YO! Liverpool
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 6 of 27

Thread: Campaigners Lose Battle

  1. #1
    jimmy jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Campaigners Lose Battle

    Campaigners lose battle to save historic city centre building
    Apr 9 2008 by Ben Schofield, Liverpool Daily Post


    Artist's impression of plans for a new office/leisure development at Josephine Butler House, situated at the junction of Hope Street and Myrtle Street in Liverpool _320

    A HISTORIC Myrtle Street building will be flattened after a £60m development was finally rubber stamped for the site yesterday.

    Josephine Butler House – a former laying-in hospital dating back to 1867 – will be replaced with a six-storey block of offices, shops and restaurants.

    The proposed building was yesterday labelled by heritage campaigners as more befitting for Milton Keynes than Liverpool’s Georgian quarter.

    Campaigners had hoped the scheme would be blocked after planners said they were minded to refuse permission because of worries over increased traffic.

    But designers from Maghull Developments convinced councillors at yesterday’s planning committee meeting that the scheme should go ahead.

    The Hope Street-based company caused controversy when it started work on the facade of Josephine Butler House in early March – which it claimed was “specialist restoration work” – before a decision was made on whether to list the building.

    Building work should start by the end of the year and will see 20,000ft of retail space on the ground floor and 100,000ft of office space above.

    The sixth floor will house a sky bar with unrivalled views along Hope Street and over the city.

    The building will stand on a 263-space three-storey car park.

    Wayne Colquhoun, from the Liverpool Preservation Trust, called for a complete archeological survey of the site because he believes Josephine Butler House sits where a Baptist Chapel once stood. He told the committee a map dating from 1848 showed four churches around the Philharmonic Hall.

    He added: “This building has no place in this historic location. You don’t come across a more historic place in Liverpool.


    ADVERTISING




    “There’s no detail and as such it has no place in this situation. In Milton Keynes maybe, but not here.”

    Mr Colquhoun suggested the decision should go to a planning inquiry and hit out at English Heritage’s refusal to grant the building spot listing.

    “English Heritage is not reflective of historic opinion, you just can’t trust them. Asking EH’s Manchester office to look after our architecture is like asking my mouse to look after my cat,” he said.

    Yesterday’s meeting also gave the go-ahead to the conversion of the Grade-II- listed No.2 Blackburne Place into 13 luxury apartments.

    Maghull chairman Ian Jones said: “Doing a second-rate job would undermine our reputation. If people say we are in for a quick buck they are wrong.

    “There’s £100m of investment in the same street. Who would be mad enough to do so much investment and then do a second-rate job?

    “Hope Street has been constantly reinvented, from Georgians, through the Victorians and Gothic revivalists. We need to continue that tradition of bold design and make it fit for 21st century use.”

    Maghull’s planning consultant Richard Gee said there were “10 good reasons” not to refuse the planning permission on traffic grounds.

    He said there had only been five slight accidents in the area in the last three years and that there was “30 to 40% spare junction capacity” on the roads nearby.

    benschofield

  2. #2
    Senior Member A.D.W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    712
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Another piece of history down the tubes!!!

    Currently Ignoring:
    The Door Bell
    The voices in my head


  3. #3
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,973
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    The house does not take up that much room. It could have been incorporated into a new development.

    They rubber stamp this new development destroying history and turn down world-class iconic Brunswick Quay Tower. Madness.
    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

  4. #4
    Senior Member christy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Agree totally waterways.
    Absolute joke, Not only letting the building go but also changing the character of the street for NO reason whatsoever apart from arrogance and percieved cost saving. Its not as if the street is struggling or without interest from other developers/developments. It is a vibrant and interesting street with a lot going for it that instead of being enhanced by a good quality refurb will be blighted by something resembling the worst of the 70's. This is a prime example of lazy developers and lazy architects who have no regard for the area other than to make money out of it.
    Mr Colqhoun(sp?) is for once spot on.
    The decisions from our city planners are contradictoary at best and totally without sense and extremely damaging at worst. It's as if there is an internal fight for power with one chief planner who has a chip on their shoulder about their Shankland plan not being finished and still holding a torch for the 'needlessly demolishing perfectly good buildings to 'modernise' with average nondescript' ethos.
    and another planer who is obsessed with rejecting anything too innovative and different and not made of woolton sandstone with carvings of liverbirds on.
    They let this building and a row of listed Georgian house go within weeks (not even getting in to the others) , allow rubbish like City Square on Tithebarn street but knock back the likes of Brunswick Quay for blocking views of the Anglican cathedral from the Wirral.
    What happened to heroic planners with taste and a sound and well rounded architectural knowledge like Addshead and Keay.........

  5. #5
    John(Zappa)
    Guest John(Zappa)'s Avatar

    Default

    And they want to keep them stupid ugly useless Lambanana things.Use that money and get rid of all the plastic crap!!
    Its all do to with these "arty farty" designers wanting their name on the map .This is so wrong!!!!
    Who gets paid to make these descisions that are so stupid??????
    Yeah,lets put tons of plastic things on the street,put loads of tatty banners up that we will have to take down within months and lets knock a few historic buildings down and put some glass and metal structure up.Great Idea ? NO!!!!!!!!!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,973
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    The council politicos are mainly to blame. There is no firm policy only guidelines. Read the glossy info from the council and the quangos. All come out with weasel and BS words that say nothing firm. They convince the naive and hard of thinking they know what they are doing and a have a firm plan and policy going. The reality is they they wing it wallowing in mud most of the time.

    There is no firm policy, cast in concrete, for the dock waterways. All we want is something like no more in-filling and excavate all infilled water spaces respecting World Heritage. Then most of us will be satisfied. Every major project that comes up has water space filling on the menu as the developers know there is no firm policy, so go for a land by stealth operation. Kings Dock and Liverpool Waters both had water space filling in the submissions. The bland Kings Dock complex was accepted and now Liverpool Waters will be. I was banned from a Liverpool Echo forum for daring to mentioned Peel was wanting to fill in water spaces again.

    No firm policy means a private company can roll over the city, its heritage and history. Hold it by the balls.

    High buildings? Where can they be built? No one seems to know where they can or can't be built. There was publicity on the no high buildings policy being abandoned. Yet they said one was never in place.

    Chaos. They are frightening away large quality investors to transform the city.

    We want to keep what we have of value and tastefully develop and enhance. That flies in the face of greedy developers.
    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 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

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: @LiverpoolInPictures / Join the Facebook Group: Liverpool In Pictures (YO! Liverpool)

YO! Liverpool has taken me over 10 years to develop and maintain. If you like the website, please donate via PayPal!