grant permission for the above-mentioned proposal. An appeal against this decision has now been lodged on behalf of the applicant to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The appellant has chosen the Public Inquiry process for dealing with this appeal. Documents relating to this appeal will be available for inspection in the Planning and Building Control Service, Millennium House, 60 Victoria Street, Liverpool, L1 6JF, you are advised to make an appointment with the case officer on the telephone number listed above. Any comments made at the application stage will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate, if you want to make additional comments the Planning Inspectorate must receive 3 copies by 1st March 2006. If they receive your representations after the deadline, they will not normally be seen by the inspector and they will be returned. Please address any letters to: The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN, quoting reference APP/Z4310/A/06/1197765. A copy of the Planning Inspectorate booklet ‘ Guide to taking part in planning appeals’ is available from this service. The Planning Inspectorate will not acknowledge your letter unless you specifically ask them to do so. Interested parties, who wish to be notified of the appeal decision, should write to the Planning Inspectorate at the same address, requesting such notice. Yours faithfully Development Control Division Last edited by Waterfront; February 2nd, 2006 at 06:06 PM.

February 2nd, 2006, 06:54 PM	#3
General Zod General Zod Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Liverpool Posts: 490 Likes (Received): 0	I'm please this proposal has been resurected and the developers havn't given up. It's a shame that a few of the private developers that have come to this city have had to take this route. Future planners should allow a liability premium in their proposals when coming to Liverpool ie - expect to have to take the planners to court over any plan more interesting than a three storey building and incorporate the court cost. Is there any sign of Chieftian doing the same over the Skelhorne Street tower at Lime Street? News would be appreciated. Sorry folks, been away for a while. Zod returns. __________________ Kneel before Zod! www.generalzod.net/

February 2nd, 2006, 09:20 PM	#4
Liverdude Hypnotize! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 752 Likes (Received): 0	Just found something on the Drivers Jonas site. They say that appeals for both applications of Brunwick Quay will be heard in June, so we have two chances. Zod, if I remember correctly the Skelhorne Street tower has been put in for appeal but the 28 storey redesign has quietly been withdrawn from planning. __________________ ☮C P Well I'm half awake, half a world away, all my past mistakes and every wasted day, I wouldn't have it any other way!

February 2nd, 2006, 09:24 PM	#5
westisbest Justice for the 96 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Greater Liverpool Posts: 3,737 Likes (Received): 6	so Skelhourne is defo not getting built and we won't know about this one til june, it could have been U/C now if they had of accepted 1st time __________________ Liverpool FC 18 League Titles 5 European Cups

February 2nd, 2006, 10:27 PM	#8
Liverdude Hypnotize! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 752 Likes (Received): 0	Wasn't Brunswick Quay a very close vote? It has the support of the Chair of the Planning Comittee who has publically said that she hopes Maro win the appeal. Blabbs, I take it the repeat planning process has already have begun with the outcome in June? __________________ ☮C P Well I'm half awake, half a world away, all my past mistakes and every wasted day, I wouldn't have it any other way!

February 2nd, 2006, 06:27 PM	#2
Delboy Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 35 Likes (Received): 0	Would be interesting to see in proportion terms how many times odpm sides with the local councils when big development appeals come their way.

February 2nd, 2006, 09:38 PM	#6
Blabbernsmoke BANNED Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze Posts: 2,627 Likes (Received): 0	The Secretary of State will appoint a planning inspector to consider the case. The inspector will repeat the process that the original planning officer and committee underwent. The inspector will first have to consider whether the council considered all material considerations, and that they did not take account of any irrelevant (in planning terms) considerations. Even if LCC's decision was lawful, the inspector may very well decide to give more weight to considerations that favoured the development. It seems to me that there are more things going for the development than against it. As the grounds for refusing this application were a bit on the shallow side, I reckon it has a good chance of gaining permission. Incidentally, the ODPM has overturned refusals like this one in the past. -he tends to be more pro than anti development. If it is overturned then LCC will be able to appeal against this decision in the courts (although they will have to be very confident of success if they are to waste tax payers money on fees and potential costs.)- or Maro will be able to if the ODPM upholds the decision. The fact that Chieftain are pursuing the same course of action might suggest that these developers are confident of success. I

February 2nd, 2006, 10:02 PM	#7
Awayo Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Hrafenmeles Posts: 14,003 Likes (Received): 110	Good knowledge Blabs. I'm pleased to know that my taxes are being well spent.

February 2nd, 2006, 10:56 PM	#9
Blabbernsmoke BANNED Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze Posts: 2,627 Likes (Received): 0	Dude, Maro have opted for the public inquiry option, which is only utilised in 4% of cases.- It is by far the most time consuming and is appropriate to complex cases where there is a lot of public interest. It enables interested parties- Maro (the appellant), LCC and members of the public, to have representations. So there is a lot of information gathering, etc. to be carried out which takes a long time. I'm assuming they will start working on it soon, but maybe they will start later due to work load pressures. It's nice to do some revision (-although it's a bit foggy in my mind so don't quote me!) It might be a good idea for people to make written representations to the inspectorate offering their support.- this might go a little way to counter balancing the NIMBYites.

February 3rd, 2006, 11:05 AM	#13
maggie Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 744 Likes (Received): 0	wow. this is great news. if this one gets through it should go a long way to losening the stranglehold the lcc and nimbys (EH) have on building proposals. hopefully make them consider applications like central station more carefully

February 4th, 2006, 06:02 AM	#14
Paul D Phatang Phatang Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 11,641 Likes (Received): 311	There was something in yesterdays Echo saying Maro gave all the small businesses a months notice to leave the site so the gloves are well and truly off. Last edited by Paul D; February 4th, 2006 at 02:01 PM.

February 4th, 2006, 12:27 PM	#15
Toadboy Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Liverpool, in the North of England but not of it Posts: 8,774 Likes (Received): 122	Daily Post and Echo carry the story today, asking businesses to leave before a date in April. Some agreements have been reached, some are still not in agreement. The thing is, this was the next logical step for the developer after the planners used the existing businesses as an excuse for declining the planning application. Instead of managing change and working with all involved to ease the process while developing new businesses, new homes and a whole new economic dynamic, we have a situation were conflict was used to repel the developer without a solid base. Talk about picking your fights. __________________ Duh! Knows

February 4th, 2006, 03:50 PM	#16
Paul D Phatang Phatang Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 11,641 Likes (Received): 311	These small businesses would have been relocated if the planners had agreed to this development,now they have been evicted with nothing and the taxpayers will have to foot the bill to fight Maro,where's the logic in that?

February 4th, 2006, 03:53 PM	#17
Toadboy Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Liverpool, in the North of England but not of it Posts: 8,774 Likes (Received): 122	Not sure logic came in to it, personal preference and ego seems to have played a part. Good luck to the small businesses, I know one affected company, while at the same time good luck to Maro. __________________ Duh! Knows

February 4th, 2006, 03:59 PM	#18
Paul D Phatang Phatang Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 11,641 Likes (Received): 311	Will attitudes change with Henshaw and Storey gone or did they have little influence over such matters?

February 4th, 2006, 04:06 PM	#19
Toadboy Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Liverpool, in the North of England but not of it Posts: 8,774 Likes (Received): 122	Can't see why Storey would have played an active role in knocking it back. Sames goes for Henshaw, I mean why would the CEO of a major cit turn away inward investment on such a large scale, for something that would enhance it's neighbourhood and have a positive and sustainable effect upon residents and businesses? Probably a planning issue with associated lobbying. Shame we're making a show of ourselves while costing money at the same time. __________________ Duh! Knows

February 4th, 2006, 04:10 PM	#20
Paul D Phatang Phatang Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Liverpool Posts: 11,641 Likes (Received): 311	Do you think Maro's latest move will work in their favour in June or do you see another huge dissapointment? Do you honestly believe they'll win this one because I'm not so sure?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode