[begsy]

I know a lot us trawl through the media, trade publications and the internet for news of new developments in the city center, any news from these sites are usually about large scale developments. but there are a lot of smaller developments never published in the press, but are as equally important to the citys fabric. News of these developments can be found on the citys planning website (when its working). So Ive started this thread so that we could see what p.p. has officialy been applied for, and any decisions made. Please contribute if you happen to notice anything of interest.I'll start it off, p.p. has been applied to convert Yorkshire House into appartments, i think thats the building next to the unity development. Cheers

 

[woody]

Begsy, great idea for a thread, snippit of news re Kings Waterfront--- tenders being sought for sewers and roads, approx value £14.5M. Got to get these in before the big stuff starts to rise.

 

[Liverdude]

PL/INV/1248/05

To erect mixed development of Town Houses, apartment blocks & residential tower, and retail space. It doesn't give the location.

 

[Liverdude]

EDIT

 

[Doug Roberts]

Taken from this mornings DP letters page, I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but it is to do with Liverpool's planning (or not) process.


Exasperating

Once again, I find myself exasperated by officer recommendations to refuse privately funded schemes to erect 2 towers in Liverpool. Having already expressed my support for the Brunswick Tower development previously , I will do so again. I cannot argue with those who think the city council is making a huge mistake in turning these down, and I ask the officers to search their consciences and explain to us the reason they do not want these to go ahead, as there seems no difference with the ones they have allowed.

I am, of course, free to express my views in this way. My colleagues who are on the planning committee cannot do so until they are in session. I would urge them to reject the officers recommendations and vote to attract more private investment into what we want to be the most business-friendly city.


Cllr Peter Millea, Executive Member for Regeneration, LCC


I my view further evidence, if it were needed, of the almost total breakdown in communication/working relationship between Liverpool's councillors and it's paid officers.

I can only agree with Pete and urge Lady Dorren and her colleagues to chuck out the officer recommendations and vote for approval!! that's the simple and correct thing to do for Liverpool.

 

[Scarecrow]

What an excellent letter. Good on the man! It'd be nice to see the Brunnie Quay and Vermont towers poking above and beyond the arena on one of Daves/M.O.'s pano shots in the future, Maybe with a statue of our Pete looking out over what planners aimed to destroy. :cheers:

 

[TheMerseyOrange]

It'd be nice to see the Brunnie Quay and Vermont towers poking above and beyond the arena on one of Daves/M.O.'s pano shots in the future

I did a trial mega-pano from Thurstaston the other week. You've no idea (yet!) how good BQ would look from there. Can't say the same for the wretched Southport gasholder though....

 

[Doug Roberts]

With support like this from the boss of regeneration in the city, do you think the balance has shifted to accept rather than reject??

Most of us on this forum have said this before, C'mon Lady Doreen we know you follow this site, do the right thing and vote yes!!

 

[Liverdude]

Time for letters and e-mails of support to Cllr Peter Millea?

 

[Damon]

Definitely. We've done it before, we can do it again!

(Though my wife thinks it's bizarre when I get a letter in the paper supporting the building of a 'block of flats'...)

 

[Damon]

For the Liverpool Echo, send to:

[email protected]

Don't forget to include your postal address as I don't think they'll consider letters for publication without them.

 

[Liverdude]

Definitely. We've done it before, we can do it again!

Lol, I was just about to edit my message asking how many times we have had to do it before! :lol:

 

[Blabbernsmoke]

I've just sent a couple of e-mails to the Echo and DP news desk about decisions of the planning dep. Does anybody have this Millea's e-mail address? Let's see how democratic this city really is.

 

[General Zod]

Keep the pressure up chaps. Glad to see there are like minded individuals in the city who want to put pressure on our councillors and civil servants to get things done. It's terrible we have to resort to shaming them into doing their job well but if that's what it takes then so be it. Sure you all agree that we want to get Liverpool up to speed on the business front and attract investors. It can be a business center and a cultural center at the same time.

I think the council would look better if they actually explained some of their rejections in a bit more detail. If there are genuine reasons such as the structural integrity of the building being questionable we would understand rejections but cack such as 'Tall building restriction' area is twaddle of the highest order.

 

[woody]

More power to our Peter.....

Taken from this mornings DP letters page, I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but it is to do with Liverpool's planning (or not) process.


Exasperating

Once again, I find myself exasperated by officer recommendations to refuse privately funded schemes to erect 2 towers in Liverpool. Having already expressed my support for the Brunswick Tower development previously , I will do so again. I cannot argue with those who think the city council is making a huge mistake in turning these down, and I ask the officers to search their consciences and explain to us the reason they do not want these to go ahead, as there seems no difference with the ones they have allowed.

I am, of course, free to express my views in this way. My colleagues who are on the planning committee cannot do so until they are in session. I would urge them to reject the officers recommendations and vote to attract more private investment into what we want to be the most business-friendly city.


Cllr Peter Millea, Executive Member for Regeneration, LCC


I my view further evidence, if it were needed, of the almost total breakdown in communication/working relationship between Liverpool's councillors and it's paid officers.

I can only agree with Pete and urge Lady Dorren and her colleagues to chuck out the officer recommendations and vote for approval!! that's the simple and correct thing to do for Liverpool.

Doug I have changed my order from the Echo to the Daily Post, having taken both for a few weeks the DP does appear to be more in the Peter Millea camp while the Echo does like the "sound bites" from Cllr. Anderson.

That letter did raise my hopes that we have an ELECTED councillor who is aware of the damage being done to this city by its PAID officers. Let us hope that Lady Doreen and her pals "grasp the nettle" and say yes to both towers.

 

[woody]

The Pressure Mounts...........

Liverpool`s proud boast to be a " BUISNESS-FRIENDLY CITY" has today taken another bashing from Mersey Docks, they join a long line of organisations who have criticised the length of time it takes to get planning approval for major schemes. This comes after Grosvenor, Maro and Chieften complained of dithering and lack of contact with the "big hitters " on the city council.

It does look like Storey and Henshaw have got a major internal problem to sort out if their slogan is to be believed. The spotlight is trained on the planning dept and on the planning committee.

The decisions that they agree over the next few weeks will IMO decide if this city will move foreward or stagnate.

 

[Martin S]

The Daily Post is taking a strong editorial line in favour of both Brunswick Quay and Chieftain. If nothing else, it would be good if they could get the planners to show themselves and to explain in the popular press why they are rejecting these towers.

The consensus seems to be that there is a conflict of interest within the council with the need to ensure the economic success of Kings Dock conflicting with the need to review developments in accordance with planning law.

What is needed is some firm guidance from the council on what is likely to be accepted and what rejected - guidance that is adhered to by the council themselves. Developers do not wish to waste millions developing schemes only to find them rejected on what appear to be fairly arbitrary planning decisions. Even if the planners decided that no building over ten storeys would be permitted, it would at least let developers know the ground rules for development in the city and they would be less likely to go elsewhere.

 

[Gazzab]

What's the details on the 'Chieftain'?

 

[Doug Roberts]

I agree the pressure from commercial developers and Plc's is growing on the council planning process, not before time, but they shouldn't have to go through this.

The council are also being exposed as both planning authority and developer (Kings Dock) I think these roles will only cause further conflict and confusion.

Bill Gleeson, DP business editor, in Wednesday's paper "Decisions about the (Kings Dock) arena were made in a closed council session, when the press and the public were kicked out of the debating chamber. To make the schemes sums add up, the council needs the residential schemes on the Kings Dock to be profitable so it can use part of the proceeds to pay for construction of the arena, To achieve this it needs the property values in the city to remain high"

Sounds like a risky business the council is getting into here, what if there were a national down turn in property prices I don't think Liverpool would be immune to that. Also it would seem that the council had something to hide.

 

[Blabbernsmoke]

Doug,

Very interesting indeed. I thought the arena was being paid for with government and EU grants- following its construction, shouldn't it pay for itself? Are the apartments to pay for the construciton of the arena or to keep it afloat? Won't the arena be run by a private firm?
LCC are like Eastern bloc communists.

It's a sad state of affairs when the council needs to manipulate the market to make their schemes work. This is a very dangerous business. Besides, it seems criminal to maintain property prices at a certain level (-pricing many out of the market) to make their scheme work.

Of course, they are too stupid to realise that in trying to predict how house prices will change, and blocking privtae investment to reach their chosen level- they may actually cause values to fall becuase there will be less investment per se taking place- which means less jobs, less choice, etc. i.e. the things that make people want to live in a city in the first place.