Liverpool Waters

[Chris B]

There is a church around these parts that has an old school attached. The school closed years ago, but is still used by the church for regular meetings and events for the local community. Because of its age and condition despite maintenance, the church has a long-term plan to demolish the school, and replace it with a new building, to be used for community use.

A few years ago, various different bodies were made aware or became aware of the proposals, including the Victorian Society. The Victorian Society said they would object to any proposal which would see the demolition of the school. Furthermore, they stated they would like to see a full restoration of the school, which would see it refurbished to exactly how a school would have been in the Victorian era. This is despite the fact there is no justifiable need to have a Victorian school there, or anywhere in fact, yet there is a need for better facilities for community use, in place of a building which has out-lived its usefulness. (For the record English Heritage didn't have a problem with the demolition).

While the Victorian Society, like many groups has an agenda they work too, there doesn't seem to be any wiggle room at all, to the point that completely unrealistic suggestions are made. I think their comments re: Liverpool Waters also show this. Liverpool Waters has already been massively down-sized, yet they still think a 'fundamental rethink' is needed. I appreciate not everyone sees the appeal of tall buildings and modern architectural styles. But I question whether building skyscrapers near to historic buildings is really any more harmful than surrounding them with low-level mediocrity.

[Richard_A]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

Victorian Society conservation adviser Chris Costelloe said: "If the Liverpool Waters development gets the go-ahead it will diminish and obscure the dockland character of what was once the world’s greatest nineteenth century seaport.

Once.

In a nutshell. That was 70-100 years ago. Those days are gone and we are left with an industrial wasteland that some would sooner preserve (sorry, see decay further) at the cost of jobs for future generations.

Despicable, really, isn't it.

[JWilson]

I think that liverpool waters is a great idea but the city needs to work on its areas that need it in the before we concentrate on big projects, such as chinatown and stjohns this will get the people excited about the city, its all very well having a big development spring up on the docks but all it will do is make people move down the river, the asian community will just move into another area and shops will relocate into the development and in 40yrs what is now the city center will just be barran land where buildings used to be before they where knocked down by big time developers (sound familiar?)

[nosey]

Originally Posted by JWilson

I think that liverpool waters is a great idea but the city needs to work on its areas that need it in the before we concentrate on big projects, such as chinatown and stjohns this will get the people excited about the city, its all very well having a big development spring up on the docks but all it will do is make people move down the river, the asian community will just move into another area and shops will relocate into the development and in 40yrs what is now the city center will just be barran land where buildings used to be before they where knocked down by big time developers (sound familiar?)

This and it needs to integrate with the rest of the citycentre.

[Howie_P]

Liverpool Waters scheme could damage World Heritage site new report warns
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post
May 16 2011


Artist impression of Peel Holding's Liverpool Waters scheme

THE £5.5bn Liverpool Waters scheme would cause “significant damage” to the city’s World Heritage Site – according to a scathing new report.

Peel Holdings wants to regenerate the city’s northern docklands with a series of skyscrapers claiming it will create more than 25,000 jobs and 14,000 apartments in a £5.5bn development.

But Government advisers English Heritage commissioned an independent report into the project after revealing it had concerns about the scheme.

The Daily Post can exclusively reveal that report found the outstanding universal value of Liverpool’s World Heritage Site (WHS) would be compromised in a number of ways – and that the huge scheme breached a number of policies.

EH said it now wants further concessions from Peel including removing a cluster of skyscrapers from the central area around Clarence Dock – leaving only one group of tall buildings around Princes Dock in the development instead.

Regional head of EH Henry Owen-John said: “We believe that it is possible to come up with a creative and imaginative scheme of regeneration for the area without necessarily having these tall buildings (at Clarence Dock) that is still economically viable and diminishes the impact on the World Heritage Site.”

Peel said the report was flawed and has refused to agree to EH’s demands to remove any skyscrapers.

Lindsey Ashworth, director of investment for Peel Holdings, said: “It is not about making a profit. If you take the tall buildings out it is an opportunity that will be lost for 150 years. The opportunity is now. I think it is a shame that we cannot reach agreement. But we are right and they are completely wrong.”

The scheme is due to go before Liverpool council’s planning committee later this year.

And it now seems a matter of time before EH lodge an official objection to the scheme.

If English Heritage does lodge an objection and the city grants planning permission the scheme would automatically be referred to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles – dramatically increasing the chances of a lengthy and costly public inquiry.

The government has already confirmed the site will fall into one of its new enterprise zones that are eligible for tax concessions.

Mr Ashworth said he hoped because the government had identified its potential it would not be called in for a public inquiry.

Last July the Daily Post revealed how English Heritage had forced Peel to massively scale back their plans. There will now be no tall buildings on the line of the frontage of the Mersey.

Continues >>

I'm confused about what local planning permission is required as part of an enterprise zone - can someone explain?

[Paul D]

25,000 jobs or a title,seriously are these people for real?

[Paul D]

I'm confused about what local planning permission is required as part of an enterprise zone - can someone explain?

I was wondering about that aswell.

[buggedboy]

No worries about this. English Heritage will try to flex their muscles, but the government has already given this scheme the green light, at least behind closed doors. They'll have to go through the motions but Peel will win this one. They would not give E.Z. status to a scheme they wouldn't back, or strip away the planning permission requirements.

Fundamentally though, whose number do you think sits in David Cameron's little black book, the boss of EH or Peel? Makes all the difference in the end.

[HeartDeco]

Originally Posted by Howie_P

English Heritage

Let them DIE!

[tomo90]

I would rather have the UNESCO World Heritage Site title revoked if I am honest.

[Portobello Red]

I'd rather have a future than a UNESCO title.

The history will always be there - we don't need a title to prove it.

I think a dynamic self-confident city should feel comfortable in telling UNESCO that we no longer wish to be one of their historic sites - if they start sticking their beak into this development.

[Howie_P]

The Guardian has picked up the Daily Post story up here >>


PS There is a link to the full report on Dale Street Blues but I can't get the .pdf to open. The file appears to be corrupted but you can read the executive summary here >>

[Howie_P]

Liverpool Council leader Joe Anderson to convene crunch talks on Liverpool Waters scheme
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post
May 18 2011



LIVERPOOL Council leader Joe Anderson last night waded into a heritage row threatening to derail a £5.5bn regeneration scheme for the city’s northern docklands.

Cllr Anderson will convene top-level talks over the Liverpool Waters project, which a new report said would damage the city’s World Heritage Site (WHS) status.

He told the Daily Post: “I do not believe that a certificate on the wall enhances the beauty of the Three Graces – they speak for themselves.

“But the accolade of having a Unesco World Heritage Site is one we are proud of, because the city rightly deserves the merit.”

Government advisor English Heritage (EH) has demanded changes to the huge skyscraper scheme.

A new report commissioned by EH warned the project would cause “significant damage” to the WHS.

Peel Holdings, which rejected the report’s findings, wants to regenerate the city’s northern docklands with a series of skyscrapers. It claims it will create more than 25,000 jobs and 14,000 apartments.

Last night, Cllr Anderson said: “I think we are in a situation where English Heritage is asking too much.

Continues >>

[Keayman]

EH should focus itself of doing something about the still dilapidated rows of Georgian terraces on Shaw St and Everton Road instead of trying to halt progress on long term wastelands.

[Dreamer]

lets all complain and take it all the way with EH, its war

[the pool08]

Originally Posted by Dreamer

lets all complain and take it all the way with EH, its war

i agree lets get a bit of an emailing campaign going,

[Howie_P]

Towering quality for Liverpool waterfront

The Guardian, Wednesday 18 May 2011

Liverpool is twinned with Shanghai and was the only British city to have it's own pavilion at the recent World Expo. Investment from China is likely to play an important part in the further development of the city. It is against this background that the standoff between English Heritage and Peel Holdings over waterfront development should be viewed (Shanghai-style plan 'threatens Liverpool's world heritage status', 17 May). The big question is, or should be, quality. Unfortunately, the track record of English Heritage is that they don't seem to have the will or the expertise to engage in rigorous assessments of the intrinsic quality of new developments, and resort to a kneejerk opposition to any new high-rise proposals on the waterfront. Or, they force proposals to be reduced in height, as they did previously, to negative effect, in Liverpool One and on Lime Street.

Unfortunately, the higher the profile of the architect, the greater the likelihood of drawing English Heritage firepower. Meanwhile, numerous mediocre new schemes and the ongoing demolition of swaths of fine Victorian housing seem to go through relatively unchallenged. Most of us recognise the value of Liverpool's outstanding architectural heritage and the need to safeguard it, but this is all the more reason for seeking high quality in new developments. Whatever the fate of the Clarence Dock site (formerly a power station with three enormous chimneys, known as the three sisters), it should be a development of landmark status and quality. A preconceived assumption against high towers is, at this stage, unhelpful and does not contribute to the debate over quality.

Trevor Skempton

President, Liverpool Architectural Society

Source: guardian.co.uk

[buggedboy]

Hear hear

[stepr]

Next they (EH) will attempt to pull Wirral Waters because it makes people look over the Mersey instead of at their precious graded buildings.

As much as I appreciate conserving heritage (and I love the architecture of Liverpool), stopping development and the potential to generate money and jobs in difficult times is criminal.

So we can now blame English Heritage for attempting to prevent Liverpool from recovering the economic problems. Given Liverpool supports Wirral economically I'm not particularly happy with EH's behaviour

Im all for a protest!

Why don't we just go back to living in caves and rubbing sticks together?

[Artie Fufkin]

People, don't get your knickers in a twist over two schemes that will never come to fruition.