Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
With so much regeneration going on in the city and so many new proposals going through planning, I think it's going to be very useful for us to keep a record of how our City Councillors feel about all these new developments. There are too many occasions when Councillors make comments about new proposals being "too high" or "too large" and these comments are often met with contempt on the forum.

Just like we keep a crane count, I wanted to start a count on how many times Councillors object to schemes throughout the city in terms of their height, scale etc...

I believe we should hold these people to account if and when these objections lead to proposals being rejected and, therefore, negatively affect the city's regeneration. If we compile and update this list as new applications and decisions are made, we will have a much better idea of the types of comments these Councillors make and can begin to make educated guesses as to the type of opposition certain proposals are liable to come across. Spotting consistency or contradictions in their lines of argument could become very useful indeed.

Here's a very basic list below to start the boll rolling. It's definitely not exhaustive but I hope it can be added to, improved and amended as we learn more about the various proposals coming up and the conversations surrounding them. Forummers should feel very welcome to copy and re-paste it with their own contributions. I know the strength of feeling about these matters is very high and so hopefully this list can be looked upon as enthusiastically as the crane count.

===========================

Objections by Councillor Christine Banks (Central Ward) - Labour Party

FEB 17 (16F/2877) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Paddington Village - objects to student housing on the northern part, rather see affordable homes

MAR 17 (16F/2634) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Anwyl Construction, Pall Mall tower - made objections about the scale

Objections by Councillor Lawrence Brown (Greenbank) - Green Party

DEC 17 (17F/1761) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Upper Parliament St (Mulgrave St/Kingsley Rd School, 109 apartments 5 & 6 storeys with parking/landscaping - loss of greenspace, negative impact on ecology and biodiversity, air quality, not required to meet the city’s housing needs and contrary to H5, HD22, HD23, OE11, OE14 and EP11.

JUN 18 (17F/2645) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Land at Lemon/Heriot/Great Mersey Streets, L5, four storey block and 2 x three storey blocks - objected to the proposal

Objections by Councillor Peter Clarke (Fazakerley) - Labour Party

JUN 17 (17F/0441) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Blackstock Ltd, Scotland Rd, Silvester/Woodstock St & Westmoreland Pl, 3 apartment blocks 3-4 stories with parking/landscaping - proposed development provided substandard and unacceptable interface distances to existing residential properties and that this would have a significant harmful impact on residential amenity.

Objections by Councillor Laura Robertson-Collins (Greenbank Ward) - Labour Party

JUN 18 (17F/2645) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Land at Lemon/Heriot/Great Mersey Streets, L5, four storey block and 2 x three storey blocks - objected in the strongest possible terms due to its 'significant detrimental impact on residential amenity' and on the character of the area arising from the cumulative impact of many such similar conversions in the area.

Objections by Councillor Jane Corbett (Everton Ward) - Labour Party

FEB 17 (16F/2797) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Virgil St/Great Homer St, L5, demolish existing building & erect 9 storey apartment blocks - excessive scale out of character with local area, inadequate consultation or engagement with local residents, development would have negative impacts on local highway network eg congestion and would impede economic growth and expansion of businesses particularly Great Homer St Market

FEB 18 (17F/3396) APPLICATION APPROVED - Citipads, Fox St/St Anne Street - 3 residential blocks 5-8 storeys - "development would reduce the amount of land available for commercial and industrial activities and reduce employment opportunities locally."

APR 18 (17F/3307) APPLICATION APPROVED - Caro Developments, Clegg St - "over-development in the area absolutely off the Richter scale"

Objections by Councillor Michelle Corrigan (Riverside Ward) - Labour Party

JAN 18 (17F/1143) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Borden Properties, 56 Norfolk Street - 7/8 storey student block - Objects to "surplus of student accommodation" "further oversupply will be detrimental to the city and its finances.” "Further student accommodation in the Baltic area will have a negative impact and undermine the mixed character of the area."

Objections by Councillor Thomas Crone (St Michaels) - Green Party

DEC 17 (17F/1761) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Upper Parliament St (Mulgrave St/Kingsley Rd School, 109 apartments 5 & 6 storeys with parking/landscaping - objected to loss of greenspace

Objections by Councillor Joe Hanson (Kirkdale) - Labour Party

JUN 17 (17F/0441) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Blackstock Ltd, Scotland Rd, Silvester/Woodstock St & Westmoreland Pl, 3 apartment blocks 3-4 stories with parking/landscaping - a number of objections and concerns relating to the Application.

JUN 18 (17F/2645) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Land at Lemon/Heriot/Great Mersey Streets, L5, four storey block and 2 x three storey blocks - objected to the proposal

Objections by Councillor Richard Kemp, CBE (Church Ward) - Liberal Democrat

JUN 17 (17F/0874) - APPLICATION APPROVED - 9-27 Freemasons Row, L3, to demolish existing building and erect four 11-15 storey interconnected residential blocks - proposal overdevelops the site, would lead to harmful reduction in levels of land available for industrial and commercial use in the local area and would have significant negative impacts on adjacent residential occupiers

MAR 18 (16F/2879) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Land east of Brassey Street, L8, part 8/part 9 storey building comprising 174 apartments - "proposed development out of character with surrounding area and in failing to provide mixed uses was contrary to relevant Planning Policies"

APR 18 (17F/1029) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Study Inn, Former Copperas Hill Police Station, 6/7 storey student accomm - the proposed development constituted an overdevelopment of the site.

APR 18 (17F/3307) APPLICATION APPROVED - Caro Developments, Clegg St - proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of the site and would result in an unacceptable loss of land for employment and industrial uses.

Objections by Councillor Timothy Moore (Princes Park) - Labour Party

DEC 17 (17F/1761) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Upper Parliament St (Mulgrave St/Kingsley Rd School, 109 apartments 5 & 6 storeys with parking/landscaping - proposed development too high, not in keeping with the area. Lack of car parking spaces.

Objections by Councillor Kevin Morrison (Tuebrook and Stoneycroft) - Liberal Party

APR 18 (17F/3307) APPLICATION APPROVED - Caro Developments, Clegg St - proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of the site and would result in an unacceptable loss of land for employment and industrial uses.

APR 18 (17F/1029) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Study Inn, Former Copperas Hill Police Station, 6/7 storey student accomm - the proposed development constituted an overdevelopment of the site.

Objections by Councillor Steve Munby (Riverside Ward) - Labour Party

JAN 18 (17F/1143) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Borden Properties, 56 Norfolk Street - 7/8 storey student block - Objects to "surplus of student accommodation" "further oversupply will be detrimental to the city and its finances.” "Further student accommodation in the Baltic area will have a negative impact and undermine the mixed character of the area."

APR 18 (17F/3527) - APPLICATION APPROVED - St James Court, St James St/New Bird St, 12 storey block & 2 commercial units - “too large"

Objections by Councillor Steve Radford (Tuebrook and Stoneycroft) - Liberal Party

JUN 17 (17F/0874) - APPLICATION APPROVED - 9-27 Freemasons Row, L3, to demolish existing building and erect four 11-15 storey interconnected residential blocks - proposal overdevelops the site, would lead to harmful reduction in levels of land available for industrial and commercial use in the local area and would have significant negative impacts on adjacent residential occupiers

MAR 18 (16F/2879) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Land east of Brassey Street, L8, part 8/part 9 storey building comprising 174 apartments - "proposed development out of character with surrounding area and in failing to provide mixed uses was contrary to relevant Planning Policies"

JUN 18 (16F/2922) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Former Bogans Carpets Unit, New Bird Street, L1, 10 storey block with 202 apartments and commercial space - objected to the proposals

Objections by Councillor Irene Rainey (Clubmoor) - Labour Party

JUN 17 (17F/0441) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Blackstock Ltd, Scotland Rd, Silvester/Woodstock St & Westmoreland Pl, 3 apartment blocks 3-4 stories with parking/landscaping - proposed development provided substandard and unacceptable interface distances to existing residential properties and that this would have a significant harmful impact on residential amenity.

DEC 17 (17F/1761) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Upper Parliament St (Mulgrave St/Kingsley Rd School, 109 apartments 5 & 6 storeys with parking/landscaping - scale and massing of the proposed development was excessive and out of character with the local area

Objections by Councillor Liam Robinson (Kensington and Fairfield) - Labour Party

JAN 17 (16F/2756) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Grassed Area, Corner Prescot Street and Low Hill, L6, 11 storey residential development - not proportionate or suitable for the site by virtue of the proposed height due to overlooking and impact on the security of nearby properties particularly elderly and disabled residents

Objections by Councillor Anna Rothery (Princes Park) - Labour Party

DEC 17 (17F/1761) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Upper Parliament St (Mulgrave St/Kingsley Rd School, 109 apartments 5 & 6 storeys with parking/landscaping

Objections (and messages of Support) by Councillor Nick Small (Central Ward) - Labour Party

SEP 15 (15F/0297) (SUPPORTED THIS APPLICATION) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Butler Co Ltd & NALM Ltd - 21/17-storey student blocks, Lime St - "will benefit local economy, enhance availability of accommodation for students without compromising well established city-centre communities"

JAN 16 (15F/0817) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Bridgewater Services - Student accom, 55-63 Great Crosshall St - "Marybone has been overdeveloped with student accommodation”

FEB 17 (16F/2877) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Paddington Village - objects to student housing on the northern part, rather see affordable homes

MAR 17 (16F/2634) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Anwyl Construction, Pall Mall tower - made objections about the scale

AUG 17 (17F/0456) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Vacant Land William Jessop Way, L3, 15 storey residential tower with two ground floor commercial units

APR 18 (17F/1029) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Study Inn, Former Copperas Hill Police Station, 6/7 storey student accomm - “Building student accom so near to existing residents…would undermine some of these regeneration aims we have in the Knowledge Quarter.” Fears “saturation” by students

Objections (and messages of Support) by Councillor Sharon Sullivan (Central Ward) - Labour Party

SEP 15 (15F/0297) (SUPPORTED THIS APPLICATION) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Butler Co Ltd & NALM Ltd - 21/17-storey student blocks, Lime St - "will benefit local economy, enhance availability of accommodation for students without compromising well established city-centre communities"

JAN 16 (15F/0817) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Student accom, 55-63 Great Crosshall St - "Marybone has been overdeveloped with student accommodation”

FEB 17 (16F/2877) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Paddington Village - objects to student housing on the northern part, rather see affordable homes

MAR 17 (16F/2634) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Anwyl Construction, Pall Mall tower - made objections about the scale

Objections by Councillor Sue Walker (Kensington and Fairfield) - Labour Party

DEC 17 (17F/1761) - APPLICATION REFUSED - Upper Parliament St (Mulgrave St/Kingsley Rd School, 109 apartments 5 & 6 storeys with parking/landscaping - scale and massing of the proposed development was excessive and out of character with local area

Objections by Councillor Hetty Wood (Riverside Ward) - Labour Party

JAN 18 (17F/1143) - APPLICATION APPROVED - Borden Properties, 56 Norfolk Street - 7/8 storey student block - Objects to "surplus of student accommodation" "further oversupply will be detrimental to the city and its finances.” "Further student accommodation in the Baltic area will have a negative impact and undermine the mixed character of the area."

APR 18 (17F/3527) - APPLICATION APPROVED - St James Court, St James St/New Bird St, 12 storey block & 2 commercial units - “too large"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,273 Posts
"Well we can't have a successful, affluent city with opportunity and god forbid some gentrification. We must carry on with cheap 'affordable' housing, we must protest against the evil of investment and scale and we must above all ensure our districts remain poor!"

After all, how else will we maintain our vote share.

(said the Labour councillor) :bash:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,217 Posts
"Well we can't have a successful, affluent city with opportunity and god forbid some gentrification. We must carry on with cheap 'affordable' housing, we must protest against the evil of investment and scale and we must above all ensure our districts remain poor!"

After all, how else will we maintain our vote share.

(said the Labour councillor) :bash:

Does yet more student housing really take the city further forward, or is it just an excuse to wheel out the old trope about certain politicians keeping people poor to maintain their vote ? (As if that was the only party making the people of Britain poorer.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,273 Posts
Does yet more student housing really take the city further forward, or is it just an excuse to wheel out the old trope about certain politicians keeping people poor to maintain their vote ? (As if that was the onky paety making the people of Britain poorer.)
We’re not going to agree here I’m afraid.

Student development left right and centre isn’t great but instead of trying to halt it there should be matching levels of affordable homes.

Labour has not been good for Liverpool. The antics of councillors such as these chime with the idea that councillors deliberately fail to properly explain the benefits of development to local people raising objections and instead happily stoke their fears in order to ensure the situation remains the same and thereby they retain their votes.

It would certainly be a feasible explanation for the moronic comments and objections they put up to stop ‘over development’
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I’ve got to apologise for posting a lot of student development objections here. The list was basically all I could find at the drop of a hat from Echo articles. I’m going to update the list as we go along with all the various other types of development and all the other comments and objections made about them. We can then get some context and obtain a better picture of how these Councillors are acting. It should help us determine whether they are sincerely acting in the best interests of the city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,684 Posts
I’ve got to apologise for posting a lot of student development objections here. The list was basically all I could find at the drop of a hat from Echo articles. I’m going to update the list as we go along with all the various other types of development and all the other comments and objections made about them. We can then get some context and obtain a better picture of how these Councillors are acting. It should help us determine whether they are sincerely acting in the best interests of the city.
Such a great idea for a thread, Scouse1980. If you haven't already check out this week's Echo article on the big planning meeting (the live reporting one) which had a of of detail about individual objections. Kemp objected to at least two of those.

https://w
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,217 Posts
We’re not going to agree here I’m afraid.

Student development left right and centre isn’t great but instead of trying to halt it there should be matching levels of affordable homes.

Labour has not been good for Liverpool. The antics of councillors such as these chime with the idea that councillors deliberately fail to properly explain the benefits of development to local people raising objections and instead happily stoke their fears in order to ensure the situation remains the same and thereby they retain their votes.

It would certainly be a feasible explanation for the moronic comments and objections they put up to stop ‘over development’

I can't agree that any development is better than no development. It would be better if certain sites had been left empty (or better still, left occupied by the buildings which were there previously), than occupied by certain things we've seen done. While I'm happy to see good quality student developments, I do have to question whether there really is the demand to sustain the number we are building, and whether certain things are being built today with one eye on providing the slum housing of tomorrow.

More generally, I do agree with you about the poor quality of local councillors, and their tendency to raise idiotic objections. I don't think there's anything more sinister behind that than them not possessing the capacity to make reasoned decisions of their own, and their desperation to secure votes among (very small) electorates. What I find particularly depressing is their zero sum approach to development - this apparent belief that if site a is used for purpose x, then if will not be possible to achieve purpose y in your neighbourhood, even though sites b, c, d, e etc are all generally sitting empty and available for alternative use. If the city had some coherent development strategy, it would I thinl be easier to persuade councillors (and the public) of the merits of certain developments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,273 Posts
I can't agree that any development is better than no development. It would be better if certain sites had been left empty (or better still, left occupied by the buildings which were there previously), than occupied by certain things we've seen done. While I'm happy to see good quality student developments, I do have to question whether there really is the demand to sustain the number we are building, and whether certain things are being built today with one eye on providing the slum housing of tomorrow.

More generally, I do agree with you about the poor quality of local councillors, and their tendency to raise idiotic objections. I don't think there's anything more sinister behind that than them not possessing the capacity to make reasoned decisions of their own, and their desperation to secure votes among (very small) electorates. What I find particularly depressing is their zero sum approach to development - this apparent belief that if site a is used for purpose x, then if will not be possible to achieve purpose y in your neighbourhood, even though sites b, c, d, e etc are all generally sitting empty and available for alternative use. If the city had some coherent development strategy, it would I thinl be easier to persuade councillors (and the public) of the merits of certain developments.
I personally think most councillors are local mouth pieces, or opportunist climbers (I know several in Liverpool, one of whom once was an aide to Maria Eagle) and whilst there are no doubt many genuine hard working councillors it will be interesting to see the broad tone of their objections on this thread to establish whether what we're discussing here is a blip or a small minority or indeed a general problem with the city's local representatives at councillor level.

I would rather see development instead of no development but if we have a framework and a standard that ALL proposals must meet and one that would hopefully weed out unstable projects/developers such as New Chinatown and so on before they even get off the ground that would perhaps see the city's built environment move forward in the right way.

I won't ever though join the chorus of those who just complain without any constructive alternative leaving a site empty and derelict only to moan again that no one is investing. Sadly for whatever reason a lot of people cannot and will not see the bigger picture with development and in some cases where we've mistakingly built insular cul-de-sacs, low rise suburbia and so on in Liverpool's inner city we've now created the impression that this is how the area should be and anything that looks more in line with the density and urban design that should be there to sustain a healthy inner city is objected to and looks alien to the current population. We have to better inform of the benefits of schemes and make sure that the projects do bring sustained regeneration rather than allow a handful of vocal locals to hamper projects leading to sites remaining as patches of grass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Such a great idea for a thread, Scouse1980. If you haven't already check out this week's Echo article on the big planning meeting (the live reporting one) which had a of of detail about individual objections. Kemp objected to at least two of those.

https://w[/QUOTE] Thanks! I'm goin...url.com/ybkc4mge"]http://tinyurl.com/ybkc4mge
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,139 Posts
A great idea IF, it doesn't degenerate into a "Bully pulpit" for partisan political party posters. As if we can stop it happening. We can but hope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
That’s a good point, I might put a note on the above list showing the councillor’s party affiliation. It looks like these objections being made are not just from one party but are cross party. I’ll edit the list made in the opening post with all the updates rather than repost it. Saves on messiness!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,217 Posts
I personally think most councillors are local mouth pieces, or opportunist climbers (I know several in Liverpool, one of whom once was an aide to Maria Eagle) and whilst there are no doubt many genuine hard working councillors it will be interesting to see the broad tone of their objections on this thread to establish whether what we're discussing here is a blip or a small minority or indeed a general problem with the city's local representatives at councillor level.

I would rather see development instead of no development but if we have a framework and a standard that ALL proposals must meet and one that would hopefully weed out unstable projects/developers such as New Chinatown and so on before they even get off the ground that would perhaps see the city's built environment move forward in the right way.

I won't ever though join the chorus of those who just complain without any constructive alternative leaving a site empty and derelict only to moan again that no one is investing. Sadly for whatever reason a lot of people cannot and will not see the bigger picture with development and in some cases where we've mistakingly built insular cul-de-sacs, low rise suburbia and so on in Liverpool's inner city we've now created the impression that this is how the area should be and anything that looks more in line with the density and urban design that should be there to sustain a healthy inner city is objected to and looks alien to the current population. We have to better inform of the benefits of schemes and make sure that the projects do bring sustained regeneration rather than allow a handful of vocal locals to hamper projects leading to sites remaining as patches of grass.

Yes, the pseudo-suburbinisation of the inner city was disastrous. Perhaps it was done with good intentions, when you consider some (but not all) of what came before, but we ended up with small clumps of housing, too small to support proper public or private services, and a terrible built environment without the interest or attraction of a built-up city, but too shabby and sparse to replicate any attractions real suburbia might hold. And the NIMBY mindset whoch has come with it, among some of the electorate and some od the politicians, is also disastrous.

Been thinking a lot about this as have just spent 4 days in Cologne. Over 90% of its central area was destroyed during WWII, and a lot of architectural and planning mistakes were clearly made in its reconstruction (particularly, an Islington-like urban racetrack right past the old shopping area, though it's at least partially buried, and there seems to be a drive to tame the other postwar main roads by building midrise buildings facing onto them). However, a key silldifference to Liverpool (and in fairness, most other British cities) was reconstruction at high density, even where residential neighbourhoods were rebuilt yards away from commercial areas. There are sufficient people living there to sustain high quality, formal open spaces, rather than the acrea of wasteland which srill blight inner Liverpool.

I couldn't help wondering how much better Liverpool would now look if blitzed areas and slums had been replaced with 5 storey flats and 3 storey houses, set around proper main roads and side streets rather than strewn across urban steppes. We started out with the right approach before the war, but seemed to.lose our way after it (to the extent of flattening perfectly serviceable pre-war developments).

Anyway, returning to reality, we could get back on the right track for our inner city, though perhaps only after certain mindsets are no longer dominant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
So up to the last count, it seems that out of a total of 90 City Councillors:-

14 Labour, 2 Green, 1 Liberal and 1 Lib Dem Councillor have all raised objections at recent Planning Committee meetings based on the height, scale, massing, student or out of place nature of planning applications or made spurious comments about the loss of unsuitable land.

I'm working my way back through all the Committee minutes making note of all the objections made on all the biggest proposals and am currently up to the end of 2016. But with quite a lot of data so far it seems that most of the noise is coming from a small minority of Councillors - roughly 20% of the entire current administration. It's always the minorities isn't it?

Clearly they haven't always been successful at meetings with most of the objections being overruled and the majority of the applications have gone on to gain full approval. But nevertheless, I believe the Councillors named so far above are those we need to persuade that the city should be on a scale befitting a metropolis of 1.5 million people.

All of this does not even take into account the Height Reduction Committee. I'm struggling to find any references or documents associated with this group. Can anyone point us in the right direction?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
To be fair though the mindset of ‘too large’, ‘too tall’ or ‘out of scale’ still prevails to the point that substantial applications continue to be turned down. Two glaring ones that really piss me off are the Upper Parliament St/Mulgrave apartments and the Silvester/Woodstock apartment blocks which happens to be in my kneck of the woods. Such schemes, I believe, would have made a big contribution to the inner city streetscape but as B&I noted above there’s a lot of work to do to challenge this stubborn provincial mindset that’s set in over time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
But does all this really matter? When I have been to planning meetings, I discovered that the Labour Group had pre-meets and decided amongst themselves whether or not to support a project at the formal meeting. I have seen councillors stand-up and argue strongly for or against a project whilst knowing how the group was subsequently going to vote. And, of course, their arguments were always a reflection of what their local voters had said to them. Being re-elected is always what matters - not what is right for the city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,139 Posts
But does all this really matter? When I have been to planning meetings, I discovered that the Labour Group had pre-meets and decided amongst themselves whether or not to support a project at the formal meeting. I have seen councillors stand-up and argue strongly for or against a project whilst knowing how the group was subsequently going to vote. And, of course, their arguments were always a reflection of what their local voters had said to them. Being re-elected is always what matters - not what is right for the city.
Caucusing, pre-vote, is a tried and trusted political tool. I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't employed in Liverpool. The "party" (every party) system almost demands it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
As posted on the Project Jennifer | Great Homer Street thread, I emailed Councillor Jane Corbett on 6th April and asked her why she objected to the Caro Developments 93-flat project on Clegg Street. I referenced her comments in the Echo about the apparent 'over-development' in the area, which in her opinion is 'absolutely off the Richter scale'.

I went into brief detail about the neighbourhood's history and depopulation in the 80s. I asked her whether she thought the chronic underdevelopment and vast swathes of wasteland that plague the area is befitting of a major European city. I said that in my opinion her views were damaging for the regeneration of Everton and to the wider city.

Councillor Corbett emailed me back the very next day with the following reply.

Many thanks for your email. Like you I've lived here for a long time now and I've been working hard to make sure the area is sustainable....sounds like we agree on the need for regeneration but may just disagree on the type
Take care
Jane”
I thought her email was vague so I responded the same morning asking her to further clarify the type of developments that she object to. I asked her to further explain what she meant by “Off the Richter scale” and why she objected to this application specifically?

There have been a couple of short email exchanges since. She asked whether I had attended the Planning Committee or whether I have just relied on Echo comments. I told her that I read the Echo comments as well as the Planning Committee minutes in detail.

She was then particularly keen to know what my interest in the development was. I explained that I'm a keen observer of urban regeneration and live close to the development. She has not given any further reasons for her objections and I still await a full reply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
As well as emailing Councillor Jane Corbett, I also emailed Councillor Richard Kemp on 6th April asking why he too objected to the Caro Development. I thought this was fair given Corbett wasn't alone in her objections. I asked Councillor Kemp to clarify on the type of developments that he objects to during Planning Committee meetings. I referred to his recent objections about “considerable over-provision” in the city housing market and asked why he objected to this development specifically. Councillor Kemp was a bit more detailed in his response and sent this reply the very same day...

As a member of the planning committee I listen to two types of advice - that of the officers and that of ward councillors.

At the committee local Cllr Jane Corbett told us two things: 1. That there were 1,700 apartments already being built in this area and 2. that the area still needs employment opportunities.

City wide she is undoubtedly correct. At the end of November according to the planning departments figures there were planning permissions extant within the City for approximately 26,000 units of residential accommodation. In addition approximately 4,000 apartments are currently empty according to the Council's council tax register. Since November the Council had granted permission for approximately 3,000 more apartments. There simply is not enough demand in the city to fill all these properties.

It is also true that we cannot live in housing without having the means to pay for it. The more the council takes away industrial sites, and it took four out last year in the Vauxhall area, the less likely that people will be able to find work especially if they need work within manual trades.

This is a brief explanation of my position but I was pleased in this instance to support the considerable local knowledge of a respected councillor from another Party to my own.

Cllr Richard Kemp CBE,
Leader, Liverpool Liberal Democrats
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top