SkyscraperCity banner

5421 - 5440 of 5491 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,199 Posts
I was curious to see how Inacity Tower would have compared on the tower chart (It wont be a permanent feature). It would have been a welcome addition.



I realised it shares a striking resemblance to Norman Foster's Principal Place in Shoreditch. I do hope they keep the stepped rooftop in any new designs.

 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2 Posts
It was also rumoured that The Hyatt were opening there. They were the only hotel operator rumoured from memory so hopefully a 5 star international brand is still on the cards. Intercontinental anyone? Manchester can certainly attract them and is, at the moment short on 5-star accommodation (even when you include St Michaels and Ramada site).
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2 Posts
Sorry to bump. It's not all bad news. This tidbit is very interesting.

120659/FO/2018 | Continued use of land as car park for a temporary period of two years. | Ncp Car Park Store Street Manchester M1 2TP
Long term aspirations

3.1.9 The major mixed-use development proposal was implemented and therefore could be built out at any time (ref 074143/FO/2004/C3). The landowner, Pridebank Limited, part of the Ballymore Group, is committed to development of the land. Further information is provided in the submitted Development Statement and may be summarised as follows.

3.1.10 Ballymore has invested over £40 million in the site, including approximately £8 million on enabling works. This demonstrates their intention to complete development on the site or sell it as a ‘development-ready’ proposition. Car parking is not Ballymore’s desired end use: there is a short-term break clause on the NCP contract to allow development to take place promptly with vacant possession on the site.

3.1.11 Ballymore confirms that the sites were marketed for sale as a single unit in 2016, by CBRE. By 2017 Ballymore had decided to proceed to prepare an application for an alternative development scheme to that which was approved in 2005.

3.1.12 At a meeting held in July 2017 at MCC’s offices, the senior management of Ballymore was requested not to prepare or submit any revised planning applications for the site until after an update of the draft Manchester Piccadilly SRF was published.

3.1.13 As noted above, the published draft SRF indicates that a significant part will be utilized to deliver sections of the proposed (a) new east-west Boulevard, (b) a new entrance hall and (c) a new public square. Formal representations to that updated SRF were issued to MCC on Ballymore’s behalf by CBRE on 19th April 2018.

3.1.14 MCC's SRF proposals for redevelopment of part of the site are now effectively preventing Ballymore/Pridebank from bringing forward the consented development or proposals for an appropriate, alternative scheme for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site.

3.1.15 Ballymore consider that it will take some time to resolve the current position with respect to the SRF proposals and to bring forward either the consented, or an alternative, scheme. It is critical that both sites remain in active use during that period.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2 Posts
I think, judging from what I've read from previous frameworks the council aren't communicating with the landowners and are just doing their own thing hoping the landowners will just follow like sheep. A similar thing has happened with HS2 framework where a landowner wants to be brought into the first phase rather than the second phase.
 

·
SSC Member
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
There is no consultation from the Council. For the first SRF, i was part of a concerned residents and business group who pushed to meet the Council to discuss the SRF and they repeatedly refused to talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,522 Posts
I think, judging from what I've read from previous frameworks the council aren't communicating with the landowners and are just doing their own thing hoping the landowners will just follow like sheep. A similar thing has happened with HS2 framework where a landowner wants to be brought into the first phase rather than the second phase.
As I read it, the key conversation is now between MCC and HS2 Ltd. When the SRF was launched, it seemed to envisage the possibility that the City Council might seek to mobilise a partnership of potential developers to fund the major components of the SRF, over and above the HS2 platforms. If that was tried, nothing now seems to have resulted from it.

Which then focusses on this site; HS2 Ltd say that they can develop their platform box without impinging on this site. So there is no need for a CPO. The City Council are (it seems) now trying to go over the heads of HS2 Ltd to the minister. They are saying (rightly) that a full rebuild and upgrade of the entire station should be done. Except that the money to do sp is not to be found in the HS2 budget; and it does not seem that this can be rustled up from local partners.

So if the minister isn't able to find half a billion pounds or so down the back of the DfT sofa, it looks like those aspects of the SRF (the ones that require acquisiton of the Piccadilly Tower and Gateway House sites) will have to be set aside.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2 Posts
As I read it, the key conversation is now between MCC and HS2 Ltd. When the SRF was launched, it seemed to envisage the possibility that the City Council might seek to mobilise a partnership of potential developers to fund the major components of the SRF, over and above the HS2 platforms. If that was tried, nothing now seems to have resulted from it.

Which then focusses on this site; HS2 Ltd say that they can develop their platform box without impinging on this site. So there is no need for a CPO. The City Council are (it seems) now trying to go over the heads of HS2 Ltd to the minister. They are saying (rightly) that a full rebuild and upgrade of the entire station should be done. Except that the money to do sp is not to be found in the HS2 budget; and it does not seem that this can be rustled up from local partners.

So if the minister isn't able to find half a billion pounds or so down the back of the DfT sofa, it looks like those aspects of the SRF (the ones that require acquisiton of the Piccadilly Tower and Gateway House sites) will have to be set aside.
However the Piccadilly site doesn't need a CPO or to be acquired by the CC/HS2. It's in the framework but most of the sites in the framework are already owned by developers. Communication is what the City Council lacks when it comes to planning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,522 Posts
However the Piccadilly site doesn't need a CPO or to be acquired by the CC/HS2. It's in the framework but most of the sites in the framework are already owned by developers. Communication is what the City Council lacks when it comes to planning.
Not as I read it.

If the SRF is to go ahead in its full current version; then HS2 must be pushed to CPO the City Tower site.

The message I take from Ballymore/Pridebank is that they intend to proceed in a redesign of the Piccadilly Tower scheme on the assumption that none of it will be required for the HS2 Platforms. While HS2 Ltd are equally proceeding with in preparing a design for the HS2 Platforms these do not extend into the Piccadilly Tower site to any degree. The only reservation in HS2's planning is that they seek to ensure a direct pedestrian route from Store Street/Sheffield Street through the Piccadilly Tower site and up towards London Road and Piccadilly Gardens.

The key point being that - so long as the Ballymore redesign maintains the pedestrian through-route, HS2 Ltd do not intend to do a CPO on the Piccadilly Tower site. And it seems that the City Council accept that they could not justify the cost of a CPO on their own account (and possibly lack the legal power to do so anyway). So, the City Council are approaching the minister to seek his direction to HS2 Ltd to change their minds and obtain the Piccadilly Tower site using their CPO powers. But HS2 will only go along with that if the minister comes up with more money.

Of course all of this is then bound up with the current logjam over NPR/HS3. The City Council are also pressing (far more insistently) for ministers to commit to funding low-level NPR platforms and a through-tunnel under the city centre and onwards towards Bradford. Otherwise NPR will terminate in surface level platforms to the north of the HS2 box. This would indeed almost certainly require a CPO of the Piccadilly Tower site; but would also necessarily take over almost the entire area otherwise identified in the SRF for associated commercial developments. The SRF would effectively be dead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,536 Posts
I highly doubt Ballymore are going to develop anything on it as long as HS2 is still cooking. Wait until a generous offer comes along through a CPO for the site and cash in. It's frustrating because it is a prime piece of land next to Piccadilly station. I have no doubt if HS2 wasn't hanging above it then Ballymore would definitely be trying to develop something on it by now. If Renaker owned it I have no doubt they would try and go for a 200m+ tower given the location. It's perfect for those who are based in Manchester but who have to work in London a couple of days a week. It's becoming increasingly common.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,522 Posts
I highly doubt Ballymore are going to develop anything on it as long as HS2 is still cooking. Wait until a generous offer comes along through a CPO for the site and cash in. It's frustrating because it is a prime piece of land next to Piccadilly station. I have no doubt if HS2 wasn't hanging above it then Ballymore would definitely be trying to develop something on it by now. If Renaker owned it I have no doubt they would try and go for a 200m+ tower given the location. It's perfect for those who are based in Manchester but who have to work in London a couple of days a week. It's becoming increasingly common.
could be js1000. Ballymore are certainly intending to cash in at some point.

But this is where the difference between a CPO by HS2 Ltd, and one by the City Council, becomes critical. If HS2 Ltd need the City Tower site for the construction of the HS2 Platforms, or the access roads associated with them, then they will be able to acquire the site at market value as before the HS2 proposals. But if the City Council were to seek to acquire the site for regeneration purposes; they would need to pay market value as after the HS2 proposals. Which would be a lot more costly. My reading of the Ballymore announcement is that they are not expecting a CPO at all; but are reckoning that the City Council and HS2 will agree on a further revised SRF that provides for NPR platforms at low level (and for a rebuild of parts of Piccadilly Station), but does not extend either station buildings or access roads onto either the Piccadilly Tower or Gateway House sites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
Don't you normally need movement to apply the brakes? Over 2 years of silence and not much before that either
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
Don't you normally need movement to apply the brakes? Over 2 years of silence and not much before that either
They still own the site and have just put in an extension for a further two years (which isn't long when you look at it) for the car park. They looked at selling the site and I believe FEC were interested but with the uncertainty of HS2 they pulled the plug as developers weren't interested.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
Megabump. Anyone got access to the article?

Ballymore still want to build it (likely to be different design). HS2 has put a safeguarding notice on the site that stops them developing anything (bar stewards). Don't expect anything to happen soon until they decide the route and design for the station. The development director at Ballymore says they want to make it happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,011 Posts
Was it 15 years since this first raised its head? HS2 will be up and running before Ballymore build anything and if it was their intentions to build PT, it would have happened by now. How much would the site be worth under a CPO? I’m sure Ballymore were land banking in anticipation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
Was it 15 years since this first raised its head? HS2 will be up and running before Ballymore build anything and if it was their intentions to build PT, it would have happened by now. How much would the site be worth under a CPO? I’m sure Ballymore were land banking in anticipation.
All due respect Ballymore aren't land bankers.
 
5421 - 5440 of 5491 Posts
Top