Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 151

Thread: Brunswick Dock Area

  1. #76
    Senior Member AK1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bootle
    Posts
    426

    Default

    This decision is an absolute joke. You can tell it's the wrong decision by the amount of people on this site who are in support of the project. I just hope that R. Kelly reconsiders her decision. I also think that Maro should appeal, as they would have a very strong case. It is nowhere near any historical buildings and would be the first of a cluster of talls in that area which is good for jobs which are needed in that area. I am going to send an e-mail to Kelly to express my disappointment and I think everyone else should too! (Make sure it isn't abusive or she won't listen!)


  2. #77
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK1 View Post
    This decision is an absolute joke. You can tell it's the wrong decision by the amount of people on this site who are in support of the project. I just hope that R. Kelly reconsiders her decision.
    I doubt it. They never say they were wrong. The only way is the House of Lords and Europe.

    I also think that Maro should appeal, as they would have a very strong case. It is nowhere near any historical buildings
    The nearest large structure is a large gas holder. Look at http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk Go to the Brunswick Quay page. The very bottom pic is a pano. A render of the tower can be seen to the right. The gas holder is to the left, then nothing else around.

    The WHS ends at Albert Dock. About half way from the red brick warehouses to the tower is the WHS buffer zone. The tower is clearly well away even from the buffer with no significant buildings around, never mind historic buildings. Unless they think a 1971 gas holder is historic.

    and would be the first of a cluster of talls in that area which is good for jobs which are needed in that area. I am going to send an e-mail to Kelly to express my disappointment and I think everyone else should too! (Make sure it isn't abusive or she won't listen!)
    Put the detail here. I will put them on the web site:
    http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

    Points are:
    Objections by Kelly were inaccurate as:

    1. The original council objection was by one vote only and was clearly party political points scoring as all Labour voted for and all LibDems, except one, voted against.
    2. The site is well away from the World Heritage Site.
    3. The site is well away from the World Heritage Site buffer zone.
    4. No historic buildings around the site for any sight lines to be blocked.
    Last edited by Waterways; 11-18-2006 at 11:51 PM.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  3. #78
    Senior Member christy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Absolute joke of a decision, esprcially when accompanied by the inacurate excuses given for the rejection.

    She actually says that it would have a 'Detrimental impact on the views from the Albert dock...' of what, a piece of sky over Garston??????????
    This woman needs embarassing on national telly over this!
    And surely the views of the cathedrals from Wirral that she is on about will be blocked more effectively by the new development on the corner facing Norton's scrap yard? Who is going to be looking at these views anyway? Im pretty sure that any views from Wirral facing the cathedrals via Brtunswick key would be from places like Brombourough retail park and industrial esate?

  4. #79
    Aliens Ate My Buick. Bunnyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Trancentral
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Don't start blaming World Heritage for this debacle.
    WHS, for all the good it is intended to do, will always be used by nobheads for their own gain. Get rid, and the nobheads haven't a leg to stand on.
    Who was the greatest of them all?
    Little, Curly, Alan Ball.
    R.I.P. Bally.

  5. #80
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    LOCAL NEWS: Goverment reject Mersey skyscraper plansNov 17 2006

    PLANS for a dazzling sail-shaped skyscraper on the Mersey waterfront have been knocked back by the government.

    The 51-floor building would be the tallest in Liverpool - but cabinet minister Ruth Kelly has rejected it after looking at evidence from a public inquiry.

    She said it would damage the nearby World Heritage Site by attracting attention away from it, and affect picturesque views of Liverpool’s cathedrals from Wirral.

    And she also claimed Brunswick Quay is the wrong place for such a tall building, claiming the area would be regenerated at some point, even if this scheme did not happen.

    Liverpool council turned down developer Maro’s proposals twice last year - an original version with 489 apartments and a 35-bedroom hotel, and a second plan with less flats and a bigger hotel.

    Maro appealed both decisions, leading to a public inquiry.

    Ms Kelly announced her verdict today, rejecting a government inspector’s recommendation that the second plan was acceptable.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  6. #81
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christy View Post
    Absolute joke of a decision, esprcially when accompanied by the inacurate excuses given for the rejection.

    She actually says that it would have a 'Detrimental impact on the views from the Albert dock...' of what, a piece of sky over Garston??????????
    This woman needs embarassing on national telly over this!
    And surely the views of the cathedrals from Wirral that she is on about will be blocked more effectively by the new development on the corner facing Norton's scrap yard? Who is going to be looking at these views anyway? Im pretty sure that any views from Wirral facing the cathedrals via Brtunswick key would be from places like Brombourough retail park and industrial esate?
    The tower is tall and thin. Look at a map. Draw a line from the Anglican cathedral and through the proposed site. A few houses in Bebington might have a view partially obscured of the very distant cathedral. So we suffer because of a few people in Bebington.

    This is total madness. This daft tart needs to be exposed. Well her husband has been.

    http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

    .
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  7. #82
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    People need to e-mail her and Warren Bradley/planning dept and tell them what they think,complaining on a forum wont change a thing and if people feel so strongly about it do something about it.

  8. #83
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
    People need to e-mail her and Warren Bradley/planning dept and tell them what they think,complaining on a forum wont change a thing and if people feel so strongly about it do something about it.
    Yep. I am going to put the details to complain on the web site:
    http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

    .
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  9. #84
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    Yep. I am going to put the details to complain on the web site:
    http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

    .
    Nice one John.

  10. #85
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Government minister Ruth Kelly has decided to reject Maro Developments plans for a skyscraper at Brunswick Quay in Liverpool.

    The ministers controversial decision comes despite the advice from the planners who carried out the public inquiry and wrote the final report recommending that it be approved.

    At the crux of the decision is the fear that the tower would block views of Liverpools two cathedrals from some areas across the River Wirral, a certainty given that if you put one object between the viewer and the further away object it will always appear in-between from one angle.
    The ironic thing, as images clearly show, is that the tower is unique amongst Liverpool skyscraper proposals in being nowhere near a world heritage site. The second illustration has been prepared to show exactly where this tower is in relation to Liverpool when looking across the Wirral.

    Despite praising the "excellent inherent architectural merit" of the scheme, she believed that "the harm to the setting of the World Heritage site, and to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas, weighs against the proposal."

    In other-words, even if your proposal has the best architecture on offer it can be refused if seen from or too a world heritage site. This turns on the head the previous decisions by John Prescott who preceded Kelly when he refused to call in developments such as the Minerva Building.
    Kelly already has form for a less than logical approach to the planning system. Having backed a housing development in her capacity as a minister she proceeded to oppose it as the local m.p carrying out the nice trick of being for and against something at the same time.

    The decision also conflicts with the reasons Liverpool Council originally refused planning permission, namely that Brunswick Quay broke their unitary development plan by being where it was by not being in a residential zone. The planners at Liverpool City Council refused to accept that it was of sufficiently high quality to approve it because these reasons counted against.

    The minister has managed to argue against their grounds for refusal whilst at the same time coming up with new grounds that do not actually concern Liverpool City Council, a novel piece of governing that would make Yes Minister proud.

    This ruling probably marks the end of the line for the Ian Simpson designed development. Maro Developments have pushed hard to get it through the planning system with the local council voting against it both times. Their only hope was an approval via a public inquiry and now that direction has been closed off there are few places left they can go.

    http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=781
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  11. #86
    Beetham West, 134m, 440ft Westy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I think we should really scrap Heritage status, what people really know we have it apart from locals, tourists aren't interested if we have it or not, they just use MB's of phot space and rolls of film, Pathetic if its going to stop good buildings going up
    Beetham West Status

    Updated 19/11/06

    Doka - 31-33
    Main sreucture - 27
    Cladding - (3 office, 6 residential)

    Completion Autumn 07

  12. #87
    Senior Member AK1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bootle
    Posts
    426

    Default

    I have sent an e-mail to Warren Bradley, Liverpool Planning Dept and Maro. I felt it was important to let Maro know just how much I am in support of the project and how I think they should press ahead with an appeal. I hope others will do the same. Their e-mail address - info@marodev.co.uk

  13. #88
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Westy View Post
    I think we should really scrap Heritage status, what people really know we have it apart from locals, tourists aren't interested if we have it or not, they just use MB's of phot space and rolls of film, Pathetic if its going to stop good buildings going up
    World Heritage has nothing to do with this. Because some incompetent minister screws up don't blame WH. When people call Liverpool a slum, because the London and Manchester based media have perpetuated that myth, and you say most of the centre and extensive parts of the docks are World Heritage Zones I just like the look at their faces when told. The status pulls Liverpool up to world city. Value it!!!! Don't blame WHS status, blame primarily the idiot LibDem councillors who voted against this project, who you can always vote out and should be voted out, and then some idiotic washed out tart in Whitehall with a bent husband.

    Central government in London should have no say in what is built in Liverpool - not their business. This over centralised country again - the most centralised in the western world. Appeals should be local - maybe with some regional people called in as independent.
    Last edited by Waterways; 11-19-2006 at 06:41 PM.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  14. #89
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    The site in the distance. Nothing around it. The school is St. Malachy's. From Mill View.

    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  15. #90
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Go to this thread about Kelly......

    http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/sho...2Ruth+Kelly%22
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Clarence Dock Area
    By gregs dad in forum Liverpool's Maritime and Docklands
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 05:53 PM
  2. Albert Dock Area
    By scouserdave in forum Liverpool's Maritime and Docklands
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 10-31-2010, 02:04 PM
  3. Liverpool Marina Brunswick Dock Area
    By Kev in forum Liverpool's Maritime and Docklands
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 04:08 AM
  4. Waterloo Dock Area
    By Waterways in forum Liverpool City Center - Inner Zones
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-13-2007, 12:07 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •