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 > Liverpool Metro Area > Liverpool Construction Projects

Liverpool Construction Projects Developments being built on Merseyside



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 20 votes, 5.00 average.
Old March 10th, 2008, 01:59 PM   #41
liverpolitan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,416
Likes (Received): 1

Can someone local please take a photo?
liverpolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old March 10th, 2008, 02:31 PM   #42
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,925
Likes (Received): 805

I might be walking past there today, but will defo be passing it tomorrow, so I'll post one then.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2008, 03:36 PM   #43
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,925
Likes (Received): 805

Update on the JBH situation.

As I suspected would be the case, it looks like Maghull will win this one out.

The report being considered at the 8th april planning committee meeting basically points out that, even if the committee and every single person in Liverpool objects, Maghull are technically in the right i.e. the own the building, it isnt listed, the traffic objections are not valid enough to stop the development.

The other point raised is that LCC are likely to lose at appeal and that would need to stump up the costs.

Ownership is 9/10th's of the law and all that.

here's the snippet...

"Whilst it is open for the Planning Committee to come to a view contrary to the commendation of the Planning Manager, and whilst Members, when determining planning applications, must take into account views on planning matters expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and other third parties; local opposition to a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing planning permission unless that opposition is founded on valid planning reasons.

In this instance, notwithstanding the concerns raised by all parties, the Planning Manager is satisfied that the scheme accords with all policy requirements, and on balance, considers the proposal to be acceptable on all relevant planning grounds. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the
previously stated conditions.

Consequences – Potential for the Award of Costs at a Public Inquiry

If the Planning Committee resolve to refuse planning permission and an appeal was lodged by way of a public inquiry, there could be resource implications as there is no identified budget provision to fund the Council’s case. Furthermore, if the Council were unable to put forward substantial evidence at a public inquiry, the Council would be faced with a claim for costs on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/...7015&Ver=4&J=4
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2008, 10:12 PM   #44
markonasty
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 220
Likes (Received): 1

Sounds like the Planning department are working to closely with Maghull here.

The application should be refused on design grounds and also the demolition of the building which part of it is in the conservation area.
markonasty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2008, 10:17 PM   #45
eyeam
Registered User
 
eyeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,245
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by markonasty View Post
Sounds like the Planning department are working to closely with Maghull here.

The application should be refused on design grounds and also the demolition of the building which part of it is in the conservation area.
Defo.

Bloody disgraceful decision by the planning department.
eyeam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2008, 01:16 PM   #46
Babaloo
Fiat Lux
 
Babaloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,598
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by buggedboy View Post
Update on the JBH situation.

As I suspected would be the case, it looks like Maghull will win this one out.

The report being considered at the 8th april planning committee meeting basically points out that, even if the committee and every single person in Liverpool objects, Maghull are technically in the right i.e. the own the building, it isnt listed, the traffic objections are not valid enough to stop the development.

The other point raised is that LCC are likely to lose at appeal and that would need to stump up the costs.

Ownership is 9/10th's of the law and all that.

here's the snippet...

"Whilst it is open for the Planning Committee to come to a view contrary to the commendation of the Planning Manager, and whilst Members, when determining planning applications, must take into account views on planning matters expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and other third parties; local opposition to a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing planning permission unless that opposition is founded on valid planning reasons.

In this instance, notwithstanding the concerns raised by all parties, the Planning Manager is satisfied that the scheme accords with all policy requirements, and on balance, considers the proposal to be acceptable on all relevant planning grounds. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the
previously stated conditions.

Consequences – Potential for the Award of Costs at a Public Inquiry

If the Planning Committee resolve to refuse planning permission and an appeal was lodged by way of a public inquiry, there could be resource implications as there is no identified budget provision to fund the Council’s case. Furthermore, if the Council were unable to put forward substantial evidence at a public inquiry, the Council would be faced with a claim for costs on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/...7015&Ver=4&J=4
Unless the Planning Committee is thick as shit (strong possibility), I'm sure they can find legitimate reasons for turning down the design for the JBH site.

For example,

Car-parking claims seem over-optimistic and not properly thought through. This development is likely to add considerably to traffic congestion in the area.

This is a conservation area and this is a significant site - the quality of the other 3 buildings on this corner invite something a little less third rate than the generic design proposed by Maghull.

I'm sure lots of watertight legitimate objections can be found, if the committee is minded to identify them.

You would have thought that Maghull would have had the common sense to realise that this has been a PR disaster for them and that the most constructive way forward would be a redesign. This is a closely knit area and not very forgiving to developers who can't be arsed to get it right.
Babaloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2008, 03:13 PM   #47
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,925
Likes (Received): 805

I agree that the building being proposed is not as aesthetically impressive as what we'll lose, but in reality planning regs do not require that the new building needs to be as high quality as the one being knocked down. It just needs to satisfy the minimum legal requirements for an acceptable building n the area. We don't think the proposal is good enopugh, but it apears to satisfy minimum requirements. I'd love to see a change in that but there we go...

The planners will look at also look at content of what is being proposed vs. what is there already. In terms of content, the proposal does offer an impressive proposal and in the all or nothing system of planning, certainly an improvement on what is there already.

The problem for me stems from the absence of a third option of "we'll pass this if you come up with a proposal that keeps JBH".

As to the parking/traffic objection, I think it's safe to say that one been blown out of the water, hence why the planners are getting jittery about refusing permission. They have managed to chuck a lot of data at this objection and it's turned the heads of the planners.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2008, 06:31 PM   #48
Babaloo
Fiat Lux
 
Babaloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,598
Likes (Received): 1

Hardly an improvement to replace JBH and a space that could be occupied by a quality building with a third rate design that finds favour with no one. I hope the planning committee backs the local community and turns it down rather than giving in to the doleful Maghull and the underhand behaviour of JMU on this one.

JMU has a quite a bit of property about town and it needs to be discouraged from making deals with third-rate developers like Maghull. Maghull needs to lift its game. Just look at their website to see their calibre, or rather lack of it. I can see the rationale of selling to one developer but a click on the website would have revealed that Maghull lacked the track record to build a building in such a sensitive position. You only have to look at their proposal for this site and their determination to press ahead with a building that has received a universal thumbs down to get the measure of them.
Babaloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2008, 01:18 AM   #49
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,925
Likes (Received): 805

Fair do's. I love the JBH building myself and wish it was staying. I just get the feeling that Maghull hold all the aces, so to speak. As I said, public opinion means nowt ultimately and they have out manouvered the committee over their objection.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2008, 03:01 PM   #50
Babaloo
Fiat Lux
 
Babaloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,598
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by buggedboy View Post
Fair do's. I love the JBH building myself and wish it was staying. I just get the feeling that Maghull hold all the aces, so to speak. As I said, public opinion means nowt ultimately and they have out manouvered the committee over their objection.
So when can I borrow your crystal ball, BB?!

How do we know what (if indeed any) objections will be raised by the committee until it sits on the 8th, 5 days from now?They might have some deft manoeuvres up their sleaves for all we know.

On second thoughts ...
Babaloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2008, 03:12 PM   #51
Roo
Not another Manc Skank
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 426
Likes (Received): 1

yup, this one looks like its beyound "help" now.

But, look at the only bright side... investment
Roo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2008, 06:50 PM   #52
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,925
Likes (Received): 805

That's how I've been looking at it. The annoying this is is that I'd be more than happy if they bought the empty building over the road (the old people centre), gutted the inside and stuck a glass box on THE top to achieve their ambitions. It's an old building but not anywhere near as fine as JBH in my opinion.

We await with fingers crossed..
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2008, 01:18 PM   #53
Babaloo
Fiat Lux
 
Babaloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,598
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
D-Day for decision on controversial demolition of historic building to make way for shops and offices

Apr 8 2008 by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post

COUNCILLORS will today decide whether to stop the demolition of a historic Liverpool building for the creation of a retail and office development.

Last month angry members of Liverpool’s planning committee said they were minded to refuse Maghull Developments permission to demolish Josephine Butler House, at the junction of Myrtle Street and Hope Street.

The company wants to provide 263 basement car parking spaces, a high-class mini market, restaurants, and office space, as part of a £100m scheme across four sites in Hope Street.

The company caused outrage when it began “hacking off the front” of Josephine Butler House ahead of a listing application.

Contrary to advice from officials the committee decided that it was minded to refuse the application on grounds it would lead to increased traffic to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenity.

Councillors are also being asked whether they still want to refuse permission for 70 APT [Affordable Price Tag] apartments in London Road.

The Parkmoor Group wants to knock down a number of buildings including the Windsor pub to make way for the apartments and commercial units.

Parkmoor said the APT concept was an innovative introduction of ultra-high specification, pre-constructed, fully fitted and furnished range of residential units that can be quickly placed on site to create a sustainable structure that is immediately habitable.

The first units would sell at an anticipated starting price of £89,950 for a fully furnished studio apartment in the city centre of Liverpool. Rob Cooper, managing director of Parkmoor Group said: “Parkmoor’s aim for the APT concept was to create quality affordable homes that not only generate sustainable communities, but also provide much needed housing erected a lot quicker than by traditional methods.

“We are a Liverpool-based company and are proud to have developed this product. We hope to achieve planning permission to construct the first APT apartments in Liverpool in the coming weeks.”



Council officials had recommended the scheme be approved, but when it went before the planning committee last month councillors said the 60% of one-bedroom flats was too much.
Babaloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2008, 11:52 AM   #54
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,925
Likes (Received): 805

Campaigners lose battle to save historic city centre building
Apr 9 2008 by Ben Schofield, Liverpool Daily Post


Artist's impression of plans for a new office/leisure development at Josephine Butler House, situated at the junction of Hope Street and Myrtle Street in Liverpool _320

A HISTORIC Myrtle Street building will be flattened after a £60m development was finally rubber stamped for the site yesterday.

Josephine Butler House – a former laying-in hospital dating back to 1867 – will be replaced with a six-storey block of offices, shops and restaurants.

The proposed building was yesterday labelled by heritage campaigners as more befitting for Milton Keynes than Liverpool’s Georgian quarter.

Campaigners had hoped the scheme would be blocked after planners said they were minded to refuse permission because of worries over increased traffic.

But designers from Maghull Developments convinced councillors at yesterday’s planning committee meeting that the scheme should go ahead.

The Hope Street-based company caused controversy when it started work on the facade of Josephine Butler House in early March – which it claimed was “specialist restoration work” – before a decision was made on whether to list the building.

Building work should start by the end of the year and will see 20,000ft of retail space on the ground floor and 100,000ft of office space above.

The sixth floor will house a sky bar with unrivalled views along Hope Street and over the city.

The building will stand on a 263-space three-storey car park.

Wayne Colquhoun, from the Liverpool Preservation Trust, called for a complete archeological survey of the site because he believes Josephine Butler House sits where a Baptist Chapel once stood. He told the committee a map dating from 1848 showed four churches around the Philharmonic Hall.

He added: “This building has no place in this historic location. You don’t come across a more historic place in Liverpool.

“There’s no detail and as such it has no place in this situation. In Milton Keynes maybe, but not here.”

Mr Colquhoun suggested the decision should go to a planning inquiry and hit out at English Heritage’s refusal to grant the building spot listing.

“English Heritage is not reflective of historic opinion, you just can’t trust them. Asking EH’s Manchester office to look after our architecture is like asking my mouse to look after my cat,” he said.

Yesterday’s meeting also gave the go-ahead to the conversion of the Grade-II- listed No.2 Blackburne Place into 13 luxury apartments.

Maghull chairman Ian Jones said: “Doing a second-rate job would undermine our reputation. If people say we are in for a quick buck they are wrong.

“There’s £100m of investment in the same street. Who would be mad enough to do so much investment and then do a second-rate job?

“Hope Street has been constantly reinvented, from Georgians, through the Victorians and Gothic revivalists. We need to continue that tradition of bold design and make it fit for 21st century use.”

Maghull’s planning consultant Richard Gee said there were “10 good reasons” not to refuse the planning permission on traffic grounds.

He said there had only been five slight accidents in the area in the last three years and that there was “30 to 40% spare junction capacity” on the roads nearby.



Well, I thought they'd win out and they have. I guess that we can only hope that it will ultimately turn out to be a good development.

Even more so than getting the replacement built, I am fearing another Greenbergs i.e. knocking down JBH and then nothing gets built due to Maghull suddenly getting into financial difficulties. Yey, an even bigger surface level car park.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2008, 12:50 PM   #55
Babaloo
Fiat Lux
 
Babaloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,598
Likes (Received): 1

So when Maghull said they were just doing rennovation work on JBH does that mean they were lying?

Nice. What a disreputable bunch of sewer-rats who will say anything to get their way they have turned out to be. Third rate building, third rate behaviour - still what do you expect? I share BB's concerns re the site ending up as a carpark given the current credit crunch.

As for the planning committee - once again they have demonstrated their inability to reign the lowest of the low such as Frenson in, and an unerring ability to approve plans that remove our heritage and turn down developments that don't require any heritage sites to be demolished. The term not fit for purpose says it all.

If the downtown area is to be protected from yet more incidents of this nature they need to be more proactive and find ways of preventing pretend 'refurbishments'. It was obvious what was going on from the start. If the law needs to be tightened up then one of our self-serving, own-trumpet-blowing, head-up-their-own-arse MPs should be tabling something in the Commons.

Come on Louise, get your finger out. There will be more long term gain for the citizens of Liverpool if our distinctive heritage is preserved and used as a selling point in the future rather than being sold down the Swanny now in exchange for more one bed apartments then end up being rented out to students.
Babaloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2008, 01:00 PM   #56
T0M
Scousish
 
T0M's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 6,794
Likes (Received): 0

Despite almost universal criticism, I've got a feeling that this development might not be as bad as it's been made out to be. JBL is a nice building, but it's not really that special in my opinion - yes I'd rather it had been saved, but I can live without it if we get a new building which helps to fulfil the real potential possed by the Hope Street area.

I walk passed that site most days, and something really needs to be done there. The current carpark creates a large 'gap' between either side of the junction, meaning that Hope Street actually feels like two seperate streets rather than one continuous street (when you're on foot).

As I see it this new building will help to reconnect Hope Street and is many ways the last major piece of the jigsaw. The design may not look stunning, but I don't think it's 'bad' per se. Don't forget that the Phil is no looker from any angle other than face on, and from the Hardman Street approach into town it actually looks quite brutish and ugly, but we forgive it for what it adds to the area (and it's glorious entrance and interior).

Another major advantage of this scheme is that it really opens up that corner by the lights. Currently there's just a narrow path running alongside a vacant car park (whereas the other side of Hope Street has much more spacious pedestrian access). This might not sound like a big improvement, but if you know the area it will make a big difference.

Lastly, we've got a company with a previously good record of delivery, continuing to invest in the city at a time when negative speculation about an impending recession is halting new developments all over the country.

I'm not saying that Maghull are beyond reproach, or that this scheme is a brilliant addition to the city of itself, but I am saying it's possibly not as bad a result as people seem to think it is.
T0M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2008, 01:29 PM   #57
interpreter
Registered User
 
interpreter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Liverpool/Wirral
Posts: 169
Likes (Received): 6

I can say that i agree with Toms review of the situation with JBH in regards for the need of something other than the carpark on the corner of Hope st.... and i hope the building planned will be of at least a good standard. I think, for me, it is the way the developer has behaved is rather annoying... looking on their web site it still states that JBH was to be re-furbished!! Heres hoping for something positive when it gets built!
__________________
My glass... it over flows
interpreter no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2008, 01:33 PM   #58
T0M
Scousish
 
T0M's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 6,794
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by interpreter View Post
I can say that i agree with Toms review of the situation with JBH in regards for the need of something other than the carpark on the corner of Hope st.... and i hope the building planned will be of at least a good standard. I think, for me, it is the way the developer has behaved is rather annoying... looking on their web site it still states that JBH was to be re-furbished!! Heres hoping for something positive when it gets built!
I think you're right, the developers did themselves no favours in the underhand way they approached this development. I guess they figured on the amount of uproar which would be created if they simply came out and said they were going to demolish it.

Either way I'm more bothered by what actually gets built in our city than the whys and wherefores of the construction (although that's not insignificant by any means). As long as Maghull follow through with this project I have a feeling we could be signing it's praises before too long. It just seems to add the right kind of 'mass' to the area, and on reflection it's really not that bad a design..

T0M no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2008, 01:40 PM   #59
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,925
Likes (Received): 805

I am suspicious of the night-time photo being used to cover what appears to be cheap red-brick. If it gets used anywhere in the city, please god not here.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2008, 01:43 PM   #60
interpreter
Registered User
 
interpreter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Liverpool/Wirral
Posts: 169
Likes (Received): 6

Smile


Thanks for that picture.. forgotten how it would look... not exciting, however, not horrendous either... as said i'm in agreement with your review.. look forward to the build and a balancing of corners in relation to the Phil building!!
__________________
My glass... it over flows
interpreter no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 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