Waterloo Dock Area

[Waterways]

Please send an email or letter ASAP to:

Proposal Number:
06F/1421

Jon Woodward (planning officer)
Planning Department
Liverpool City Council
Municiple Buildings
Dale Street
L69 2DH

I advise all to make an objection by letter or email ASAP to the filling in of West Waterloo Dock

Email for objection:
jon.woodward@liverpool.gov.uk

Some points of objection. I'm sure you can think of more

1. West Waterloo dock is historic nearly 200 years old, dating from 1834.
2. The historic dock is a part of the rich heritage of Liverpool
3. The dock forms a water environment for the flats between West Waterloo Dock and East Waterloo Dock. The residents bought those flats because of the water environment the locale offered. This will be obliterated.
4. Filling in of the dock further “obliterates the City On The Water”, which the city was promised the redundant docks would be, transforming the city to world renowned Amsterdam or Hamburg.
5. Dock being filled in as a convenient dump for waste material for the canal developer.
6. Filling in the dock degrades the water based environment of the area for future developments.

[bazzacat]

Is it valid to make an objection when not resident in the City of Liverpool? Are such submissions considered, or deemed invalid?

[Waterways]

Is it valid to make an objection when not resident in the City of Liverpool? Are such submissions considered, or deemed invalid?

Anyone can object no matter where they live. Many people are away for a few years for job purposes ect.

[Kev]

I do believe u could get a result here. However, thats the dilemma we face, will the link be completed at all?

[Waterways]

I do believe u could get a result here. However, thats the dilemma we face, will the link be completed at all?

A result by retaining the dock? Yes if enough people email. The canal link is not important and many just don't like it.

The developers are trying it on and a naive city desparate for something to be done may just say yes to them using the historic dock as dump for waste materials.

I would rather the scheme is scrapped if they insist the dock is filled in.

[Waterways]

SUCCESS (of a sort)

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the planning application for West Waterloo Dock has been withdrawn by the applicant. I will re-notify residents if any future application is submitted.

Jonathan Woodward
Development Control Division
Regeneration Portfolio
Municipal Buildings
Dale Street
Liverpool
L2 2DH

The dock is not being filled in.

[Kev]

:celb (6)::celb (23)::PDT_Piratz_26::PDT_Aliboronz_24::)

[Waterways]

What are you laughing and cheering for Kev,its not for OUR or YOUR benefit........... its for his .


Nope. For our benefit. Even yours. You may want all the docks filled in and slum tenaments put on them, others don't.

[FKoE]

You Watershipdown are more concerned for your investment, and SKYSCRAPERS, me...I'm concerned for community and heritage........... thats how we won 2008 ......REMEMBER ..



Funny how you appear like the wicked witch of the south, when you thought I'd gone eh? LAD!

[FKoE]

Listen Watership.....don't spout here, someone will pick you up on it, don't waffle, you'll be discovered, don't play the hurt wabbit,cause you won't be respected..

Kev, I yub you..email me.. Gang cyouse laters ...

[Waterways]

Listen Watership.....don't spout here, someone will pick you up on it, don't waffle, you'll be discovered, don't play the hurt wabbit,cause you won't be respected..

Kev, I yub you..email me.. Gang cyouse laters ...

Please get professional help. :)

[Kev]

FAMILIES are set to win their battle to stop an historic Liverpool dock being filled with rubble.

City planners today recommended the controversial plan for West Waterloo dock, opposed by dozens of residents, should be turned down by councillors.

They said it would jeopardise the waterfront’s world heritage site status if the 172-year-old dock was wiped from the map.

Residents were today preparing to celebrate saving the dock, which is just yards from the nearest apartment buildings.

But rejection of the plan will leave a flagship Capital of Culture project – the new link between the Leeds-Liverpool canal and Albert dock – in doubt.


A slight re-routing of the canal route was part of the British Waterways scheme earmarked for refusal by Liverpool council next week.


It is unclear if British Waterways will press ahead with its £17m proposal, which would let barges sail through West Waterloo dock to the Pier Head.

CONTINUES (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=residents-set-to-save-historic-dock%26method=full%26objectid=17865696%26page=2%26 siteid=50061-name_page.html)....

[snappel]

Isn't West Waterloo half-filled in already?

[Waterways]

Isn't West Waterloo half-filled in already?

No. Look at the pic on the web site in my sig. Look at the menu to get around. Trafalgar Dock was the continuation up to Salisbury Dock and the Victoria tower. Trafalgar is filled in, however it can easily be excavated.

[Waterways]

FAMILIES are set to win their battle to stop an historic Liverpool dock being filled with rubble.

City planners today recommended the controversial plan for West Waterloo dock, opposed by dozens of residents, should be turned down by councillors.

They said it would jeopardise the waterfront’s world heritage site status if the 172-year-old dock was wiped from the map.

Residents were today preparing to celebrate saving the dock, which is just yards from the nearest apartment buildings.

But rejection of the plan will leave a flagship Capital of Culture project – the new link between the Leeds-Liverpool canal and Albert dock – in doubt.


Who cares about a bunch of bearded real ale drinkers in narrowboats from an inland town. It was clear Peel pulling the strings of MDHC and British Waterways was underhanded in putting in an 11th hour revision to fill in West Waterloo. This is also againt the UNESCO World Hertitage agreement, which is quite clear on this issue.

Liverpool is a deep water ports and British Waterways and and Peel have made parts of Central Docks a laughing stock - a glorified inland canal. The Waterloo Docks are historic and are heavy in the history of populating America - the largest migration in history.

The in-filled docks of Clarence, Victoria and Trafalgar are not a part of the World Heritage Site - in the immediate buffer zone which does have restrictions and development must be within the spirit of the Heritage Zone. A small part of Trafalgar Dock still exists, however it is more a small access basin to the Clarence Graving Docks and in reality exists only in name. Most of Trafalgar Dock has been filled in, but not built on - it is easy to excavate this dock and reinstate the water space.

Trafalgar Dock, when it was a dock with water, was the continuation of West Waterloo Dock, right up to Salisbury Dock at the Victoria Tower. Excavating the vast majority of this dock and bringing it into the World Heritage Zone is logical and an obvious move - Malcolm Kennedy, a local councillor, is pressing for this. A developer may want to retain some part of the in-filled dock on the river wall side for substantial buildings on the river front - any buildings here would have a water aspect on the docks and river side, which is most appealing.

If the Trafalgar Dock was excavated deep water ships still could have berthed in Salisbury Dock and all the docks to Princes Dock. However the developers have vastly reduced the depths of these docks, for any technical reasons which are beyond me. I can see no case for reducing the depths of the docks to canal boat depths - except to gain money as a construction in-fill site, which is clear what they were used for. The docks are renedered near useless because of developer greed.

The depth of the docks should have been protected, as after all Liverpool was, and still is, a deep water port, not a canalway. Access for deep water ships should have been maintained. Visiting ships could have moored at Central Docks as they do at Canning, Salthouse and Albert Docks. Central docks has been reduced to virtually a shallow canalway for inland narrowboats. A far cry from the deep sea ships which used the docks.

Maintaining the docks as deep water should be pursued. Ideally all the docks should be reinstated to deep water docks.

The land on the Dock Rd side of Central Docks can be put to greater use in any proposals - the Dock Rd is more a massive barrier and in parts can actually be got rid of to merge the land with the water spaces of the docks.

Below: The sad scene of in-filling at Princes Half-Tide Dock (the entrance to both Waterloo Docks) , which has killed the UNESCO protected unique and essential marine life. Pictures by Dave Wood
http://www.liverpoolpictorial.co.uk/wloo2.jpg

[snappel]

I got there a few weeks back, and it was a sad sight...

http://www.forties-design.co.uk/l2/graphics/panoramas/princes.jpg

I preferred it like this...

http://www.forties-design.co.uk/l2/reports/images/princesdock/2003_0330city0032.jpg

It seems 'developer greed' has lots to answer for, and lots of interesting sites are getting levelled for yet more crappy 'apartments' (flats?!) and MET Quarter style feeding grounds for fashion victims. It's boring. And when Liverpool has so much history it's just shocking...

[Waterways]

FAMILIES are set to win their battle to stop an historic Liverpool dock being filled with rubble.

City planners today recommended the controversial plan for West Waterloo dock, opposed by dozens of residents, should be turned down by councillors.

They said it would jeopardise the waterfront’s world heritage site status if the 172-year-old dock was wiped from the map.

Residents were today preparing to celebrate saving the dock, which is just yards from the nearest apartment buildings.

But rejection of the plan will leave a flagship Capital of Culture project – the new link between the Leeds-Liverpool canal and Albert dock – in doubt.


A slight re-routing of the canal route was part of the British Waterways scheme earmarked for refusal by Liverpool council next week.


It is unclear if British Waterways will press ahead with its £17m proposal, which would let barges sail through West Waterloo dock to the Pier Head.

CONTINUES (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=residents-set-to-save-historic-dock%26method=full%26objectid=17865696%26page=2%26 siteid=50061-name_page.html)....

There are some inaccuracies in this Liverpool Echo article:

1. The Canal proposal was funded on the basis of West Waterloo Dock being
left as it was.

2. British Waterways, the developer, were asked by a 3rd party to fill the dock in. (I'll give you one guess who that might be)

3. Not filling in West Waterloo Dock should make it easy for British Waterways to complete this scheme.

[Waterways]

Web site updated:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

Go to new page from the Menu: Excavating in-Filled Waterspaces. Many other pages are updated.

[Waterways]

The hearing for the in-filling of West Waterloo Dock was today. The dock will not be filled in. Success for now - until another dock filling proposal comes along.

There is a lack of a cast-in-concrete strategy protecting the docks and water spaces and excavating in-filled docks. Once in place the city-on-water can take shape.

Please continue making objections to UNESCO on the filling-in of Princes Half-Tide Dock, killing UNESCO protected marine life. These docks have been made into a shallow canalway only. No deep water ships can ever enter these docks, as they can at Albert Dock. They require excavating back to deep water with Trafalgar Dock being excavated, giving full deep water from the Victoria Tower to Princes Dock.

The docks have been used as a lucrative dump for building materials. So please continue objecting to UNESCO. See the web site:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

[Waterways]

PRESENT:
Councillor Lady Doreen Jones (Chairman);
Councillors Karen Afford, Elaine Allen, Peter Allen, Violet Bebb, Dave
Hanratty, Stephen Hurst, John McIntosh, Anna Rothery and Jean Seddon.

Councillors Frank Doran, Joe Hanson, Pat Holleran, Richard Marbrow and
Steve Radford also attended.

There were no Ward Councillors in attendance during the pre-application
visits.

Apologies for absence were received from the Deputy Chairman (Councillor
Dave Irving).

158. Declarations of Interest
Members and Officers were provided with an opportunity to declare a
personal or prejudicial interest in any matter on the agenda and –

(d) Councillor Lady Doreen Jones declared a personal and
prejudicial interest by virtue of her residency at the location, in
relation to Minute No. 159 (in so far as it relates to Trafalgar
Dock and West Waterloo Dock, Liverpool 3) and Minute 162
relating to Trafalgar Dock and West Waterloo Dock, Liverpool 3,
vacated the room for the duration of those items and took no part
in the consideration thereof;

159. Pre-Application Visits
The Committee undertook pre-application site visits relating to
the following applications:

(b) Application 06F/2292 in respect of Trafalgar Dock and West
Waterloo Dock, Waterloo Road, Liverpool 3.
Prior to the Committee undertaking the inspection in respect of (b)
above, the Chairman (Councillor Lady Doreen Jones) declared a
personal and prejudicial interest and did not attend the visit. In the
absence of the Chair and Deputy Chair, Councillor Steve Hurst was
appointed Chair for that part of the proceedings.

163. Trafalgar Dock and West Waterloo Dock, Waterloo Road,
Liverpool 3 (Kirkdale Ward)
The Committee considered a recommendation that Application No.
06F/2292 to carry out engineering works so as to narrow and re-align
the Liverpool Canal Link through Trafalgar and West Waterloo Docks;
to bridge the canal link at Trafalgar Dock and to backfill the remainder
of West Waterloo Dock to 0.5 metres below quayside level, using
suitable material arising from the construction of the canal channel
(Resubmission of application 06F/1421 which was subsequently
withdrawn) be refused for the reasons that the proposal would
adversely impact on the historic integrity and setting of the adjoining
Grade II listed Princes Half Tide Dock; would be detrimental to the
visual amenity of the area; detrimental to the setting and views into and
out of the Stanley Dock Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site;
and would serve to irreversibly undermine the historic significance of
this part of the Liverpool Dock System and World Heritage Site buffer
zone, contrary to relevant guidance; together with significant levels of
noise, dust and disturbance that would be detrimental to the living
conditions and amenity of local resident which would be created as a
result of the infilling operation.

The Planning Manager reported that since publication of the agenda,
the following additional representations had been received -

(a) from the applicant addressing matters raised in the report, in
support of the application; and

(b) from Louise Ellman MP objecting to the application on the
grounds of loss of historic amenity, detrimential to residential
amenity and threat to marine wildlife.
With the permission of the Committee, the applicant speaking in
support of the application addressed the meeting and gave a
presentation including visual images of the location.
With the permission of the Committee, Councillor Joe Hanson together
with seven members of the public objecting to the application
addressed the meeting.

Resolved that the recommendation of the Planning Manager to refuse
the application be approved for the reasons set out, however the local
planning authority would indicate its support (subject to proper
consideration and consultation) for a further application that seeks
permission for the revised route of the canal link through the already
filled Trafalgar Dock as now proposed, but which does not seek
permission for the infilling of the West Waterloo Dock.

At this point in the proceedings, Councillor Steve Hurst vacated the
Chair which was taken by Councillor Lady Doreen Jones for the
remainder of the meeting.

[Howie]

Joy as city dock plans are sunk
Oct 11 2006
By Greg O'Keeffe, Liverpool Echo

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/aug2006/9/4/35B20858-99AD-C9E0-ACF67C0CFDC16A56.jpg

CONTROVERSIAL plans to fill in an historic Liverpool dock have been rejected after protests from residents.

British Waterways wanted to dump rubble into West Waterloo dock so a new piece of land could be created on the banks of the River Mersey.

The plan was part of a last-minute change to the route of Liverpool's new £17m waterfront canal, a flagship 2008 scheme.

But the city council planning committee yesterday refused to give British Waterway planning permission during a town hall meeting.

Residents who had vowed to fight to save the picturesque dock, built in 1834, said they were delighted.

Tony O'Leary, chairman of Waterloo Quay residents' association, said constant building work in the area has already taken a toll on residents' health and the proposed work would have worsened the situation.

He said: "My wife has been to hospital on a number of occasions with health problems connected to living there.

"We are not Luddites. We would be the first people to endorse the canal link coming through this area.

"We are all strongly in favour of that and hope British Waterways can go back to the original planning permission, which they were granted, for the canal to rundirectly through the West Waterloo dock as it is without losing any water."

The new waterfront canal, planned for two years, will link the Leeds-Liverpool canal with Albert Dock.

British Waterways originally decided to route it through the middle of West Waterloo Dock, but then decided to shift it several metres inland through a new channel.

After the meeting, British Waterways spokesman Martin Clarke would not rule out an appeal against the council's decision.

He said: "We are confident that the canal link will go ahead, but we will have to review our options now.

We believe that the grounds for refusal were not met and we maintain that West Waterloo Dock is not a world heritage or conservation site and contains no listed buildings.

"This site is considered vital for wider regeneration and attracting investment to north Liverpool."

Source: icLiverpool (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=joy-as-city-dock-plans-are-sunk%26method=full%26objectid=17911521%26siteid=50 061-name_page.html)

[Paul D]

I'd sooner the canal link was cancelled than see one of our historic docks filled in,John's right it's all down to pure greed these docks are our biggest asset so we must build our waterfront city around them.

[Waterways]

After the meeting,

British Waterways spokesman Martin Clarke would not rule out an appeal against the council's decision.

He said: "We are confident that the canal link

will go ahead, but we will have to review our options now.

We believe that the grounds for refusal were not met and we maintain that West Waterloo

Dock is not a world heritage or conservation site and contains no listed buildings.


West Waterloo is inside the Buffer Zone. The buffer

zone has conditions. These people should read the UNESCO agreement, which says..

"Many of the former docks survive to the form of now

redundant water bodies. These are an important aspect of the Site's significance and character and their conservation and use requires consideration within

future sustainable regeneration schemes."

That is clear that the docks water spaces are kept intact.

"4.17.4 Docks

with standing water in the site and Buffer Zone support a range of marine life and habitats. Of particular note are the colonies of marine life attached to

the dock walls and other structures. In the Mersey itself, these colonies tend not to have become established as the high silt load of the river suffocates

the organisms. The docks are therefore an important habitat."

It is clear that the docks cannot be touched because of the marine life, even in

the buffer zone.

"2.5.9 policy ER3 - Built Heritage states that: "Planning authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies and

proposals will identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the built heritage of the region"

The planning people must make

sure "protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the built heritage of the region". It clearly says that above.

I wish

the likes of British Waterways would **** off and run some 3 foot deep canal around Birmingham. They are out of their depth in deep water Liverpool.



If the SS Manxman was eventually restored, they wanted to berth her in Princes Half-Tide or Princes Docks. They are now glorified duck ponds, so

that is out. British Waterways/Peel should be made to deepen those docks to their original depth.

[Waterways]

UNESCO officials are to visit the area between the 18th and 20th October 2006 to assess

violations of World Heritage Status Agreement.

[Kev]

PLANNING officers in Liverpool are recommending an extension be given for a mountain of rubble close to luxury homes. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=another-year-under-mountain-of-rubble%26method=full%26objectid=18615408%26siteid= 50061-name_page.html)