Planning decision on Liverpool Waters will be delayed until after Unesco inspection

[Kev]

LIVERPOOL council will delay deciding whether a controversial £5.5bn skyscraper scheme should be given planning permission until Unesco inspectors have visited the city.

More... (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/07/25/planning-decision-on-liverpool-waters-will-be-delayed-until-after-unesco-inspection-92534-29112419/)

[chasevans]

Kev,
I'll withdraw this link if it's off topic or already been posted.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/07/11/revealed-scandal-of-liverpool-council-s-corporate-hospitality-details-cover-up-92534-29030050/

PEEL THIS Chas
The man who built Peel Holdings Chris Barry
February 03, 2005
Share Article | Submit Comments (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/145/145056_the_man_who_built_peel_holdings.html#submit-comment) | Comments (1) (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/145/145056_the_man_who_built_peel_holdings.html#commen ts) | Printable Version Previous (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/p/137291) | Next (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/p/165822)
http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/435.$plit/C_71_Articles_145056_BodyWeb_Detail_0_Image.jpg?04 %2F02%2F2005 10%3A57%3A30%3A462 WINDING DOWN?: John Whittaker

JOHN Whittaker is a man who always gets what he wants. He has those critical virtues of success in spades, a vision for what he wants, shrewdness, patience, and tenacity.

In the last three decades he has built an empire estimated at '900m, encompassing the Clydeside in Scotland to the Manchester Ship Canal, the burgeoning Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Trafford Centre.

The planned 1000p per share swoop on Mersey Docks adds the final piece in Whittaker's north west jigsaw, and will also add the Medway port in London and a container port in Dublin to his portfolio. Then there are plans for a racecourse and country park in Worsley.

So what kind of man is he?

A Manchester-based financier who has watched Whittaker's rise keenly says: "He is the arch deal-doer. He plays hard-ball, he never gives in and always gets what he wants in the end.

"He has watched Mersey Docks like a hawk for at least the last year and has moved now because of the bid from the venture capitalist. I can't see him failing now.

"He waited until he had taken Peel private last year before doing this, because it's easier to do a deal like this when you're not listed. "

Integrated

The observer, who did not wish to be named, said he felt that once Mersey was integrated into the Peel empire, Whittaker may chose to wind down his business life.

"I think this will be his swansong in terms of major deals, and he has done a fair few - he had to fight for three years to get the Manchester Ship Canal Company, and the battle to build the Trafford Centre lasted for nearly 10 years and was an epic.

"When he gets Mersey Docks it will take him three or four years to get the best out of it, and then he will probably want to hand over the reins to the next generation."

Family is all important to John Whittaker, a tenacious and hard-working individual who guards his privacy keenly.

He has four children, Mark, James, Kate and John. The eldest three all work for their father, while John, the youngest is at university.

Centrepiece

He was very close to his late parents John, who set up the property business, and May. His mother's car, a classic Mercedes convertible, was installed as the centrepiece of a display when the Trafford Centre opened.

A strong Catholic faith underlies his business and private life. He has been separated from his wife, Patricia, for a number of years but is still legally married to her.

He is also notoriously publicity shy - indeed, some say he's shy in private life too - and is said to be uncomfortable with strangers.

However, he's recognised as one of the shrewedest minds in business.

The bid for Mersey Docks completes a long-held ambition of forming one single business empire stretching from one end of the Mersey to the other.

He's also shown himself adept at surrounding himself with formidable advisers - Robert Hough and Mike Butterworth being his key lieutenants for years.

Wikiped info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whittaker_(businessman)#Early_life

Robert Hough ~ Shifting shapes?
http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?ID=448&msg=Thank-You

Mike Buterworth~ Dancing with the Devil?
http://menmedia.co.uk/salfordadvertiser/news/s/1058114_police_probe_peel_over_election

Out-Daemons_Out
Cheers,
Chas:unibrow:

[scouse smurf]

Personally, I've got nothing against it since it seems to be in an area that is so in need of regeneration.

I don't think Unesco should be trying to stop it when you look at what is currently in the area, they should have been all over those black things by the liver building

[Ged]

I hope it's a case of the council just being tolerant and courtious and it's a message of 'Come and see and we'll show you it's not going to interfere with the World Heritage Site - and now bog off back home to London as it's the world we're wanting to impress - not you'.

Now those black monstrosities are a different kettle of fish - they are on the WHS and if they got passed then I can't see the stink made over these, it's as though - oops we have to now.

[wsteve55]

U.N.E.S.C.O...............who cares,and who needs their approval of our city,anyway? I'm all for it,if it leads to regeneration,jobs,etc,but with some sensitivity!

[SteH]

This UNESCO thing has all come about due to a complaint to English Heritage (incidentally the north west office is in Manchester, not that I'm being paranoid) by Wayne Colquhooun of the Liverpool Preservation Trust, which doesnt appear to be a trust at all, just alone man blog to further his own opinions. Bizarre that one man can threaten to get all this investment pulled, Peel have fingers in pies across the north and may well take their £5 billion elsewhere.

[Ged]

Eloquently put. Colquhooun is known throughout Liverpool business and council circles as a nutcase and on his blog he states how the new museum has been nominated as a carbuncle but fails to inform any viewer that it is he himself who has done this due to his own agenda.

Having a World heritage tag brings no recordable monetary value to the area, tourists will come anyway, not because they've read it's a WHS. If it's a straight choice - the council should just give them 2 fingers. So Canary wharf is ok but let's see what we can possibly do to delay your schemes...... How come is taking them until the autumn to come and take a look and then until next summer before they have a meeting about it - it's not like it'll take long to say yay or nay is it - and have you seen the state of the UNESCO HQ.

[Spike]

DONT BUILD IT

[Ged]

What shall we build? Or shall we leave it as it is?

Genuine question, as the people on the Vauxhall tours were over the moon when this was just at the proposal stage a few years ago. I think it would be seen as another council flop if it was all to fall apart for them now.

25,000 jobs over the lifespan of the project too - from construction to habitation.

[Spike]

Build something else. No more bloomin towers.

[Ged]

But nothing else is planned - no-one has an alternative on the table. What view will they spoil along the Central docks - won't they only enhance the view when coming down the river? These are nowhere near the 3 graces you know - even further along than Waterloo Apartments past ToyrUs and Costco - facing the Vulcan studios.

As far as towers go, they are hardly USA height either ;)

[Spike]

I hate towers.

If they keep building them I will move away.

[Ged]

Eh, I don't mean thanks you will move away ha ha.

[Max]

Personally, I've got nothing against it since it seems to be in an area that is so in need of regeneration.

I don't think Unesco should be trying to stop it when you look at what is currently in the area, they should have been all over those black things by the liver building

Yeah, they didn't complain about the black square and the mueseum that doesn't fit in with the area and the black boxes block the view of the graces from the Albert dock side!

[Spike]

Eh, I don't mean thanks you will move away ha ha.

HA HA HA

[grekko]

Anyone on here ever heard of a place called Dresden?
Well that same place told Unesco to take their WHS parchment and shove it and from what I've been able to discover it hasn't harmed Dresden. It isn't as if this bunch of self-congratulatory "wisemen " give anything other than a title to any site, but they take plenty in order to fund their worldwide jolly jaunts. Leeches as far as I'm concerned ,and the sooner they and The Liverpool Preservation Crust do a flit the better in my opinion.
Lets try and get this City moving upwards again without beardoes and weirdoes telling us what's best for us.

[chasevans]

But nothing else is planned - no-one has an alternative on the table. What view will they spoil along the Central docks - won't they only enhance the view when coming down the river? These are nowhere near the 3 graces you know - even further along than Waterloo Apartments past ToyrUs and Costco - facing the Vulcan studios.

As far as towers go, they are hardly USA height either ;)

I lived in the past,
While ahead rang out,
Land ahoy, make haste,
I still had my doubts,
Still strapped to the mast,
On the sea's line I stared,
at the spillage and wreckage,
of devout buccaneers.
Chas:unibrow:

[az_gila]

Heck... the UNESCO description is from 2004.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/multiple=1&unique_number=1331

It (the UN fiefdoms) just shows a spot for future govt. spending savings...:)

[chasevans]

Thanks Az-gila,
For steering me to the UNESCO pages. Too much info to comment on now.
UNESCO and the government are just smoke clouds. The immediate threat being Peel and cronies. My family history stretches throughout the Everton area. From some vantage points you could see right over the Mersey. Cobbled streets, yes, but no speed bumps. Some housing was poorly built and others did suffer war damage, but a good deal of the housing could have been retained. Everton was used as an example in social engineering on a vast scale. Most high rises from that era have been demolished. Good riddance.But we're now left with a sprawling landscape of ?....I can only say I can see the rising city properties, Ged's right, like USA but on a small scale.
I've no idea what to do on the Vauxhall waterfront, but there's an old saying, " Marry in haste, repent at leisure." I'm sure Forum members and other Merseysiders will have many.
The proposed marriage between Peel and Merseyside has reached the point where the priest says " If anyone objects to this marriage proceeding, let him speak now, or forever be silent." I'm at the back of the chapel but I'm shouting as hard as I can "NO".
Sometimes bearded but Always weirded,
Chas:smoke:

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------


Anyone on here ever heard of a place called Dresden?
Well that same place told Unesco to take their WHS parchment and shove it and from what I've been able to discover it hasn't harmed Dresden. It isn't as if this bunch of self-congratulatory "wisemen " give anything other than a title to any site, but they take plenty in order to fund their worldwide jolly jaunts. Leeches as far as I'm concerned ,and the sooner they and The Liverpool Preservation Crust do a flit the better in my opinion.
Lets try and get this City moving upwards again without beardoes and weirdoes telling us what's best for us.

Hi Grekko,
Dresden suffered more casualties than Hiroshima, but of course you knew that didn't you. 24 hour bombing by Britain and the USA. People dying for lack of oxygen. The city was a demolition site in 1945. It probably did merit an award for post war recovery.
I've never gave any credibility to UNESCO so unfortunately I'll have to agree with you.
No opinion on Liverpool Preservation Society, try googling it!
Peas, love, Hari Tishoo,
Chas:eek:

[Ged]

Healthy debate/opinions - loving it!!!

Some things I picked up on from your post Chas.

You describe Peel as 'the immediate threat'. I would have to say that is a strange description for a private business who want to plough billions into a decimated area at their own cost, enhancing a low level innocuous skyline and bringing listed docks ans ancillary buildings back into use in the process - oh, and ofcourse creating much need employment - in the thousands.

You mention how the view of Everton once was. Before your time and going off prints from the 1800s and before, we could say that the era you were growing up in spoilt what was there previously but that is progress. People inhabit and require abodes. The city lost a massive population and now it's being encouraged back. Build and they will come - Liverpool is not the barnpot it was in the 80s - we cannot live on protecting views alone. In any case, many I know think the view from Everton looking down towards the revitalised city centre and it's skyscrapers beyond is now better than ever but that is all subjective of course and hey guess what - you can still see the Welsh mountains and hills beyond so nothing is obscured.

'Marry in haste' might have been relevant if the site they want to build on had only been cleared 6 months ago but it's been like that for decades so how long do we wait. How long do we deprive the people living in the area of somewhere of their own where they don't have to walk a mile South to see some life. Will the kids who live in Vauxhall today be saying to their kids in 20 years time 'There was once a grand proposal for this area son but the powers that be put the blocks on it - it's been like this now since I was a boy' How backward thinking that boy would think those powers that be were.

Liverpool preservation trust is not even a trust but a one man blog from a guy living in the past. Now, living in the past is something I could be accused of with my site heavily loaded in that direction, my model of a tenement block demolished 25 years ago and my books recall past pleasures but let's face it. We've not got a Mr Barclay Walker, a Mr William Brown or a Mr James Picton nor the funds to build replicas of our fine civic buildings. Each era has its own architectural style and it so happens that the styles being presented now, whilst looking radical, are statements in theri own right and are no more bizarre than what was offered up when Oriel Chambers and the Liver Buildings were erected - and both castigated. Live in the past with our memories and by all means preserve our Georgian and Victorian heritage but we cannot be a living museum.

[chasevans]

Thanks Ged,
For responding and reiterating your position. From past posts your feelings are very clear although a bit too optimistic ( I think).
Apart from the short term construction jobs there's little merit in the scheme. Peel keeps it's cards well guarded from all reports I've seen. Even the construction clause may not guarantee Merseyside jobs. I'll have to resort to newspaper reports for this part of my post, I'm afraid. Peel have been described as "Empire builders" and Merseyside as "the last piece in the jigsaw". The Peel empire started in Manchester, "shrewdly" got the BBC to move to "Media City", and now wants to finish the "jigsaw".
Joining the dots I see one outcome. Apartment blocks priced so high they are beyond the reach of most people. But most people aren't in the Peel loop, it's selling "rooms with a view" - second homes for the "elite". Wouldn't be surprised if the proposed development in Vauxhall becomes known as "Manc- hall"

All "----" are meant to be sarcastic, No offense meant to you, Ged, you love this city, you speak with your heart and mind, and so you should.
I actually like "futuristic" looking buildings in the right settings, Merseyside's landscape has been tore down and rebuilt so many times in my lifetime, this looks like another disaster waiting to happen. All my questions are aimed at the mysterious Peel organization.

Best wishes,
Chas:034:

[Ged]

Thanks Chas, it's good to see an alternative view to that of my own.

'Optimistic' - not whilst indecision like we're experiencing exists, hopefully logic will win over.

'Short term construction jobs' - take a look at how long the plan is for building - i'll be dead by the time it's finished never mind you ;)

Peel being guarded - they cannot be by law. The proposals and plans are public knowledge - isn't that what's causing the stink from the preservation trust cough cough.

Jobs are jobs and residents are residents locals or not - they still have to spend into the local economy. I was not worried that the first dozen voices I heard down at the Pier Head last Sunday were Spanish or Geordie, I felt proud that they wanted to be here at all - they wouldn't have been in 1980.

I don't see many Mancs moaning about Media City or Salford Quays, I remember the place I used to have to visit up there in the early 80s, it was derelict like our Albert Dock of the 70s - unrecognisable now, forward thinking. The Mancs are possibly loving our indecision.

I wonder how many people who don't like the plans actually live in the area. It is not city centre so not a place one would have to visit involuntary - just a thought, a seed planted by a resident from the area I was talking to last night.

[az_gila]

The urban engineering planners (those who know better than us...:neutral:...) pushed for, and built high rise blocks in the 60's.

They were not a sucess and many (most?) have been pulled down and replaced by low residences.

Will this "tower love" go the same way? What is really different now? Do the folks in the city centre really want to live in ultra-high density buildings?

Perhaps some sort of middle ground would stand up better in the long term? Medium height buildings that don't dominate but may be "easier" to actually live in....

Do the city centre residents really want that many people packed into a small area?

Just some random thoughts...

[chasevans]

I go by media reports (not always the best source, but it's all we have). The "Empire" &"jigsaw" part of my last post came from a regional newspaper emphasizing how shrewd the Peel main man has been in business dealings. When I hear shrewd I think of Arthur Daley.
Jobs are jobs and residents are residents, local or not? Well, well, well........I disagree. I thought the whole point was improving Liverpool for the locals.
There are feelings revealed here that speak volumes. But the lure of money hides at the heart of your argument. Not a good enough reason for me Ged, but business has always been business.
I see it differently. Merseyside has a future without Peel. Regeneration from within - not capitulation to the Manchester carpetbaggers.I don't pretend to offer any solutions but I don't want to "look back in anger" on another planning blunder.
About Mancs - I do recall ( Anthony) Tony Wilson's contempt for Liverpool when he repeated a joke about our city and the East Lancs Road. Manchester's a dark hole that will always stand in Liverpool's shadow. I don't envy Mancunians, their council handing over the reins to Peel who quietly ran away with the silverware.
I admit to not living in the Vauxhall area. I live in Anfield, my heart lives in Everton and the Vauxhall Vaults was once a favourite watering hole, I could tell many tales of the Vauxhall area, I'll leave it at that.

Cheers,
Chas:sad:

[Harry]

No more towers!
There's only about 4 for god's sake.
No more red brick crap more like.

[Ged]

I know of a shop in the Met Quarter that caters for the wags and the like, it probably prices out most of the Liverpool lasses though or so you'd think to hear the pessimists. Not only do I know of plenty of local girls who have bought from there but it also employs our scouse girls. That's why when I hear these shops in the Met and L1 and these skyscrapers are not built for the likes of us, I squirm.

This is why the clubs and the restaurants in the Albert Dock are always full, despite pricey VIP areas and private booths that you pay extra for. I honestly think some people don't give our free spending vibrant city life younger population the credit or kudos they deserve. They don't want to sit in old man corner pubs from 8 until 2. They party at home and don't even hit the town until midnight.

So - let's leave the bomb sites and derelict land for another couple of decades then - even though there are no plan B's or C's. We have something unique in our waterfront which isn't just taken up by 600 yards from Mann Island to Chapel Street - let's exploit it like never before. These towers by the way, hardly towers in the global sense of the word, a few struggle to get past the height of the Liver.

Regarding corpy built high rises from the 50s and 60s. People were put in them as their communities were broken up. It was forced upon them and most didn't want to be there. We have seen with the few blocks that are left and have been modernised how 21st century living in these is a different kettle of fish when it's volutary and you're actually forking out of your own pocket to live in them.

It will not have escaped the attention of any developer, certainly not one so 'shrewd' as Peel (as we keep hearing they are) that this type of building must be desired or they wouldn't even entertain the idea of building them.

A forumer elsewhere has posted up a low level travel lodge type building that is currently on our dockscape and looks totally out of place, the area being deserving of so much better. Low level buildings have their place but not on such desirable sites.

Onward and forward.

[Spike]

No more towers!
There's only about 4 for god's sake.
No more red brick crap more like.

4 is too many.

I can see more than 4 on my way in.

Red brick, bring it on. Great looking. Much better than the Glass Leggo Monsters. The city was full of wonderful buildings before they decided to build this garbage. Look at what they have knocked down. Its criminal.

They cant even fill these towers and they want more..Its laughable. Knock em down :PDT11

[Ged]

I would love to see a whole esplanade with replicas of the old customs house and a miniature version of William Brown street from Princes dock right up to Clarence dock, don't forget those splendid stone walls like what's around the Walker Art Gallery, it'd look like Greece when you're coming down the Mersey but guess what, we've no money to make it happen.

Red brick, like the much maligned low level halifax building on the strand or the 2 storey throwaway low budget hotels on the south docks - nah, dead naff and not much thought gone into them :PDT_Xtremez_42:

[chasevans]

4 is too many.

I can see more than 4 on my way in.

Red brick, bring it on. Great looking. Much better than the Glass Leggo Monsters. The city was full of wonderful buildings before they decided to build this garbage. Look at what they have knocked down. Its criminal.

They cant even fill these towers and they want more..Its laughable. Knock em down :PDT11

I agree. Criminal. The whole idea should be examined closely. Peel Holdings are known to get what they want. CRIMINAL hardly covers it. The council are already being investigated for "corporate hospitality" costs, let's wait a little longer. PEEL and associates are no doubt covering their tracks.

Regarding Ged's posts. #26 & 28. "Lasses", are there no Judies in Liverpool anymore?
I've no further comments, Ged appears to shift shape too often for me.

Best wishes Spike,
Chas:PDT11

[Spike]

I love Ged though Chas. He is my buddy.

Everyone to their own.

[Ged]

Tell me where I shift shape Chas as you continue to further intrigue me with your perceptions of me.

You even claim to have read my books where I cleared laud the old communities and particularly tenements yet decided they were things I did not like. Strange days indeed mama as Mr Lennon once said. :002:

[chasevans]

Tell me where I shift shape Chas as you continue to further intrigue me with your perceptions of me.
:002:
You may have to stay intrigued a while longer. Me and my mates in the bar are having a heated debate about the new Scottish museum.
I say it looks good, Pricey says it's not as good as Liverpool's newest development, feelings are running high. Pricey's face is red with anger but that's nothing new! :mad:
"Calm down", shouts the landlord, " you'll wake up the bairns." Talk settles to the new Thwaites brewery, now that's something we should all be worrying about.
I will reply to the second part of your post after I've checked through my past postings.
Perceptions, well that's how you perceive someone, canny lad.
Cheers,
Chas:noid:

[gregs dad]

Not worth debating about the towers as they are only here for a lttle while.About 40 years I would say,
It`s called planned obsolescence. Alexandra Tower on Princes dock, has been let for a couple of years now and still there works going on in there judging by barriers and material around.

As the old man said "They are tearing down buildings I helped build"

[chasevans]

Not worth debating about the towers as they are only here for a lttle while.About 40 years I would say,
It`s called planned obsolescence. Alexandra Tower on Princes dock, has been let for a couple of years now and still there works going on in there judging by barriers and material around.

As the old man said "They are tearing down buildings I helped build"

The Vauxhall community stood firm in the past, I hope that spirit is still alive There will be other options eventually, PEEL is a shady organization. I can imagine the boardroom howling if Merseyside decide to "dance with the devil", quoted from PEEL management.There's a saying " the devil looks after his own". Peel are Manchester based, can we really expect them to look after Merseysiders?

Thanks, Gregs dad, for making an important point on which I agree!!!
Whatever happens it will be short term, but, we could be leaving a legacy of more destruction and chaos if the deal goes through.
still PEELing
Chas:D:PDT11

No offense to Mancs, Liverpublians, Evertonians, only PEEL HOLDINGS

[Waterways]

There will be other options eventually, PEEL is a shady organization. I can imagine the boardroom howling if Merseyside decide to "dance with the devil", quoted from PEEL management.There's a saying " the devil looks after his own". Peel are Manchester based, can we really expect them to look after Merseysiders?

Thanks, Gregs dad, for making an important point on which I agree!!!
Whatever happens it will be short term, but, we could be leaving a legacy of more destruction and chaos if the deal goes through.
still PEELing


Peel are primarily a LAND company. They are no dynamic creator of economic growth for sure. If they sold the land tomorrow another such company would step in their shoes. The hot air proposals, boy haven't wee seen many of those, are to inflate the land values. Then they can negotiate with developers in a position of financial strength. Either selling land, which they will rarely do, or negotiating leases, which is their aim - which is taking in rent.

The way our laws are Peel will making a killing, no matter what happens. The point is the type of developments that will emerge. The site is a world heritage site and this charter should be respected. The site developed within the charter framework will promote Liverpool far greater than some quick slap-dash Salford or Docklands tat. We have seen enough of that in the South End Docks. Another large tat shed is proposed on Kings/Queens Dock, and some laud this as progress of some sort - I am a loss to see where.

Peel should go by the rules. It is a WORLD HERITAGE SITE. They know the rules. Conform to them and its gets built. That is not difficult to understand. They do not and produce tat plans and ten people run top their defense shouting about jobs. I find it amazing that the naive support a bunch of Land/property sharks who want to bend the rules.

Peel do not have billions to spend. Forget that. They have LAND. Others will develop the plots. They will develop few. They will lease out land, and take rent and in some cases sell plots, making a wedge in the untaxed value of the land they acquired for buttons. This is unearned income.

Peel have had the site a long time. Liverpool got World Heritage Status quite a few years ago now. If Peel were such a wonder company they would have drawn up plans respecting the World Heritage Site and incorporated rapid-transit rail in the pre-credit Crunch era, when money was being poured into Liverpool - plans that respect the World Heritage Site to get the project under way. But Peel did sweet FA. It doesn't matter to them, the land values always rise, so they just sit there gaining all this windfall gain in land value which is untaxed.

Peel have planned the large Wirral Waters as well. Liverpool and Wirral Waters do not have any provision for rapid-transit rail to run into any of these large developments - in a city with a rapid-transit rail network, that is easy to run into these projects. How odd! Anyone who is serious would make provision for rapid-transit transport, which is essential for the success of such projects. The Docklands Light Railways made Docklands in London a success. Without it, it would have failed.

All very odd what Peel are doing - OR NOT DOING. Nevertheless, the land they own is still gaining in value. Wealth created from community activity, unearned income, which they keep untaxed, even though the land is derelict.

Peel promise a lot. What they have promised over the years:

A freight terminal at the airport
A post-panamax container terminal
Wirral Waters
Liverpool Waters in a World Heritage Site
Port Salford
Port Warrington
The Irish ferry terminal at Langton Dock river wall
They were rambling about a second cruise liner terminal
etc,
etc
All hot air.

[Ged]

Ah Waterways, or is it Marineman from another forum where he is regularly ridiculed over the same nonesense.

So Peel didn't build at the airport then, nor Salford, nor Media city?

Perhaps it's all hot air at the moment because the powers that be won't let them get on with it. Fortunately, Wirral Council are not so backward thinking and have passed the Wirral Waters scheme - I hope LCC wake up too.

WW, I would have expected you to want the docks to be brought back into use or are you only reigning interest in them?

I actually agree with your LVT but your angst should be against the government for not bringing it in - not Peel.

As for oh well something will be built there eventually if Peel don't - anbd pigs might fly - how long has it taken up to now?

There's plenty that's been ripped down within 40 or 50 years of it being built whether it be the tenements, high rise or the rear of the library - biut Peel had nothing to do with them - it's called a life span.

[az_gila]

...

There's plenty that's been ripped down within 40 or 50 years of it being built whether it be the tenements, high rise or the rear of the library - biut Peel had nothing to do with them - it's called a life span.

But nice buildings, well constructed, like the Liver Building make it past 100 years with no end in sight...:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[grekko]

I can't help feeling on reading some of the comments that if these opponents of change and progress were around approx 300 years ago, Liverpool, would have remained a backwater. Where were the planning committees , Unesco "experts", Preservation crusts then? Instead men of vision;admittedley not all were paragons of virtue, saw an opportunity to create wealth and during that creation helped grow a great port. So why do we have such a hatred for modern entrepreneurs whose ideas conflict with our own.....we don't seem to be creating anything. Instead lets just settle down in our daub and wattle and look at the nice buildings Grandpa and his mates built...... "they can't build like that nowadays you know lad".
For gods sake lets take a leap and a chance, if we succede Yippeeee, if we fail we know we can try and fix it, or should we stagnate and decay like so much around us in the past has withered through lack of vision .

[Spike]

Lets not build towers :PDT11

Boo to Towers.

[Ged]

But nice buildings, well constructed, like the Liver Building make it past 100 years with no end in sight...:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

That's true but they just don't built like that anymore anywhere. The pyramids have lasted quite a bit too ;)

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------


if we fail we know we can try and fix it, or should we stagnate and decay like so much around us in the past has withered through lack of vision .

Aye, i'd say if we fail (and that can only mean to fill them) then the site will still look better than a desolate wasteland with dust blowing by. If they fail in that way, only Peel will suffer so maybe it's a win win situation even for the Peel haters.

[gregs dad]

Howsabout a nice big park,with water features for the docks wasteland we certainlly don`t want any more empty flats.

[chasevans]

I think raising the question of why they don't build like that anymore is important. 10 years ago I used to meet up with a friend, Tommy (plasterer by trade). At the time there was renovation work being carried out in the Hope Street area. He was working out of town when he got transferred to the building in question. The engineer in charge of the site had gone ballistic over the low standards of workmanship. Plasterboards and light skimming of walls were all the men had been trained for, speed being the essence for their employer! Tommy was brought back with an apprentice to do the work properly.
Why are tradesmen not being trained to the standards that we once had? It's a throwaway world where money rules everything, I'm afraid.
The pyramids function was to keep out looters, at which they failed. I don't think they could ever be called beautiful.
The Liver buildings, I'm sure most people's view would be beautiful.
:PDT11 Ged.

Best wishes,
Chas:PDT11

[Ged]

Cheers Joe and Chas.

A well planned park maybe could have been an option if LCC owned the land but when the MDHC cashed in on it to Peel for a return, they too will be looking to profit from it.

The Pyramids are a WHS though Chas, you know, the all important UNESCO World Heritage Site and they are beautiful and meaningful to many. When big insurance companies were making an architectural statements such as the Royal Liver, Pearl Assurance etc, no expense was spared for their HQ's. Walker, Picton, William Brown and others were benefactors to the city and money was raised and given - that doesn't happen anymore. The next best thing though, since our councils are skint is that the likes of Grosvenor and Peel look to Liverpool with its unique sites ripe for redevelopment after years of nothing, I mean they're not looking at other cities who would no doubt snap their hands off.

How disappointing it would be to return to the central docks site as a ghost in 2050 to see what is still there now. A stark possibility.

[az_gila]

I think raising the question of why they don't build like that anymore is important. 10 years ago I used to meet up with a friend, Tommy (plasterer by trade). At the time there was renovation work being carried out in the Hope Street area. He was working out of town when he got transferred to the building in question. The engineer in charge of the site had gone ballistic over the low standards of workmanship. Plasterboards and light skimming of walls were all the men had been trained for, speed being the essence for their employer! Tommy was brought back with an apprentice to do the work properly.
Why are tradesmen not being trained to the standards that we once had? It's a throwaway world where money rules everything, I'm afraid.
The pyramids function was to keep out looters, at which they failed. I don't think they could ever be called beautiful.
The Liver buildings, I'm sure most people's view would be beautiful.
:PDT11 Ged.

Best wishes,
Chas:PDT11

But as far as speed of building goes, the Liver Building was built in a mere 3 years. They weren't slow craftsmen working back then....:)

The four times higher Empire State Building was completed in 18 months.

How long did the much lower new museum take?

[grekko]

[QUOTE=Ged;355611]That's true but they just don't built like that anymore anywhere. The pyramids have lasted quite a bit too ;)

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------



Never finished either, all that sand delivered, river changed course and the cement factory couldn't find enough transport for the order..... now if they'd had a decent planning committee who knows what wonderful architecture they might have left for us.

[chasevans]

Thanks for your reply, Ged. My views are not clouded by UNESCO WHS or the Liverpool Preservation Society ( in fact I'd never heard of LPS till it was named by yourself). I can't give my opinion on the LPS man until I know a bit more about him.
I didn't need UNESCO to tell me this city is beautiful, it was already a wondrous place to me. Can't say I'm not glad they've intervened in Peel's proposals though.
You've missed the point of my previous post so I'll make it clear.
Tommy the plasterer
The quality of workmanship in most modern buildings in Merseyside is sub standard. As long as workmen can pass their Level X and conform to a timetable the agency gets the job. Slapdash construction with maximum profit the only motivation.
Merseyside deserves better. Merseysiders have had to suffer the town planning and architectural disasters in the past. The new museum and black apartments squat like vultures in the city. If PEEL gets the go ahead there’ll be a new waterfront trio, The Three Disgraces.
I’ll leave out my thoughts on Liverpool One, that battle is fought and lost.
PEEL is the focus of this thread so I’ll say it again.

PEEL are in it for one thing, TO MAKE MONEY. If Merseyside surrenders to Peel Holdings we’ve a lot more to lose than money

The pyramids are tombs from a past civilization. Their very creation is a wonder to all. My cold eyes see only emptied tombs.The contents of the pyramids are far more beautiful to my eyes, telling their stories of the Egyptian empire. Pyramids might be fantastic and enigmatic, but the world has far more beautiful tombs.
Which brings me full circle. Peel’s towering structures and empire building, …………

Affably,
Chas:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[az_gila]

Thanks for your reply, Ged. My views are not clouded by UNESCO WHS or the Liverpool Preservation Society ( in fact I'd never heard of LPS till it was named by yourself). I can't give my opinion on the LPS man until I know a bit more about him.
I didn't need UNESCO to tell me this city is beautiful, it was already a wondrous place to me. Can't say I'm not glad they've intervened in Peel's proposals though.
You've missed the point of my previous post so I'll make it clear.
Tommy the plasterer
The quality of workmanship in most modern buildings in Merseyside is sub standard. As long as workmen can pass their Level X and conform to a timetable the agency gets the job. Slapdash construction with maximum profit the only motivation.
Merseyside deserves better. Merseysiders have had to suffer the town planning and architectural disasters in the past. The new museum and black apartments squat like vultures in the city. If PEEL gets the go ahead there’ll be a new waterfront trio, The Three Disgraces.
I’ll leave out my thoughts on Liverpool One, that battle is fought and lost.
PEEL is the focus of this thread so I’ll say it again.

PEEL are in it for one thing, TO MAKE MONEY. If Merseyside surrenders to Peel Holdings we’ve a lot more to lose than money

The pyramids are tombs from a past civilization. Their very creation is a wonder to all. My cold eyes see only emptied tombs.The contents of the pyramids are far more beautiful to my eyes, telling their stories of the Egyptian empire. Pyramids might be fantastic and enigmatic, but the world has far more beautiful tombs.
Which brings me full circle. Peel’s towering structures and empire building, …………

Affably,
Chas:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

I'm not sure that "quality of workmanship" is to blame.

If the architect specified cheap drywall (plasterboard in the UK?) instead of a full plaster job with nice details moulded in the corners, then it's a design issue, not a quality issue.

The workmansip may be poor, but even good workmanship on a cheap design still gets you a cheap building...:)

I blame the architects/interior designers.

PS - having owned a house with drywall and a 40's house with lath and plaster, the drywall one is easier to maintain...:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[Ged]

Show me a 21st century developer who isn't in it for money. Would you plough 5.5 billion of your money into it for nothing?

You say we lost the battle at Liverpool 1 Chas, I say we won. Im sure glad there aren't people on LCC who preferred to see bomb sites at South John st 70 years after the luftwaffe.

[chasevans]

I'm not sure that "quality of workmanship" is to blame.

If the architect specified cheap drywall (plasterboard in the UK?) instead of a full plaster job with nice details moulded in the corners, then it's a design issue, not a quality issue.

The workmansip may be poor, but even good workmanship on a cheap design still gets you a cheap building...:)

I blame the architects/interior designers.

PS - having owned a house with drywall and a 40's house with lath and plaster, the drywall one is easier to maintain...:PDT_Aliboronz_24:
I think I agree Al-gizala. The architects deserve a lot of blame for designing easy build lego constructions to a price. The modern workman's priority being speed. My tale of Tommy the plasterer was real, he was brought in from an out of town job to redo the botched up jobs other workmen had done. He was near retirement age then, what happens when thee are no Tommys to call upon? We should be training our youth to build buildings they can take a pride in. .
Cheers,
Chas:PDT11

---------- Post added at 03:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 AM ----------


Show me a 21st century developer who isn't in it for money. Would you plough 5.5 billion of your money into it for nothing?

You say we lost the battle at Liverpool 1 Chas, I say we won. Im sure glad there aren't people on LCC who preferred to see bomb sites at South John st 70 years after the luftwaffe.
I'll take the first question as rhetorical. Of course I wouldn't put 5.5 billion into this project. But if I had 5.5 billion I'd look at developing the land to benefit Liverpoool communities and industries, I can't stress enough that while scousers are without work and apartments are built that are out of their reach it will bring trouble.
Liverpool One from all reports is a 2/3 full I'm told. At the moment it wants to appeal to the WAGs culture. No prices shown on anything, if you have to ask the price you can't afford it. Hope Liverpool folk aren't taken in by this trick. Grosvenor can afford to lose money, he just deducts it from his tax.
As can PEEL the enemy of Liverpool. PEEL HOLDINGS must be stopped..
Sorry Ged,
Best Wishes for yourself,
Chas:PDT11

[Ged]

No probs Chas, it's all about opinions :PDT11

I bet the workers of Cammell lairds or the workers at the new Liverpool airport terminal don't see them as liverpool's enemy though. Perhaps the wildlife up at Seaforth might though as they plan a post panamax terminal there too. Some enemies eh. I prefer to think the backwater thinking procrastinators are the real enemy as nothing would get done with them. They buy the paint for the house but never get around to doing it.

[grekko]

Liverpool One from all reports is a 2/3 full I'm told. At the moment it wants to appeal to the WAGs culture. No prices shown on anything, if you have to ask the price you can't afford it. Hope Liverpool folk aren't taken in by this trick. Grosvenor can afford to lose money, he just deducts it from his tax.
As can PEEL the enemy of Liverpool. PEEL HOLDINGS must be stopped..
Sorry Ged,
Best Wishes for yourself,
Chas:PDT11[/QUOTE]

John Lewis? Debenhams? Wags?
1 out of 3 , must try harder.... take 200 lines:
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
see me in my study.:slywink:

[Ged]

What a sweeping statement to say that the whole of L1 only caters for the wives and girlfriends of footballers. I've been the Everton shop, i've bought a cd and dvd out of HMV (lots of initials there lol) Why, i've even been the world hot buffet restaurant a number of times to eat as much as I can for the price that a wag wouldn't buy a handbag for. I even saw pensioners coming out of W..H. Smiths - how ab out that then, I should have got a pic to prove all of this. Ha ha.

[chasevans]

Liverpool One from all reports is a 2/3 full I'm told. At the moment it wants to appeal to the WAGs culture. No prices shown on anything, if you have to ask the price you can't afford it. Hope Liverpool folk aren't taken in by this trick. Grosvenor can afford to lose money, he just deducts it from his tax.
As can PEEL the enemy of Liverpool. PEEL HOLDINGS must be stopped..
Sorry Ged,
Best Wishes for yourself,
Chas:PDT11

John Lewis? Debenhams? Wags?
1 out of 3 , must try harder.... take 200 lines:
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
see me in my study.:slywink:[/QUOTE]

I said wags culture. Do I really have to explain it further. I'd expect Wayne Rooney could explain it to you if you really don't understand it, Grekko.
I've never been to Liverpool One, I'm going on reports from others who I trust, what part of Liverpool One from all reports is a 2/3 full I'm told. is confusing you, Grekko.
I don't know where your study is, sir, can you be more explicit. Just to please a fellow pensioner:
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.

I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.


COPY AND PASTE THE ABOVE 19 Times.
Show yourself, Grekko.:evil:

[grekko]

John Lewis? Debenhams? Wags?
1 out of 3 , must try harder.... take 200 lines:
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
see me in my study.:slywink:

I said wags culture. Do I really have to explain it further. I'd expect Wayne Rooney could explain it to you if you really don't understand it, Grekko.
I've never been to Liverpool One, I'm going on reports from others who I trust, what part of Liverpool One from all reports is a 2/3 full I'm told. is confusing you, Grekko.
I don't know where your study is, sir, can you be more explicit. Just to please a fellow pensioner:
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.

I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.


COPY AND PASTE THE ABOVE 19 Times.
Show yourself, Grekko.:evil:[/QUOTE]

I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.

I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.

I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.
I must be sure of my facts before making statements.

sorry Sir, can I go home now?

[chasevans]

What a sweeping statement to say that the whole of L1 only caters for the wives and girlfriends of footballers. I've been the Everton shop, i've bought a cd and dvd out of HMV (lots of initials there lol) Why, i've even been the world hot buffet restaurant a number of times to eat as much as I can for the price that a wag wouldn't buy a handbag for. I even saw pensioners coming out of W..H. Smiths - how ab out that then, I should have got a pic to prove all of this. Ha ha.
Was Grekko there looking for a new study, I would like to see him? You don't have to get a pic for me, Ged. I just Google for the Liverpool One website and it only confirms my views. They're aiming sales at the wannabe Yuppies/ WAGS. I'll say it again, nothing priced. Draw your own conclusions.
Fed up watching this tin of paint dry,
I'm off to the pub,
Chas:slywink:

[grekko]

@chasevans, I know you said you Google for the Liverpool One website and it only confirms your views, so I thought that maybe to help us both determine the quantity of open or empty premises and stores aimed at appealing to Wags and non Wags , I could post this link so you could identify those you mean and especially the ones which don't display prices. I've visited quite a few times with my wife and if anyone is critical of pricing and the display of them,I have found her to be at the head of the queue, yet other than for a few overpriced stores which appear to be the norm nowadays on most high streets,or shopping centres,I can't say I've heard her voicing many criticisms.
http://www.liverpool-one.com/Vicinitee.Assets/Documents/LiverpoolONESpringStoreDirectory.pdf

[Spike]

Where is this thread going??????????????

[gregs dad]

Ged there is a post office in W H Smiths,they have been collecting their pension as they have overspent

[chasevans]

Where is this thread going??????????????

?:handclap:

[grekko]

Thought you were going the pub?

[Ged]

Well the thread was originally going on about how a quango who gives out a certificate saying we have a World Heritage site and who passed the ugly black buildings on Mann Island is now helping prevent (with the aid of an unelected preservation trust one man band who can't see past rightly preserving Georgian stock) a 5.5 billion influx of private money being spent on revitalising a tumbleweed eyesore that nobody wanted to touch for at least 20 years.

Somehow it got onto how some L1 stores are overpriced. Do what I do and don't go in them then and if there's no supply and demand, they will close down, but probably not in your lifetime, just like I never go into Harrods when in London. It doesn't half work but the only problem then is you have to find something else to moan about instead of something else to be proud of. Do you watch Eastenders perhaps Chas ;)

---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------


Thought you were going the pub?


He was until he found you couldn't still get half a bitter, a packet of players and a box of swan vesta and still come out with change from a ten bob note ;)

[wsteve55]

"He was until he found you couldn't still get half a bitter, a packet of players and a box of swan vesta and still come out with change from a ten bob note"

:unibrow:

[chasevans]

http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/239.$plit/C_71_article_1439366_image_list_image_list_item_0_ image.jpg?20%2F07%2F2011 16%3A06%3A58%3A613 Peel's development director James Whittaker


Far Eastern investors are snapping up apartments at MediaCityUK in Salford Quays, having invested £4.5m so far.
Following sales visits to Hong Kong in March and the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur in May, Peel Media Living has sold 36 apartments in two residential blocks.
Peel has now committed to trips to Singapore in October and Hong Kong again in November.
Peel's development director James Whittaker said: “It became apparent at last year’s Shanghai Expo that there’s a real demand for UK investment opportunities within the Chinese market.
“The hotels there are booked each weekend by London-based developers selling schemes off-plan, so there was overwhelming evidence that marketing to this cash-rich corner of the world would pay off.
“We also had the benefit of a completed development and the twin attractions of the BBC and Manchester United to a market that loves British brands.
“But it was still a big risk for us. We invested £75,000 in marketing and needed to sell between eight and 10 units to break even.
“We used King Sturge’s office in Hong Kong to co-ordinate, and took the development models out with us, set up shop in a room in a hotel and waited to see what would happen.
“We sold 24 units to 24 different individuals. We achieved £3m worth of sales in three days.
“We went on to Kuala Lumpur where there is a massive Manchester United following and, while we did not do as well as Hong Kong, as the market there is more cautious and conservative, we still sold 12 units in two days.
“Since our return all 36 have completed.”
Peel has offered 12-month rental guarantees or furniture packs and say investors can expect a six per cent annual return on their capital.
Mr Whittaker added: “Chinese investors are very savvy, they want the best return for the least risk and were attracted not just by the fact that prices here are a third of the London equivalent but that they get instant returns.”


Manchester Evening News, July 21



Chas
:confused::confused::confused:

[Ged]

So what is your point - that we would be welcoming the biggest growing economy to our shores?

Should we only build terraced houses because that's all scousers can afford - we did all that from the 50s to the 90s and the inner city depopulated and it was left a tumbleweed wasteland. Do you know about demographics?

Catering for the top end of the market encourages entrepeneurial types who will open businesses employinglocals. Did Peel not reinvent Cammell lairds or build the new airport terminal? I bet those people in those jobs don't feel shanghai'd. ;)

All the best to you Chas.

[chasevans]

A small part taken from the PEEL proposal.
Port of Liverpool
A major deep sea “gateway” port for the region and Great Britain, handling the full
range of deep sea traffics. The only West Coast deep sea container port
which will be able to accommodate post-Panamax vessels handling direct calls by
deep sea ships, as well as transhipment traffic to Ireland and traffic fed from other UK
and Continental deep sea container ports. The major Irish Sea ro-ro port in the North
West region, following the development of a riverside terminal.
A major sustainable distribution hub(waterborne, rail and road freight transport),
serving a national hinterland, with associated warehousing.
It noted that the Port has a shortage of land
within its estate and in the medium to long-term,
land availability is likely to be a key constraint to
development.

Opinions sought.

Chas:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[az_gila]

...
It noted that the Port has a shortage of land
within its estate and in the medium to long-term,
land availability is likely to be a key constraint to
development.

Opinions sought.

Chas:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

Sounds almost like they want to start filling in the River Mersey to create more land...:gnasher:

[chasevans]

Sounds almost like they want to start filling in the River Mersey to create more land...:gnasher:
I can imagine. :D
Nice one Az-gila,
Chas:handclap:

[Ged]

Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.

[wsteve55]

Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.

Which "Peel" were happy to allow to develop,surprisingly succesfully,but always with the provision that,one day,they might have to use the land involved! Access to the sanctuary isn't so easy,these days,and it will be sad to see it go,but it's a matter of priorities!

[Ged]

Correct Steve. It's almost as if some people don't want to see the city progress isn't it?

[ItsaZappathing]

Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.

Now that's disgusting. Again, Merseyside will lose more wildlife. :PDT10

[chasevans]

With all due respect, Ged and wsteve 55, I was merely pointing to Peel's lack of transparency in "The Master Plan". 300+ pages that appear to answer Merseyside issues. I think the "real" documents might give a clearer view of Peel's agenda.
http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Ged http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?p=356541#post356541)
Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.
Thanks Ged, it's like drawing teeth.:034:

Regards,
Chas:PDT11

[wsteve55]

I take your point C, but I don't think "Peel"are quite the monsters you make them out to be,bearing in mind the reason any company, exist's at all,which is to make money! They don't have to "ask" to relocate the sanctuary,they can bulldoze it any time they like,but,they are showing at least some consideration by doing so,even if it is only cosmetic!
I'm glad,that after many years of decline,that anybody, can see the potential to succeed in Liverpool,with the associated benefits,though,of course, that doesn't mean they should have a free rein,by any means!

[Ged]

Now that's disgusting. Again, Merseyside will lose more wildlife. :PDT10

Why if it's just relocating and it wouldn't be there in the first place but for them, it's on their land.

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

That's right Steve and why stringent planning laws, rules and regulations have to be adhered to. Chas, do you have a relative working at Cammell Laird or the airport which due to Peel's takeovers have cemented jobs that WOULD - not could have been lost. How do you feel about that. All without costing you an extra penny on your tax.

[chasevans]

Why if it's just relocating and it wouldn't be there in the first place but for them, it's on their land.

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

That's right Steve and why stringent planning laws, rules and regulations have to be adhered to. Chas,
do you have a relative working at Cammell Laird or the airport which due to Peel's takeovers have cemented jobs that WOULD - not could have been lost. How do you feel about that. All without costing you an extra penny on your tax.
Too many pot herbs in the scouse for my liking.
Chas:angry:

[Ged]

Are you living anywhere near where all those streets are desolate around Anfield football ground Chas?. I would have thought your angst could be better directed towards another private company who are holding up the development of the area due to their will they wont they build a new ground - and LCC pandering to them and extending long expired plans to build on the people's Victorian Parkland. :Smiliz_Kingz_PDT_13

[chasevans]

Are you living anywhere near where all those streets are desolate around Anfield football ground Chas?. I would have thought your angst could be better directed towards another private company who are holding up the development of the area due to their will they wont they build a new ground - and LCC pandering to them and extending long expired plans to build on the people's Victorian Parkland. :Smiliz_Kingz_PDT_13

I thought this thread was about Planning decision on Liverpools waterfront, are you trying to extend the thread to ...............where?
What's YOUR point? (to repeat your question)
Chas:smoke:

[Ged]

Shall I start a new thread then?

Point proven.

Thank you.


Ged.:PDT_Piratz_26:

[chasevans]

Shall I start a new thread then?

Point proven.

Thank you.


Ged.:PDT_Piratz_26:

I'll gladly express my views on other topics, if you wish, although Liverpool waterfront and Peel are what this thread is about.

I'll take that as my "point proven".

Thanks,
Chas:PDT11

[Ged]

:PDT11

[chasevans]

PEEL HOLDINGS TO APPEAL SALFORD COUNCIL HOUSING REFUSAL




Salford Star date: 21st July 2011

SALFORD TAX PAYERS TO PICK UP THE BILL FOR PEEL HOLDINGS BURGESS FARM HOUSING APPEAL…As Council document reveals a further 200 houses on the green field site…
Peel Holdings is to appeal against the recent refusal by Salford Council's planning panel to grant permission to build 350 houses on the green field Burgess Farm site in Walkden. The £multi-billion company is demanding that Salford tax payers pick up the bill.
Meanwhile, Salford Council documents show plans for a further 200 houses on the Burgess Farm site.
Full story here… (http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1039)


http://www.salfordstar.com/images/l/salford%20green%20belt%20protest%20jan%202010%282% 29.JPG


It was only a few weeks ago that, following a shambolic Salford Council planning panel meeting, Peel Holdings was refused outline planning permission to build 350 houses on the green field Burgess Farm site in Walkden/Little Hulton (see here (http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1025)).
Yesterday, Salford councillors were told that Peel Holdings is not only planning to appeal against the democratic decision of the planning committee but is demanding full costs from the Council (ie Salford tax payers) to pay for that appeal.
Even Councillor Derek Antrobus, the Lead Member for Planning who was actually in favour of the Peel Holdings development at that planning meeting, hinted at indignation when he tweeted on Twitter yesterday afternoon…
"Peel appeal against Burgess Farm and demand full costs claiming Council unreasonable. Council to defend refusal. Up to Govt now."
A more restrained quote by the councillor was issued by Salford Council later in the day…
"Peel has exercised its legal right to appeal and this will be a matter for the Planning Inspectorate to consider. The council will resist the appeal and defend its decision to refuse the planning application."
While Salford tax payers pick up Peel's bill for the costs of its appeal, it has come to light that, not only does Peel want to build 350 houses on the Burgess Farm green field site, there are plans for a further 200 houses on the site, making a total of 550 houses.
Salford Council's Development Plan (Core Strategy) lists all the city's housing needs and the sites that will be built on between 2010-2030. There's currently a draft 66 page `pre-publication' consultation document on the Council's website which residents can comment on until August 1st (click here (http://www.salford.gov.uk/d/core-strategy-pre-publication-june_2011-final.pdf)). Accompanying the Development Plan is another `changes in housing supply' document which lists every site in the city where houses could be built.
Within this latter document (page 34) (click here (http://www.salford.gov.uk/d/core-strategy-pre-publication-changes-housing_supply.pdf)) it states quite clearly that the `Site to the south west of Hilton Lane and north of Waverley Road (Burgess Farm)' will have 350 houses on it. And in another section, it states equally clearly `Burgess Farm 2 – land off Hilton Lane' 200 houses.
That's 550 houses in total in a green field area that has protected great crested newts, where traffic congestion would be horrific, and where Salford Council's own planning report stated that there was no need for housing.
Campaigners against the proposed Burgess Farm development are urging residents to object to the plans before August 1st by…
• e-mail plans.consultation@salford.gov.uk (plans.consultation@salford.gov.uk)
• by post to: Core Strategy Consultation, Spatial Planning, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton M27 5BY.
There should be printed copies of the Development Plan and `housing supply list' in all of the city's libraries.
The Development Plan can also be viewed by clicking here
(http://www.salford.gov.uk/d/core-strategy-pre-publication-june_2011-final.pdf)The list of sites for housing can be viewed by clicking here (http://www.salford.gov.uk/d/core-strategy-pre-publication-changes-housing_supply.pdf)
* The Salford Star will be covering other housing issues thrown up by the Development Plan over the coming days…






http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php)









mary ferrer wrote
at 12:23:30 PM on Friday, July 22, 2011










I think if the appeal if found against the council,then the council pay If peel loose the apeal THEN they pay. Don't think that if Mrs Jones appeals against a refusal of her kitchen extention she could ask the council to pay,so why are PEEL any different. Lets just hope the inspector finds in favour of the council and tells peel to sod off.

















Salford Star wrote
at 11:11:04 AM on Friday, July 22, 2011










See Tom's comment...Good point Tom - the councillor's tweet says `demand'.

















Tom wrote
at 11:08:24 AM on Friday, July 22, 2011










Star, is it not in fact standard practice that the council incurs costs for planning appeals? Are Peel actively demanding that SCC fund the appeal, or is it just routine procedure? I think it's important that you clarify this point.

















Measured View wrote
at 4:27:15 PM on Thursday, July 21, 2011










Hmmm....Multi Millionaire Company takes on City Council and loses, then asks council to fund their appeal...does anybody spot the punchline here? Peel can fund their own appeal, the council should throw it out if Peel can't (or wont) fund it themselves!

















Ronnie Thompson wrote
at 11:31:08 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011










TELL THESE PARASITIC CHUMS OF THE CLOWNCIL TO SOD OFF , AND TAKE THE TRAFFORD CENTRE WITH THEM .

















Bob Flowers wrote
at 8:06:01 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011










The ineptitude , bungling , waste and squander at the swinetown big top just goes on and on .What a circus .Peel will get their way , and the clouncil will pick up the bill . WE TAXPAYERS HAVE ONCE AGAIN BEEN SHAFTED .

















Nachtschlepper wrote
at 8:05:30 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011










It's time these parasites were told where to go. This company is bleeding the City of Salford dry. Our so called leaders will do nothing to stop them so perhaps we need to take matters into ur own hand. Demonstrations at Media City & the Trafford Centre might be a start.











:question::question::question::protest:
Chas

[Ged]

I hope the council tell Peel to eff off to Liverpool ;)

[lindylou]

I've only just caught up with this thread - been ages reading through it. :)


just a few comments to add my two penneth;

first of all to say, excellent posts from Ged:PDT11 especially pages 2 & 3.
Well said Ged :PDT_Piratz_26:

re Everton district - - well, it has merely returned to it's original state of open green spaces. it was a rural area to start with, so it could be said that the miriad of terraced streets were a blot on the landscape -- if people from the old days could time travel they might recognise it more as it is today than how it looked during the 1920's, 30's, etc. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y249/rubinda/avatars/e20301.gif

re building tall on the waterfront skyline;
where about were those '3 ugly sisters?' - the Clarence dock was it ?
They were tall were they not ? Industrial too and not smart or beautiful.

As Ged says, people who are against - do they live in the area ?? - - and yes, how long that waste ground has been there doing nothing! - it's about time the area is rejuvenated and can hold it's head high along with the centre and south.


ps, but I do like the idea of GD's park with water features - that would be nice.

[chasevans]

I live in Anfield, Lindylou, where are you speaking from?. The Everton area you seem to recognize as a blot on the landscape is not the area I grew up in. I can give you a more in depth view of my life, but the thread is about the planning decision on Liverpool's waterfront.

Mr John Whittaker
22797

[grekko]

I live in Anfield, Lindylou, where are you speaking from?. The Everton area you seem to recognize as a blot on the landscape is not the area I grew up in. I can give you a more in depth view of my life, but the thread is about the planning decision on Liverpool's waterfront.

Mr John Whittaker
22797

Chas , I think Lindylou was referring to the Everton area of the early 19th century when she commented upon the miriad of terraced streets being a blot on the landscape, not of the area or community of the early and mid 20th century. I'm sure she recognises, as do most of us on here, that the Everton area was a vibrant family oriented community who unfortunately, in many respects, had the misfortune to inhabit properties which lacked the standard facilities for healthy living and had seen better days, which was a major contribution to their wholesale demolition/disappearance.
As for her comments on the waterfront I doubt if her place of residence should preclude her from commenting on her memories or preference of waterfront view.
I do not go along with the siting of a lot of Skyscrapers etc of Peel's plans but, surely the improvement of that area has been too long coming, how much longer might it take to redevelop the site(s) if the plans are knocked back? We will probably never again build communities such as you and I remember but that shouldn't restrict peoples opportunities to try and build newer and hopefully vibrant living spaces.

[chasevans]

Chas , I think Lindylou was referring to the Everton area of the early 19th century when she commented upon the miriad of terraced streets being a blot on the landscape, not of the area or community of the early and mid 20th century. I'm sure she recognises, as do most of us on here, that the Everton area was a vibrant family oriented community who unfortunately, in many respects, had the misfortune to inhabit properties which lacked the standard facilities for healthy living and had seen better days, which was a major contribution to their wholesale demolition/disappearance.
As for her comments on the waterfront I doubt if her place of residence should preclude her from commenting on her memories or preference of waterfront view.
I do not go along with the siting of a lot of Skyscrapers etc of Peel's plans but, surely the improvement of that area has been too long coming, how much longer might it take to redevelop the site(s) if the plans are knocked back? We will probably never again build communities such as you and I remember but that shouldn't restrict peoples opportunities to try and build newer and hopefully vibrant living spaces.Thanks for YOUR opinion, Grekko. I've often stated my views on the Everton area and it's demolition and they don't coincide with a lot of people. That won't stop me from holding my views. I'm English working class, C of E, I now live up the road from Everton in Anfield, not here, there and anywhere, it would be revealing to know where the pro Peel activists live or where they came from.
It was Lindylou who brought the Everton area into this thread, it's difficult enough to stay on thread, so before I go any further:-
PEEL ARE A THREAT TO MERSEYSIDE
Their sole motivation is profit, but as Colonel Gedaffi and his followers say, it's a rich man's world.
Sociably,
Chas:smoke:

[Ged]

Chas, you brought the Everton area into this thread on post 19. :PDT_Xtremez_42:

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

Grosvenor's motivation was profit, so what if the means to the ends results in a better place to be. Every single developer that ever developed an area did it for profit, not for the love of the place. LFC likewise when if ever they get around to sticking to their end of the deal with Anfield. Peel took an ailing airport and have turned it round. Peel took acres of derelict land that nobody wanted and now it's the Trafford Centre. Are you up to speed on what they have actually achieved rather than the scaremongering of what they might do?

ps. Writing in bold/capitals/different colours/larger text doesn't make your point any more valid.

[John Doh]

Thanks for YOUR opinion, Grekko. I've often stated my views on the Everton area and it's demolition and they don't coincide with a lot of people. That won't stop me from holding my views. I'm English working class, C of E, I now live up the road from Everton in Anfield, not here, there and anywhere, it would be revealing to know where the pro Peel activists live or where they came from.
It was Lindylou who brought the Everton area into this thread, it's difficult enough to stay on thread, so before I go any further:-
PEEL ARE A THREAT TO MERSEYSIDE
Their sole motivation is profit, but as Colonel Gedaffi and his followers say, it's a rich man's world.
Sociably,
Chas:smoke:

Spot on, Chas! - It never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are in allowing the likes of Peel to have carte blanche to reek havoc on the grounds that they are bringing much-needed investment to the city. They are traditional capitalists whose motive is making a profit based on land prices and property speculation; they are NOT a philanthropic institution!

[Ged]

'allowing' ? They have to present plans like anybody else - like they did at Cammell Laird which they saved.

'carte blanche' ? Look the meaning up. Where have they been given carte blanche over anything when their plans are under scrutiny rsulting in them not being passed as yet - quite the opposite of carte blanche.

'reek havoc' ? Where in Liverpool have they done this. Look at the Baltic triangle development that has been left as an eyesore due to a company going bust part way through it. Is that wreaking havoc?

Are they not bringing much needed investment into the city then, explain why not?

Name any modern day developers that are philanthropic institutions. Would you prefer it if they built it for no profit or lost on it. Why doesn't anybody else buy up this unwated derelict land then?

[az_gila]

....
Name any modern day developers that are philanthropic institutions. Would you prefer it if they built it for no profit or lost on it. Why doesn't anybody else buy up this unwated derelict land then?

Go a bit further...

Name the Liverpool developers in it's heyday that weren't driven by profit - there were a few, but perhaps some of them were offspring feeling a bit guilty about their family money made off the slave trade.

Liverpool developed in the 1800's into the city it is now on the profit motive, why knock it....:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[wsteve55]

Go a bit further...

Name the Liverpool developers in it's heyday that weren't driven by profit - there were a few, but perhaps some of them were offspring feeling a bit guilty about their family money made off the slave trade.

Liverpool developed in the 1800's into the city it is now on the profit motive, why knock it....:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

Exactly....like capitalism was new-fangled!!!! I've lived all over Liverpool,not just one, or two area's!

[chasevans]

Chas, you brought the Everton area into this thread on post 19. :PDT_Xtremez_42:

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

Grosvenor's motivation was profit, so what if the means to the ends results in a better place to be. Every single developer that ever developed an area did it for profit, not for the love of the place. LFC likewise when if ever they get around to sticking to their end of the deal with Anfield. Peel took an ailing airport and have turned it round. Peel took acres of derelict land that nobody wanted and now it's the Trafford Centre. Are you up to speed on what they have actually achieved rather than the scaremongering of what they might do?

ps. Writing in bold/capitals/different colours/larger text doesn't make your point any more valid.
I did bring up the Everton area in post 19 to explain my position ( not coming from the proposed area). I then got back on thread about the proposed development. I can't give any credence to Lindylou's (or anyone other's) comments when they give no personal background info when making a point.
I've had a chat with GeorgPorgie and he's made valid points about the demolition in his particular part of the Everton area. I still say there were parts that should've been saved.
:PDT11
Back to the thread, I agree every company should make a profit, but Peel's accounts are bewildering( to me anyway). Peel promise much when they get a contract, usually the residents of Peel's greed suffer the consequences (see Salford posts). Peel are a law to themselves (I'm sure you know that), they connive to get their way by any means. I think the investigation into the recent air crash in Newlands Avenue, Peel Green, Salford, might prove interesting, or am I just scaremongering?
ps read peel's small print first
Cheers, Ged,
Chas:002:

[lindylou]

I've taken it for granted, ..(I know I probably shouldn't be presuming) .. that most people on the forum know I am from Anfield - - I have refered to my Anfield roots throughout lots of threads through the years on Yo. :)

I was born here and have never moved - still living here :snf (41):

I can walk to Everton area - 5 mins from me.

---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------


Chas , I think Lindylou was referring to the Everton area of the early 19th century when she commented upon the miriad of terraced streets being a blot on the landscape, not of the area or community of the early and mid 20th century. I'm sure she recognises, as do most of us on here, that the Everton area was a vibrant family oriented community who unfortunately, in many respects, had the misfortune to inhabit properties which lacked the standard facilities for healthy living and had seen better days, which was a major contribution to their wholesale demolition/disappearance.
As for her comments on the waterfront I doubt if her place of residence should preclude her from commenting on her memories or preference of waterfront view.


Thanks Grekko, that's what I was meaning .. I am not casting any aspersions on the community of Everton ( and also I think you are right in saying that these vibrant old communities will never be repeated).
I am just saying that the terraced streets would have been looked upon as a blot on the landscape by the people who knew it as a rural area. I bet they didn't relish the sight of their rural idyll being built upon the way it was. According to history books I have read, Everton was a pastoral setting where the gentry strolled the country lanes and grassy slopes to take in the sea air and enjoy the views. Some decades on, and those people from that era would not have recognised the district of Everton. My point is that the area has now reverted to it's original grassy state - just a thought that had occurred to me and probably irrelevant to the thread ..:PDT_Xtremez_42: :)

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------



My family history stretches throughout the Everton area. From some vantage points you could see right over the Mersey. Cobbled streets, yes, but no speed bumps. Some housing was poorly built and others did suffer war damage, but a good deal of the housing could have been retained. Everton was used as an example in social engineering on a vast scale. Most high rises from that era have been demolished. Good riddance.But we're now left with a sprawling landscape of ?...


(above quote) this was the post that prompted my thoughts - that things have to change, and they do change, and sometimes not to everyones' liking . . :neutral:

sorry if I rambled a bit. :)

[grekko]

Chas , I've read and re-read your post with regard to Peel's planning refusal appeal and warning to Merseysiders but I am still left wondering what is it there for? Is it to allow us to read a story from the Salford Star or is it to point out how Govenment legislation and regulation have been altered over approx the last 10 years, and how one specific company are applying those rules and regulations as defined in the acts. Or is it to point out that Salford Council's Development Plan (Core Strategy)has outlined it's proposals for 2010-2030, or maybe even the shambolic Salford Council planning panel meeting which couldn't decide what it's plans were? Whatever it is the post is warning Merseysiders to watch out for , could you highlight them for me please,as I cannot find it/them .
Thank you.

[lindylou]

I do not go along with the siting of a lot of Skyscrapers etc of Peel's plans but, surely the improvement of that area has been too long coming, how much longer might it take to redevelop the site(s) if the plans are knocked back? We will probably never again build communities such as you and I remember but that shouldn't restrict peoples opportunities to try and build newer and hopefully vibrant living spaces.

Yes, I agree. Who will redevelop the area then if plans are dropped ?
We are very much looking forward to this stretch of land to be brought into line and match up with the rest of the fantastic improvements that have already been realised.
It will be a sin if it is left to rot.

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------


Some housing was poorly built and others did suffer war damage, but a good deal of the housing could have been retained.


Of course, I agree with you that some of the buildings in Everton could have, and should have been saved.

[Ged]

Forget where we posters are from, what's that got to do with it. Where we are not currently from is the area that can be redeveloped and I know for a fact that the people from Vauxhall want it and in fact have campaigned for the likes of the Central docks redevelopment and Project Jennifer on Greaty. It's like someone in Woolton saying why is someone wanting to redevelop Lodge Lane, let them stew. Rather ingenious isn't it?

[Diane Louise]

I am just saying that the terraced streets would have been looked upon as a blot on the landscape by the people who knew it as a rural area. I bet they didn't relish the sight of their rural idyll being built upon the way it was. According to history books I have read, Everton was a pastoral setting where the gentry strolled the country lanes and grassy slopes to take in the sea air and enjoy the views. Some decades on, and those people from that era would not have recognised the district of Everton. My point is that the area has now reverted to it's original grassy state - just a thought that had occurred to me and probably irrelevant to the thread ..:PDT_Xtremez_42: :)[COLOR="Silver"] :)

I agree Lindy, to many the terraced streets were a blot on the landscape but many people wanted their areas to stay the same. I am sure that for many people they have welcomed progress and re-development. To see Everton with grassy slopes and enjoy the nice views must be wonderful.

[Marty1]

I enjoyed it as it was !:sad:

[lindylou]

I enjoyed it as it was !:sad:


I know Marty. Lots of nostalgic memories for all of us in the districts where we lived.

I was just making an observation how areas can totally change, and often times not to everyone's liking.
The same can be said for my own area of Anfield.
People often don't like change, but sometimes we do need to move on and progress.

[Marty1]

People often don't like change, but sometimes we do need to move on and progress.

I'm at bit like that, I don't like change. I sometimes wonder what progress we have made over the years and quite often think we haven't made any ! I know, I'm sad !:sad:

[Diane Louise]

I'm at bit like that, I don't like change. I sometimes wonder what progress we have made over the years and quite often think we haven't made any ! I know, I'm sad !:sad:

I also don't like change but progress has been made, you no longer have a tin bath! :)

[az_gila]

I also don't like change but progress has been made, you no longer have a tin bath! :)

...or walk outside to take a ***.....:rolleyes:

[Marty1]

I also don't like change but progress has been made, you no longer have a tin bath!



I will no longer have a bath soon !:rolleyes:

[Ged]

We all look back and think the terraced streets were great as were the tennies and they were, they were of their time. Central docks though are acres of unused, derelict and dilapidated land once used for something that will never return. Nothing will be demolished for what is planned. What is the problem?

[Diane Louise]

I will no longer have a bath soon !:rolleyes:

Are you throwing the bath out! Anyway I would rather have a shower!

[Marty1]

Yes, I'm getting it skipped and putting in a wet room !

[John Doh]

All this talk of baths!

Back on topic: aren't we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water?

I'm serious! Aren't we in danger of repeating the mistakes of the '60s? It seems to me there are too many here who once again believe that all the dereliction and deprivation can be swept away simply by bringing in the bulldozers! We should have learned by now! Yes, Peel look like being our only chance of achieving that 'progress' that some of us so fervently crave, but that doesn't mean we have to sign up to their rather questionable agenda without question...

[Ged]

Has anyone yet put forward what this questionable agenda is?

It's not without question at all though is it - that's why the planning process allows for objection which is what has happened with the over 50s brigade aka the preservation trust (one arl bloke)

Rather than being in danger of throwing out the bathwater, we are in danger of missing a trick.

[wsteve55]

I don't understand why "Peel" should be scrutinesed any more,than anyone else? You've got to keep an eye on any developer ("Maghull developments" for example)for any tricks they might try to pull! Fair enough,sometimes they do get away with it,(I wonder why???) but generally,the normal planning process works,and this has been demonstrated to work well enough,in this thread!:nod:

[chasevans]

Thanks Lindylou,
I'm sorry if I've missed your posting saying you were from Anfield. I live on the Pinehurst estate and where our house stands was countryside until the late 1920's. LCC sold the estate to a housing association and there has been a sense of community in recent years. If this estate were to be demolished would your views be the same as your "Everton area" views?
Ged, why bring up LFC's development plans again? If you really want to know what I think, they're wrong, Stanley Park should have never been a part of the Red's expansion planning.
Now we've got that out of the way, could you give me the benefit of knowing your area, Ged?

Back to thread

Planning decision on Liverpool Waters will be delayed until after Unesco inspection (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?56275-Planning-decision-on-Liverpool-Waters-will-be-delayed-until-after-Unesco-inspection/page11)

Who bankrolled the recent LCC visit to Shanghai?

Will Peel go bankrupt if the deal is off (mentioned by Peel at local inquiry)? ....If so, how solid are their companies?

If Peel deal goes through who will pay for the infrastructure costs (new access roads, road widening, demolition of property etc.)? Other areas could well be affected by the proposal, Peel are noted for their manipulation of councils.
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=83903

As previously mentioned, are Peel involved in Salford light air crash inquiry? Are their planning/building practices under scrutiny?

Thanks to all for keeping this thread active,
ps, apologies to anyone offended by bold type
Chas:034:another arl bloke

[lindylou]

I know the Pinehurst estate like the back of my hand. :) I went to Pinehurst infants school (now demolished) and Pinehurst jnrs. I went on to Stanley park Comp - now also demolished.

My grandmother (born in 1905) remembered the days before the estate was built, and also when Clubmoor - down Townsend and Maiden Lane, Larkhill way, was 'countryfied' as she put it. She remembered fields and the brook running alongside Maiden lane and Richard Kelly.
Apparently there were ponds around where the Pinehurst estate and St Columbas church is.

Townsend lane - once a thriving shopping road is now a disgrace - derelict properties, waste land and flytipping on some of the street corners, general scruffiness and lots of empty boarded up houses in the side streets. :sad:
It's like the forgotten land.
There was a time when Anfield was a desirable area to live, but now it is neglected and forgotten - always looked over and ignored while other areas get their regeneration. I wonder if our turn will ever come ? :neutral:

[chasevans]

I have to agree with a lot you say, Lindylou, particularly the empty shops on Townsend Lane. I first noticed the rundown starting in the Breck Road area in the late 70's but it's spread. I think lots of property owners were waiting for LCC's plans to widen the Breck Road/ Townsend Lane for access, could be they're still waiting. But that's just me, always looking for hidden agedas.
Pinehurst estate looks fairly good I'm told. We live in a Boswell house that's been tarted up on the outside, mutton dressed as lamb. We voted for the demolition and rebuild of the houses, but somehow the vote went the other way. The main thing is our neighbors are friendly, kids are generally polite and community spirit is good. Pinehurst infants was a lovely building, it is a shame it had to go! There are plans to make it's site a "play area" for other neighboring communities(?).
I take it you no longer live in Anfield, Lindylou?
Regards,
Chas:PDT11

[Ged]

The Shanghai Expo visit has brought in millions of pounds worth of orders and investment. Do you ever listen to Frank McKenna on Downtown Liverpool or the Liverpool money programme on City talk on Sunday mornings which I catch on my way to 5-a-side, I doubt it or ridiculous questions wouldn't be asked. Imagine being the only English city invited to sell yourself and then saying, nah we won't bother. Such as short sighted attitude.

Where have I brought lfc into it again - can't see it in my last 2 posts before you mentioned it?

Now back to the thread please ;)

[John Doh]

I don't understand why "Peel" should be scrutinised any more than anyone else? You've got to keep an eye on any developer ("Maghull developments" for example)for any tricks they might try to pull! Fair enough,sometimes they do get away with it,(I wonder why???) but generally,the normal planning process works,and this has been demonstrated to work well enough,in this thread!:nod:

They should be scrutinised especially carefully, because [1] they now own the whole of the Waterfront, all the way up that famous airport of theirs and [2] because they've got form for 'pulling tricks' as Chas and others have pointed out here and elsewhere. I would make the analogy with keeping an especially watchful eye on Murdoch in the media field: it is almost certainly true that Mirror Group newspapers can't say that they have never hacked phones, but they're not running an outfit that's got ambitions to take over all Western TV broadcasting too! Peel now has the BBC in hock too as the landlords of Media City - NOT in my view a very healthy situation!

---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------


The Shanghai Expo visit has brought in millions of pounds worth of orders and investment. Do you ever listen to Frank McKenna on Downtown Liverpool or the Liverpool money programme on City talk on Sunday mornings which I catch on my way to 5-a-side, I doubt it or ridiculous questions wouldn't be asked. Imagine being the only English city invited to sell yourself and then saying, nah we won't bother. Such as short sighted attitude.

Where have I brought lfc into it again - can't see it in my last 2 posts before you mentioned it?

Now back to the thread please


I agree with regard to the Shanghai Expo - that can only be good for the whole city, not just the land grabbers and property wheelers and dealers. :handclap:

On the Peel issue, however, I had assumed that ever since mixing with all the wheelers and dealers who hang around such enterprises as the new Museum, your head must have been turned by the experience... :rolleyes: But no, it's just a matter of retuning your radio, it seems! Listening to City Talk is hardly likely to provide you with an objective, unvarnished account of what's going on - on the few occasions when I've tuned in I've been quite shocked to hear various so-called 'money experts' being blatantly encouraged to expound right wing economic analyses by their resident shock jocks! Anyway, you don't have to stray into the snares of Mammon... I know Roger Phillips is on holiday, but Paul Rowley is doing a grand job on Radio Merseyside in his absence!:)

[Ged]

Believe me, realising that a private developer wants to invest their money into desolate wasteland is good is a no brainer doesn't come from radio city, nor hanging around the museum. I do however prefer to listen to people in the know rather than a few grumpy old men who if left to run this city would rather see desolate wasteland remain, no L1, no JLA, no Cammell Lairds, no post panamax facilities etc etc....

Tell me why there's no thread regarding Maghull Developments. Remember the Josephine Butler house, Jamaica Hotel, Sir Thomas st building???

Tell me why there's no thread on how lfc continue to be given new deadlines regarding their proposed redevelopment of the Anfield area which is leaving residents in limbo which was part of the deal in them securing Victorian public parkland???

I know all about Peel's past, which as stated above, has included some good things for the city but i've no reason to believe that if their Liverpool Waters plans weren't continually knocked back, we may have seen something commenced on the site by now.

Any land bought by Peel is available to anyone you know, not just them. Why don't you buy some of it???

[wsteve55]

"Tell me why there's no thread regarding Maghull Developments. Remember the Josephine Butler house, Jamaica Hotel, Sir Thomas st building???"

"Tell me why there's no thread on how lfc continue to be given new deadlines regarding their proposed redevelopment of the Anfield area which is leaving residents in limbo which was part of the deal in them securing Victorian public parkland???"

Egsakerly.....and it doesn't matter if Peel own the whole city....plannining laws still apply,and any proposals are open to the usual scrutiny,by interested parties!!

[Howie]

Tell me why there's no thread regarding Maghull Developments. Remember the Josephine Butler house,

Here's a reminder of what Maghull Developments did to JBH: :gnasher:

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~howardpaterson/uploads/JB2.jpg

[wsteve55]

.....and now it's a luvly car park! Who was scrutinising that???

Just read your post on Josephine Butler,Howie...interesting stuff,but now sadly forgotten?

[chasevans]

The Shanghai Expo visit has brought in millions of pounds worth of orders and investment. Do you ever listen to Frank McKenna on Downtown Liverpool or the Liverpool money programme on City talk on Sunday mornings which I catch on my way to 5-a-side, I doubt it or ridiculous questions wouldn't be asked. Imagine being the only English city invited to sell yourself and then saying, nah we won't bother. Such as short sighted attitude.

Where have I brought lfc into it again - can't see it in my last 2 posts before you mentioned it?

Now back to the thread please ;)
Ged, I'll paste post #87 and show your lfc reference in bold letters. I recall the same thing happening in another of your posts (76). LFC mentioned again for some reason, when I told you I'd be happy to give my opinion in the correct thread, never mind though. I feel I've explained myself on your Everton area question.

Ged's post# 87

Chas, you brought the Everton area into this thread on post 19. :PDT_Xtremez_42:

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

Grosvenor's motivation was profit, so what if the means to the ends results in a better place to be. Every single developer that ever developed an area did it for profit, not for the love of the place. LFC likewise when if ever they get around to sticking to their end of the deal with Anfield. Peel took an ailing airport and have turned it round. Peel took acres of derelict land that nobody wanted and now it's the Trafford Centre. Are you up to speed on what they have actually achieved rather than the scaremongering of what they might do?

ps. Writing in bold/capitals/different colours/larger text doesn't make your point any more valid.

ps apologies for any offense caused by bold writing and for me taking time out to reply, the thread is still:-
Planning decision on Liverpool Waters will be delayed until after Unesco inspection (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?56275-Planning-decision-on-Liverpool-Waters-will-be-delayed-until-after-Unesco-inspection/page12)

Cheers,
Chas:PDT11