Brunswick Dock Area

**Paul D** · 11-17-2006

It is not a problem at all. All she had to do was look at a frigging map. The initial problem was the councillors (all LibDem) who voted against this proposal in the first place. If they had said yes it would be near built by now.

She was told to pass it by the planning inspector so someone has told her to do otherwise and she took the easy way out and used WHS against us,how many people in Liverpool know it's not in the WHS site? 99.9 I'd suggest so her decision goes unchallenged because she hints that it is,why build the new museum of Liverpool we already have one,the city.I suppose this means all the modern stuff in London wont be built now hey yeah right.

**Waterways** · 11-17-2006

Originally Posted by Paul D

She was told to pass it by the planning inspector

But the city rejected it in the first place.

so someone has told her to do otherwise and she took the easy way out and used WHS against us,how many people in Liverpool know it's not in the WHS site? 99.9 I'd suggest so her decision goes unchallenged because of it,why build the new museum of Liverpool we already have one,the city.I suppose this means all the modern stuff in London wont be built now hey yeah right.

The story of the past 80 years has been the south suppressing Liverpool. Just another episode. Prepare for more of the same until all investors don't even give the city a second glance.

Maro should re-submit the application with a slight amendment. Then Whitehall is out of the way.

I hate all this centralisation. Who the hell do they think they are thinking they know more then the people in the city? The sooner Liverpool is a city state the better.

http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

**kenotoole123@msn.com** · 11-17-2006

I suppose we can only hope that 'Maro' come up with an alternative scheme (Even better & Higher !!!) and that the Council will be too embarassed to oppose it!!!

**Waterways** · 11-17-2006

What site shows Kelly's leter?

**Waterways** · 11-17-2006

Originally Posted by kenotoole123@msn.com

I suppose we can only hope that 'Maro' come up with an alternative scheme (Even better & Higher !!!) and that the Council will be too embarassed to oppose it!!!

The height is fixed because of aircraft from John Lennon. Maro hopefully may wait until a Labour council is in charge. Anyone know the date of the council elections?

**Kev** · 11-17-2006

I just don't get it. It would have been beautiful and the approach to the city centre would have made people think and wonder in amazement, rather than ponder about the future of the Garden Festival site

. Take it to Leeds, go 'ed

**SteH** · 11-17-2006

Originally Posted by Waterways

The height is fixed because of aircraft from John Lennon. Maro hopefully may wait until a Labour council is in charge. Anyone know the date of the council elections?

The next elections are in May, but only 30 of the 90 seats are up for grabs. With the Libdems holding 56 seats, it would take an almighty swing to get them out, and given how things were when Labour were under control......

**Waterways** · 11-17-2006

Originally Posted by SteH

The next elections are in May, but only 30 of the 90 seats are up for grabs. With the Libdems holding 56 seats, it would take an almighty swing to get them out, and given how things were when Labour were under control......

Ruth Kelly was told to pass it by the government planning inspector, she used a ridiculous World Heritage Site excuse. The proposal is a long way from the Heritage site. Her grounds for rejection are laughable they are so inaccurate.

This can be taken to the higher House of Lords. I hope Maro do. The tripe about blocking sight lines and World Heritage when it is nowhere near the zone should sway them. More time! They will probably give up and piss off - can you blame them?

**Bunnyman** · 11-17-2006

Can they take it to Europe?

John, now do you see the dangers of WHS in the hands of morons? Democracy in this country does not work. You can have knowledgeable professionals recommending all they like, but it's still a tinpot ****head with no knowledge of the place or the subject that makes the decision.

R. Kelly slept with a 14 year old girl anyway.

**The Teardrop Explodes** · 11-18-2006

...what they seem to be saying is we can't have anything too high or too good near the WHS as it will overshadow those buildings, AND we can't have anything too high or too great ANYWHERE else on the waterfront cos it will take some of the glory away from them...(we can have **** anywhere though, that's ok. No problems. Won't block the view from Wirral)

Absolute ****ing madness

**Waterways** · 11-18-2006

Originally Posted by The Teardrop Explodes

...what they seem to be saying is we can't have anything too high or too good near the WHS as it will overshadow those buildings,

It is nowhere near the buildings of the Albert Dock - a long way away. Liverpool is not allowed to overshadow London or Manchester.

AND we can't have anything too high or too great ANYWHERE else on the waterfront cos it will take some of the glory away from them...(we can have **** anywhere though, that's ok. No problems. Won't block the view from Wirral)

Absolute ****ing madness

**Waterways** · 11-18-2006

If they moved it to Dingle, and even taller, over the Underground Station and the station brought into use?

**Bunnyman** · 11-18-2006

And turf out the small business located there (garage)? You must be joking if you think they'd ever pass that!

PhilipG · 11-18-2006

So, how is WHS supposed to help Liverpool?
Yes, the Royal Liver Building is iconic and is the best of the 3 Graces.
It's just that it's so ironic that it was the tallest office building in Europe until after WW2, and now it's the main reason for not allowing tall buildings!

**Waterways** · 11-18-2006

Originally Posted by PhilipG

So, how is WHS supposed to help Liverpool?
Yes, the Royal Liver Building is iconic and is the best of the 3 Graces.
It's just that it's so ironic that it was the tallest office building in Europe until after WW2, and now it's the main reason for not allowing tall buildings!

Don't start blaming World Heritage for this debacle.

The excuses given are wholly inaccurate and WHS was wrongly used as an excuse - the site is nowhere near the buffer zone, never mind the zone proper. It is so inaccurate that Maro have a solid case for an appeal at the next level - the Lords or Europe.

Maro also wanted to excavate part or the whole of Toxteth Dock to extend development after the tower was built. They may think it worth it to go to the next appeal level. More time. If the idiot LibDem councillors had not voted against the tower it would be getting finished off by now. This city continually lets both barrels hit its feet time and time again.

World Heritage is great thing for the city. It gives international focus. Even with WHS the crimes committed are appalling. What would it be like without?

Look at the politics behind this. All Labour councillors on the planning committee vote for, all LibDem voted against except one.

It goes to appeal at Whitehall. The government planning man advises yes, the "Labour" minister" says no. You would think she would side with the Labour councillors. Unless they want to side with the ruling council to get them to co-operate closer over 2008? Maybe.

Over the past few years there has been talk of moving the seat of government away from London. The flooding risk is high and all Whitehall is under a flooding threat when it happens. A 1953 will happen again and with rising sea levels moreso. The Thames barrier will not stop it, only delay it.

Liverpool has been muted as the ideal place for a new seat of government by the odd experts and a think tank. A World Heritage site and docks and water spaces to build a new Whitehall? This tower would then get in the way? Birkenhead Dock are ideal too. Merge Wallasey and Birkenhead calling it Wirral something. Far fetched? Maybe. But could be something in it.

http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

.