YO! Liverpool
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 60

Thread: The infill is back

  1. #1
    Junior Member liver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    L3
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default The infill is back

    the greedy don't give up easily......application 06F/2292
    This is 06F/1421 withdrawn now re-submitted. Peal want to make £20 million
    creating land from dock. yes its Waterloo west dock again.
    Backfill to 0.5 metres below quayside level.


    ADVERTISING



  2. #2
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,489
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Pic of the area would be great.
    Liverpool in Pictures/ YO! Liverpool has taken me over 10 years to develop and maintain.

    All server & domain costs are covered by myself & kind donations of individuals.

    If you like the website, please donatevia PayPal!




    Thank you


    Kev
    2005 - 2017

  3. #3
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev View Post
    Pic of the area would be great.

  4. #4
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,489
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Gotcha, thanks
    Liverpool in Pictures/ YO! Liverpool has taken me over 10 years to develop and maintain.

    All server & domain costs are covered by myself & kind donations of individuals.

    If you like the website, please donatevia PayPal!




    Thank you


    Kev
    2005 - 2017

  5. #5
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kensington, Liverpool
    Age
    62
    Posts
    1,196
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi waterways,

    Sorry to show my ignorance but how does the canal link proposal fit into this?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default PLeae email the planning Dpt

    Details:

    Proposal Number:
    06F/2292

    Jon Woodward
    Planning Department
    Liverpool City Council
    Municiple Buildings
    Dale Street
    L69 2DH

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

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

    Some point for objection. I'm sure you can think of more:

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

  7. #7
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Howie View Post
    Hi waterways,

    Sorry to show my ignorance but how does the canal link proposal fit into this?
    Look at the picture above. Above the West Waterloo Dock is the filled in Trafalgar Dock (this was supposed to be temporary). To the right of this was the Victoria and Trafalgar branch Docks that ran east-west. All three are now filled in. The canal was planned to run from West Waterloo from where the island is between West and East Waterloo docks, with the flats on. It was to go through the in-filled Trafalgar Dock into Collingwood Dock.

    They want to fill in all of the West Waterloo Dock and continue the canal to the right of the of the existing dock. This creates a large land area which they can sell off.

    It destroys the dock waters here. In the picture the large land area benhind the Eat and West Waterloo Docks are the in-filled: Clarence, Victoria, Trafalgar branch and Trafalar Docks. If that isn't enough for them they now want to fill in West Waterloo Docks as well.

    ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

    What they are doing is extending the land out to the river. This destroys any water based environment in which interesting advanced design buildings could be built around. The City on the Water we were promised

    Canal detail below. The picture of the Royal Iris at the bottom. She is berthed in the now filled in Trafalgar Dock. Ocean going ships from all over the world berthed in these docks. Now they want real ale drinking weirdoes with beards in tiny narrows boats to use the area. Pretty disgusting eliminate our history and Heritage.

    BTW, Waterloo Docks were where the American Packet ships berthed and took many immigrants to America - and they want it to become a tiny boating canal for narrow boats that have no history in the docks.

    http://www.waterways.org.uk/wcc/Liverpool%20Link.pdf
    Last edited by Waterways; 08-11-2006 at 05:11 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I've sent mine John these people are holding our city to ransom with CoC 2008 being disrupted,I'd threaten then with if you persist with this let's fill in docks rubbish then the canal link will be put on hold until 2009.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kensington, Liverpool
    Age
    62
    Posts
    1,196
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    So basically what they dig out for the canal they are going to put in West Waterloo dock rather than having to cart and dump elsewhere thereby saving money, and then sell off the new land for a huge profit as well.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default Send an email to all councillors

    What we need everyone to send an email to all the Liverpool Councillors. The list is below. What we need is for you to send an email requesting that the following three points are implemented.

    a) The filling in of West Waterloo Dock defeated. Planning application No. 06F/2292

    b) A cast in concrete policy that preserves all docks and waterways in Liverpool. How can we have a future city on the water without them?

    c) Excavating infilled docks when future plans are proposed to ensure the City on the Water. Harrington, Toxteth, parts of the Herculaneum, Trafalgar and Victoria docks can all easily be excavated and re-instated with top class developments around them.


    Email List of Liverpool city councillors: Cut and paste this into the BBC field on your email editor.

    karen.afford@liverpool.gov.uk; elaine.allen@liverpool.gov.uk; peter.r.allen@liverpool.gov.uk; joe.anderson@liverpool.gov.uk; dave.antrobus@liverpool.gov.uk; rose.bailey@liverpool.gov.uk; louise.baldock@liverpool.gov.uk; violet.bebb@liverpool.gov.uk; gideon.ben-tovim@liverpool.gov.uk; vera.best@liverpool.gov.uk; warren.bradley@liverpool.gov.uk; paul.brant@liverpool.gov.uk; linda-jane.buckle@liverpool.gov.uk; paul.clark@liverpool.gov.uk; eddie.clein@liverpool.gov.uk; jan.clein@liverpool.gov.uk; paul.clein@liverpool.gov.uk; flo.clucas@liverpool.gov.uk; john.clucas@liverpool.gov.uk; barbara.collinge@liverpool.gov.uk; frank.cooke@liverpool.gov.uk; jane.corbett@liverpool.gov.uk; john.coyne@liverpool.gov.uk; alan.dean@liverpool.gov.uk; frank.doran@liverpool.gov.uk; colin.eldridge@liverpool.gov.uk; alan.fearnehough@liverpool.gov.uk; marilyn.fielding@liverpool.gov.uk; kevin.firth@liverpool.gov.uk; beatrice.fraenkel@liverpool.gov.uk; roz.gladden@liverpool.gov.uk; ron.gould@liverpool.gov.uk; tina.gould@liverpool.gov.uk; dave.hanratty@liverpool.gov.uk; joseph.hanson@liverpool.gov.uk; jhanson6@jaguar.com; ann.hines@liverpool.gov.uk; patricia.holleran@liverpool.gov.uk; danny.hughes@liverpool.gov.uk; graham.hulme@liverpool.gov.uk; stephen.hurst@liverpool.gov.uk; david.irving@liverpool.gov.uk; ian.jobling@liverpool.gov.uk; roger.johnston@liverpool.gov.uk; doreen.jones@liverpool.gov.uk; trevor.jones@liverpool.gov.uk; paula.keaveney@liverpool.gov.uk; malcolm.kelly@liverpool.gov.uk; erica.kemp@liverpool.gov.uk; richard.kemp@liverpool.gov.uk; malcolm.kennedy@liverpool.gov.uk; doreen.knight@liverpool.gov.uk; joan.lang@liverpool.gov.uk; chris.lenton@liverpool.gov.uk; barbara.mace@liverpool.gov.uk; andrew.makinson@liverpool.gov.uk; richard.marbrow@liverpool.gov.uk; thomas.marshall@liverpool.gov.uk; john.mcintosh@liverpool.gov.uk; peter.millea@liverpool.gov.uk; norman.mills@liverpool.gov.uk; stuart.monkcom@liverpool.gov.uk; josephine.mullen@liverpool.gov.uk; stephen.munby@liverpool.gov.uk; chris.newby@liverpool.gov.uk; richard.oglethorpe@liverpool.gov.uk; bob.ousby@liverpool.gov.uk; ian.phillips@liverpool.gov.uk; frank.prendergast@liverpool.gov.uk; robbie.quinn@liverpool.gov.uk; steve.radford@liverpool.gov.uk; irene.rainey@liverpool.gov.uk; kiron.reid@liverpool.gov.uk; richard.j.roberts@liverpool.gov.uk; steven.rotheram@liverpool.gov.uk; anna.rothery@liverpool.gov.uk; jean.seddon@liverpool.gov.uk; laurence.sidorczuk@liverpool.gov.uk; nick.small@liverpool.gov.uk; jack.spriggs@liverpool.gov.uk; nadia.stewart@liverpool.gov.uk; mike.storey@liverpool.gov.uk; sharon.sullivan@liverpool.gov.uk; andrew.tremarco@liverpool.gov.uk; berni.turner@liverpool.gov.uk; keith.turner@liverpool.gov.uk; alan.walker@liverpool.gov.uk; pauline.walton@liverpool.gov.uk; richard.white@liverpool.gov.uk; ben.williams@liverpool.gov.uk; hazel.williams@liverpool.gov.uk

  11. #11
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Fill it in, spoil the view for the second homers.... its more money for the council coffers, good stuff!!.

    A dock will attract rats , a canal will attract tourists as well as rats.


    I too want a Salford on the Mersey.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FKoE View Post
    Fill it in, spoil the view for the second homers.
    If you say so. Bitter and twisted as well. Should anyone not living in a council house be shot dead too?

  13. #13
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Its a pool of useless water with minimal historical significance to the modern metropolis of Liverpool .

    I want progress and to attract tourists. Fill it in, build a Canal.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FKoE View Post
    Its a pool of useless water with minimal historical significance to the modern metropolis of Liverpool .
    It dates from 1834. Waterloo Dock was the base of the American packet ships which populated the new world. Of course no historical significance whatsoever - that is why UNESCO made the whole lot a world heritage zone.

    I want progress and to attract tourists. Fill it in, build a Canal.
    Do you want arcade games as well.

    It is clear you are intellectually challenged, compounded by a Philistine mentality. Sad but true. Thank God people like you don't have influence and power. I forgot they do.

    You are right. We should make Liverpool a complete council house sink estate. Yes, that is what we need. That is the future. I have seen the light. Sister Anna carry the banner.
    Last edited by Waterways; 08-11-2006 at 10:22 PM.

  15. #15
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    It dates from 1834. Waterloo Dock was the base of the American packet ships which populated the new world. Of course no historical significance whatsoever - that is why UNESCO made the whole lot a world heritage zone.
    Liverpools a world heritage zone based on Waterloo dock, and some water? ... Its meaning less, its not why Liverpool is Capital of culture... Fill it in, do future generations a favour, give them job opportunities, build a canal and create berths for canal boats, build canal side cafes restaruants and bars, breath some life into the area.



    You are right. We should make Liverpool a complete council house sink estate. Yes, that is what we need. That is the future. I have seen the light. Sister Anna carry the banner.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FKoE View Post
    Liverpools a world heritage zone based on Waterloo dock, and some water?

    Sort of, please go on...

    ... Its meaning less, its not why Liverpool is Capital of culture...
    If you say so.

    Fill it in,
    Shall we fill in the River Mersey as well? May as well do a proper job of it. And on all the recalimed land build council sink estates for Philistines, Chavs, Scallies and the rest. Yep that is the answer. Without doubt.

  17. #17
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    I see the imbecile is back, never mind the infill eh?

  18. #18
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FKoE View Post
    I see the imbecile is back, never mind the infill eh?
    Our intellectually challenged one is at it again. Yes, we need council sink estates all over the place. I have seen the light!

  19. #19
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    ... WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

  20. #20
    Junior Member liver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    L3
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Just been reading the criteria for our gaining World heritage status on the UNESCO web site.
    There was a lot of importance place on the docks and there creation.
    I felt it was my duty to bring to their attention the greed that is threatening the docks very existance. I hope they understand their duty to protect!!!

  21. #21
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Yeah but ... Waterloo dock was not the be all and end all of the bid to Capital of Culture ...Nor is the Waterloo dock a given a listed status.. Now Albert dock is another matter.


    Fill it in and build a canal ..lets be like Hamburg .. or Salford..

  22. #22
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liver View Post
    Just been reading the criteria for our gaining World heritage status on the UNESCO web site.
    There was a lot of importance place on the docks and there creation.
    I felt it was my duty to bring to their attention the greed that is threatening the docks very existance. I hope they understand their duty to protect!!!
    Yep:
    ____________________

    Comparative evaluation

    The nomination document presents a good studycomparing Liverpool as a significant port city within the British Empire. It is seen in relation to other British ports, such as London, Hull, Bristol and Glasgow, as well as various port cities in other countries, including Hamburg, Marseille, Barcelona, Baku, Bombay, New York, St. Petersburg and Shanghai. Note is also taken of ports
    already inscribed on the World Heritage List. The latest of these is Valparaíso, which was inscribed in 2003.

    ICOMOS concurs with the conclusions of the study, which has shown that the qualities and values of Liverpool clearly distinguish its outstanding universal value in relation to the others, both in terms of its maritime
    mercantile function and its architectural and cultural significance.

    General statement:

    The proposed nomination of Liverpool consists of selected areas in the historic harbour and the centre of the city, defined as ‘the supreme example of a commercial port at the time of Britain's greatest global influence’.

    Brief Description

    Six areas in the historic centre and docklands of the maritime mercantile City of Liverpool bear witness to the development of one of the world’s major trading centres in the 18th and 19th centuries. Liverpool played an important role in the growth of the British Empire and became the major port for the mass movement of people, e.g. slaves and emigrants from northern Europe to America. Liverpool was a pioneer in the development of modern dock technology, transport systems, and port management. The listed sites feature a great number of significant commercial, civic and public buildings, including St George’s Plateau.

    Justification for Inscription

    Criterion (ii): Liverpool was a major centre generating innovative technologies and methods in dock construction and port management in the 18th and 19th centuries. It thus contributed to the building up of the international mercantile systems throughout the British Commonwealth.

    Criterion (iii): the city and the port of Liverpool are an exceptional testimony to the development of maritime mercantile culture in the 18th and 19th centuries, contributing to the building up of the British Empire. It was a centre for the slave trade, until its abolition in 1807, and to emigration from northern Europe to America.

    Criterion (iv): Liverpool is an outstanding example of a world mercantile port city, which represents the early development of global trading and cultural connections throughout the British Empire.

    http://whc.unesco.org/archive/adviso...ation/1150.pdf
    ___________________

    100,000s left Waterloo Docks to the Americas. Many, many millions in the American can trace their ancestors leaving from these quays. And a developer wants to fill them to make a swift buck.

  23. #23
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FKoE View Post
    Yeah but ... Waterloo dock was not the be all and end all of the bid to Capital of Culture ...Nor is the Waterloo dock a given a listed status.. Now Albert dock is another matter.

    Fill it in and build a canal ..lets be like Hamburg .. or Salford..
    I'm with you. Flatten and fill in the lot. Build tenaments and slums on them - yep that is what we need, more Scallies and Chavs. What a wonderful future we can then all look forward to. I can't wait.

  24. #24
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Does it mention even in Passing 'waterloo' docks ..? does it mention it cannot be redeveloped ? Stick a blue plaque on a post ffs..and then fill it in and build a canal ...


    I mean Blackpool tower has had millions and millions of vistors.. its a listed building ... Blackpool is bidding for World heritage status ... But the Tower is iconic ... Waterloo dock is'nt.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FKoE View Post
    Does it mention even in Passing 'waterloo' docks ..? does it mention it cannot be redeveloped ? Stick a blue plaque on a post ffs..and then fill it in and build a canal ...
    A canal? That is water! Water at the docks? You are kidding of course! What about the sink estates for the Scallies and Chavs? How inconsiderate!!!

    I mean Blackpool tower has had millions and millions of vistors.. its a listed building ... Blackpool is bidding for World heritage status ... But the Tower is iconic ... Waterloo dock is'nt.
    You are right!!! A sink estate should be built on it, with chara-banc trips to Blackpool for the Chavs and Scallies paid for by the Social. History? Heritage? Phewy, yes phewy. Who needs that when a good piss up the steps, urine stinking, graffitti ridden sink estate can be there. We should burn down St. George's Hall, the Phil, the Empire, the Playhouse, the lot. Yes, that is the answer. We should go for it.
    Last edited by Waterways; 08-14-2006 at 10:32 PM.

  26. #26
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!

  27. #27
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    This new Application to fill in West Waterloo Dock is almost identical to the previous Application of 06F/1421 with slightly different wording.

    This area areound Waterloo Dock is now heavily populated with residential buildings, offices, hotels and the coming cruise liner terminal. There is filling in OF THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE, Princes Half Tide Dock. The infilled Trafalgar Dock is dumping ground for building materials.

    People within the Waterloo Dock Development have had a number of health problems due the very high dust and sand levels in the area.

    I wonder if Mr Whitaker of Peel would consider back filling his water spaces at Salford Quays in his home city of Manchester which is not part of a World Heritage Site, so must be easier. Peel hold Liverpool with total contempt and only value the docks as a means of creating land to make a killing.

    I'm sure Peel will come back with the same reasons for not back filling Salford Quays that they give for destroying Liverpool Docks.

    The City Planning Department granted planning permission for the "back filling" of Princes Half Tide Dock (ref: 05F/2104), which is clearly a part of Liverpool's World Heritage Site. The dock is being filled in right now. The planning application was worded as if is was required for the new Canal Way. British Waterways confirmed that vessels passing through Princes Half Tide would not necessarily need a 'two meter depth'. This means no depth at all. The World Heritage site, Princes Half Tide Dock is being used as a convenient dumping ground for waste materials from the Grosvenor retail project. Would UNESCO allow the dumping of waste materials in and around the Pyramids of Egypt or the Great Wall of China ?

    The other issue with the filling of Princes Half Tide Dock is that there has been no consideration given to the marine life all of which are now dead.

    World Heritage Site Plan which Liverpool City Council, MDHC and UNESCO all signed, it states that:

    4.17.4 Docks with standing water in the site and Buffer Zone support a range of marine life and habitats. Of particular note are the colonies of marine life attached to the dock walls and other structures. In the Mersey itself, these colonies tend not to have become established as the high silt load of the river suffocates the organisms. The docks are therefore an important habitat.

    The Princes half tide Dock approved application has raised concern.

    British Waterways have made the planning application to fill in West Waterloo Dock, it is clear that MDHC/Peel Holdings are pulling the strings. The proposal has very little to do with British Waterways and the canal link. This is a land reclamation by stealth strategy driven my MDHC.

    The World Heritage Site Plan has West Waterloo Dock between the buffer Zone. They described it:

    [I]2.1.13 "The Buffer Zone has been developed to ensure that future development in the setting of the nominated site respects the values of the nominated site. The boundaries of the buffer zone have been confirmed through a process of stakeholder consultation, during the ongoing production of this World Heritage Site Management Plan."

    2.5 PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND MEANS OF IMPLEMENTING THEM

    2.5.1 " The significance of the site's built heritage, including its proposed buffer zone, is safeguarded through a Range of protective measures provided under established planning legislation, policies and practice. Planning issues in respect of new buildings, changes of use of existing buildings and land and alterations to and management of existing buildings in England are controlled by the English system of land-use planning. The current principal statues are the Planning Act 1990 and the Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,"

    2.5.9 policy ER3 - Built Heritage states that: "Planning authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies and proposals will identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the built heritage of the region"

    2.5.12 "Liverpool City Council is required by the Local Government Act 1985 to prepare a Development Plan for the whole of its area to guide development and to protect and enhance the environment of the City. The Plan comprises a comprehensive written statement, supported by a map, which spells out the Council's proposals for land-use and development in the future. Following extensive public consultation, a modified Deposit draft of the Liverpool Unitary Development plan (UDP) was produced in November 200. The UDP has now been formally adopted and is the Development Plan for the nominated World Heritage Site."

    2.5.23 In accordance with Paragraph 17 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention UNESCO 1999, A Buffer Zone has been developed to help to ensure that future development in the setting of the Nominated Site. The boundaries of the proposed Buffer Zone will be confirmed through a process of stakeholder consultation, during the ongoing production of the World Heritage Site Management Plan."

    Other than the obvious negative effects it will have on the Marine Life and environment as I've already mentioned above, "The World Heritage Plan" also states the importance of keeping the current dock system within the Heritage and buffer sites. Statements as follows :-

    4.6.16 Many of the former docks survive to the form of now redundant water bodies. These are an important aspect of the Site's significance and character and their conservation and use requires consideration within future sustainable regeneration schemes. Currently, many water bodies are used for limited recreational/leisure purposes and this is likely to provide a long-term and sustainable use for them. The ownership and primary management long-term and sustainable use for them. The ownership and primary management responsibilities for most of the water bodies south of the pier head were transferred from English Partnerships to British Waterways in mid-2003. British Waterways are now developing a management regime for their water bodies. It is essential that this regime is developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that the docks are properly preserved and enhanced and the potential that is embodied within them is maximised. Most of the water bodies north of the Pier Head are owned by MDHC, and proposals for developing most of them for leisure are being developed."

    4.8.4 Appropriateness of new development " Key to conserving the significance of the site is ensuring that all new developments are appropriate in terms of their location and design"

    4.10.5 Alterations or enhancement of existing developments "In general terms, any alterations to existing structures within Liverpool's historic centre pose a potential threat to the city's archaeological resource. The most obvious threat to the archaeological resource comes from ground works associated with alterations or refurbishment, such as building extensions, underpinning, and internal works such as the .....This applies not only to buildings but also to other facilities, in particular the surviving historic docks, where developments have the potential to impact upon the buried remains of earlier docks, demolished dockyard buildings and deposits pre-dating the establishment of the dock system."

    4.15.4 Recognition of the boundary "If the outstanding universal value of the WHS are to be appropriately protected and enhanced then the boundary must be recognised by all agencies involved in the Site's management."[/u]

    Trafalgar Dock is also within the World Heritage site, which will remain filled in. Trafalgar Dock is being used to manage waste materials from the Grosvenor project.

    What is happening in Central Docks is totally out of kilter with Liverpool's requirements and commitments as a World Heritage city. The ONLY people who are going to benefit from the infilling of this Historic dock is Peel Holdings, as the new land would be reportedly worth approximately £4,000,000.

    The losers in this will be:

    1. The Marine life. This will be killed off during the filling process.

    2. Bird life. Habitats of Swans and Geese which have made homes in trees and bushes at West Waterloo Dock.

    3. The people of Liverpool. Denied acess to water that they couold live and play around.

    4. The World. The world will be the losers, as the historic West Waterloo Dock along with its historic granite dock walls will be lost forever covered with tatty apartments. 100,000s of immigrants left these quays to populate the free world.

    Just imagine if Liverpool would have filled in the Albert Dock in 1984!

  28. #28
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Fill it in ... its not listed .... its not protected by a world heritage decree ... its a duck pond ... build a PUBLIC open air pool , plant some PLASTIC palm trees...and stick up a blue plaque .. what a waste of time and resources... In whose interest is it to save it ? .... the New Second Homers who want a view, they who abandoned the city in the 70's and 80's to move down south and now they come back with Thatcher money, claiming to be Liverpudlians and not Scousers ?


    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

  29. #29
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FKoE View Post
    Fill it in ... its not listed .... its not protected by a world heritage decree ... its a duck pond ... build a PUBLIC open air pool , plant some PLASTIC palm trees...and stick up a blue plaque .. what a waste of time and resources... In whose interest is it to save it ? .... the New Second Homers who want a view, they who abandoned the city in the 70's and 80's to move down south and now they come back with Thatcher money, claiming to be Liverpudlians and not Scousers ?


    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

    You are clear idiot. To the mod can you dela this objectional fool.

  30. #30
    FKoE
    Guest FKoE's Avatar

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    You are clear idiot. To the mod can you dela this objectional fool.

    weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! ... good spellin'

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2009, 07:25 AM

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
  •  

For daily updates, to support us further or to join in the conversation: Follow us on Twitter @YOLiverpool / Like our Facebook Page: @yoliverpoolpics / Join the Facebook Group: YO! Liverpool Pictures

× Thanks for coming to the web site. Support our future by turning off your Ad-Blocker or consider a donation via PayPal or Credit Card!