Edge Lane Development

Homes demolition halted
Feb 19 2007
Liverpool Echo

BULLDOZERS have been stopped from moving into Liverpool’s Edge Lane for the second time.

Developers were planning to start preparing six boarded-up Victorian houses for demolition today.

But anti-demolition campaigners contacted London’s high court over the weekend and say they have an injunction stopping any work taking place.

They were planning to serve it on contractors at the Kensington site early today.

Senior officials at Liverpool Land Development Company (LLDC) had still not seen a copy of the injunction this morning.

Story continues...

This is just rediculous. That area is going to be left to rot even more for years. Welcome to Liverpool everyone!!!!! I give up.:disgust:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

I give up.:disgust:

---

Liz Pascoe hasn't!!! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Liz Pascoe hasn't!!! :rolleyes:

---

And she's entitled to considering her house is still under threat. We thought that we would have a few months before the next CPO so the website I am working on is currently being madly shuffled together this week. Anyone got any red bull?

Edge Lane injunction to cost taxpayer £1.5m
Feb 20 2007
by Deborah James, Liverpool Daily Post

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/ic...175CEB5B31.jpg

A VITAL £70m scheme to regenerate Liverpool’s Edge Lane corridor was facing a further major delay last night, after a grandmother won a surprise High Court injunction.

Developers last night said an anti-demolition order secured in London by resident Elizabeth Pascoe had caused a second major hold-up to the road-widening scheme.

The 60-year-old handed the order to workers yesterday morning as they were about to start stripping six boarded-up Victorian houses in preparation for bulldozers to move in.

It bans any demolition on Edge Lane West until a Compulsory Purchase Order is issued allowing developers to buy up remaining properties in the area, expected in around 15 months.

Story continues...

Is it just delaying the inevitable. Is it more money for her property she is after, given that CPO's are usually derisary amounts. With the money it's costing the taxpayer and the regeneration of the area, would it not just be sensible to give her her wedge instead? It can't be any fun for her living in what has become a run down area due to the others that have moved out though I do agree that some of those houses are huge and could where possible should have been saved. I'm all for people and communities over road schemes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

Is it just delaying the inevitable. Is it more money for her property she is after, given that CPO's are usually derisary amounts. With the money it's costing the taxpayer and the regeneration of the area, would it not just be sensible to give her her wedge instead? It can't be any fun for her living in what has become a run down area due to the others that have moved out though I do agree that some of those houses are huge and could where possible should have been saved. I'm all for people and communities over road schemes.

---

The problem is, is that the city council haven't done their homework. They've never had a surveyor around to inspect the houses in detail, which we have. Only 6 houses are structurally unsafe and 'have' to be demolished, the rest can be saved.
Elizabeth isn't after any more money from the house - she doesn't want to move from her home at the age of 60 where she has lived for a long time - would you?

The Council is totally to blame for letting these properties go thus forcing people out of their homes. 99% of people for the demolition have never been inside the grand houses and they are massive - fixed up, they would fetch over a £1mill, such is the style of the house. People assume that because they're boarded up, they are to be demolished, when the survey that we paid out for shows the real extent.

It would appear that the council are saying 'This is where the road's going, structurally safe houses or not' hasn't that always been the way though - that someone/somewhere is sacrificed for improvement (if that is what it's going to be) The residents of where I was from were shipped out for the widening of Hunter Street despite a community of 400 families who were basically against it, but as they were flats that were not privately owned what chance did they have when they'd already fought road plans for two previous schemes. The once thriving Christian Street is now cut off from Islington and is pretty isolated. One might say a good thing if they've kids.

The houses actually along that section of road must go if the road is to be properly widened and made safer for pedestrians, although I do think the council should give more consideration into preserving some of the houses that are away from the road. It is important to remember that this isn't just a road widening scheme, this is just part of a project which includes new housing, new jobs in the science park, a better environment, more local amenities and new public open space.
I traveled along the almost complete section of edge lane near the rocket recently. The quality of the work is superb and the level of thought behind it is very impressive. For example, instead of just paving the pavements and planting trees along the entire stretch, they have tarmaced sections outside most of the houses for cars to park on, away from the road. This project will improve Liverpool's image to visitors, but more importantly, it will improve the lives of local people in more ways than one.:)

It's a fair point, and you can't keep everyone happy.

Still, I'm not bothered about the £1.5m of taxpayers money - at least it's been consumed by someone being pro-active and doing something (which is for them) worthwhile. Unlike the work-shy layabouts that lived in half the other houses down there.

Those houses don't seem too bad, to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marky

Those houses don't seem too bad, to me.

---

Some of them aren't too bad, but they have to go so that the road can be widened. The road is already heavily congested because it bottlenecks from four lanes to two, so in a couple of years it will be gridlocked if it isn't widened. Some have said it can be widened without demolishing the houses but this would mean taking the front gardens off the houses so people would be walking out of their front door straight onto a tiny pavement with a dual carriageway next to it, plus alot of the houses are too far gone to repair.
On the other hand, the demolition will mean that all the buildings on the roadside will have a large pavement in front of them with trees and more pedestrian crossings to make it safer and more pleasant. If you look carefully at the plans, you will see that the apartments are on the roadside with all the family houses behind them, well away from the busy road.:)

In general the city is a dug up mess.

The big dig is causing terrible problems in the city centre and has been driving shoppers away for 2 years now. Shops are closing and business is bad. As if this isn't bad enough Church Street and Lord Street have looked like a building site since the summer the resurfacing seems to have taken a very long time for what seems to be a very simple job.Every time you go down there you are lucky if you see anyone working on it. Even worse Whitechapel is now being dug up an the trendy new Met quarter is surrounded by bollards, no wonder trade is down there too. The council have known that the Met quarter has been under construction for 2 years now so why not do some of the work sooner?

Thank God we never got the trams can you imagine the disruption the installation of them would have caused? There is now way it would have been finished by 08, the trams would have caused huge traffic chaos and work would have taken taken years in Liverpool.
Unbelievable.

All the work is neccessary to bring Liverpool up to date with most other cities. The work doesn't bother me, and there was a survey a while ago that showed most people don't mind the distruption as Liverpool will be a much better place once it is completed. I actually like going into town and seeing all the construction work. It makes the city vibrant with activity and prosperity.

SCORES of residents are campaigning to get the controversial regeneration of Edge Lane back on track. more

Author inspired by fight to save Edge Lane homes
Feb 27 2007
by Alan Weston, Liverpool Daily Post

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/ic...175CEB5B31.jpg

LIVERPOOL writer Jimmy McGovern will soon become an even more high-profile name than he is already, with three major productions in the pipeline – and they could not be more different from each other.

Two will be set during controversial periods of history. One is a film on the story of Mary, Queen of Scots, with Hollywood star Scarlet Johansson in the lead role as the doomed queen, while the other is a stage play which compares the slaves of America’s Deep South with those who toiled in the mills in the north-west of England.

The third, however, will be right up to date and will be a hard-hitting dramatisation of the issues surrounding the Edge Lane regeneration project.

McGovern said he was drawn to the subject because of the outrage he felt over the way council leaders had handled the project.

The west end of Edge Lane has been earmarked for demolition and redevelopment for some time, but it has witnessed a stand-off between planners and local residents reluctant to leave their homes.

The proposals form part of the Government's New Heartlands strategy and will include a new dual carriageway providing improved road links to the M62 motorway.

McGovern – no stranger to controversy with earlier works including one on the Hillsborough tragedy – launched a scathing attack on the redevelopment project, which he said would destroy some “wonderful houses”.

The 57-year-old writer said his brother, Joseph, 59, who owns a three-bedroomed house in the area, was one of those affected by the proposals.

He added: “Joe has been offered just £65,000 under the Compulsory Purchase Order, in spite of the fact that developers are planning to build apartments on the site, starting at £125,000 for a one-bed flat.

“How can anyone possibly claim that is fair? It is impossible to buy anything with £65,000 these days.”

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/ic...BFB6FA01D8.jpg

He added: “There is a very strong aesthetic argument in all of this. These are houses with beautiful facades which, if they were in London, would be appreciated for exactly how splendid they are. As Liverpool approaches its Culture Year, the council is knocking down rows of wonderful houses – and for what?

“All professional opinion is that the city centre cannot cope with the current levels of traffic, so how will a two-lane entry road help that? It is not a sustainable answer, we need to reduce congestion with green schemes such as park and ride, not add to it.”

Although this work is still in its early stages, another – called King Cotton – will mark McGovern’s return to the stage after 25 years.

It has been commissioned by the Liverpool Culture Company and The Lowry at Salford Quays, where the production will have its world premiere in September, followed by an opening at the Liverpool Empire later in the month.

The musical play, which features a full brass band, will mark the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, but McGovern will also use it to explore his theory that Britain’s mill workers were the forgotten slaves of the 18th century.

The new project sets a cotton plantation slave from the Deep South against a mill worker at the time of the Lancashire cotton famine, reflecting McGovern’s view that the plight of northern England’s mill workers has been overlooked.

He said: “Research has been done which shows that people died younger in the mills than in the cotton fields.”

The work is adapted from an idea by local musician Ian Brownbill, who approached the author about doing a play on the cotton famine, which occurred when the American Civil War halted cotton imports and mill workers were left to starve.

The film of Mary Queen of Scots is due for release next year, and will concentrate on her strained personal and political relationship with her cousin, Elizabeth I, during whose reign the Scottish queen was executed.

alanweston@dailypost.co.uk

Source: icLiverpool

My Edge Lane website is to be launched in the Sunday Times this sunday so if I get the all clear, I'll post the website address up here on Saturday so you can all have a sneak preview.

I'm still going through lots of legal documents else I'd have posted it last week for your perusal.

:protest:

Anyone know what's happening with the Littlewoods building? I know that Urban Splash are going to refurbish it and I have noticed some scaffolding on a small section of it, but there is nothing on their website and there has been no news on how the development is coming along.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

Anyone know what's happening with the Littlewoods building? I know that Urban Splash are going to refurbish it and I have noticed some scaffolding on a small section of it, but there is nothing on their website and there has been no news on how the development is coming along.:)

---

I'll hijack this thread with my already announced www.edgelane.moonfruit.com website :)

Littlewoods is to be turned in to apartments! Sod knows how they'll do that but bagsie the tower as my bedroom!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jona76

I'll hijack this thread with my already announced www.edgelane.moonfruit.com website :)

Littlewoods is to be turned in to apartments! Sod knows how they'll do that but bagsie the tower as my bedroom!

---

They are going to add in new floors. It currently only has a ground floor!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6434255.stm

Please Read.

Yet another delaying of the inevitable. This has gone from it being someone fighting for what they believe in, to someone blatantly not caring about their community and being extremely selfish. Surely she must realise that the vast majority of people want the houses demolished and that keeping the houses would be extremely dangerous and unpleasant for both pedestrians and cars.
She is simply misguided and must realise that the houses are going to be demolished eventually. I suspect she is just holding out for more money. If they offered her an extra 10 grand she would be out of there like a shot, but they won't do that as it will look like they are bribing her.
I just hope that LLDC get those CPO's quickly and continue to buy the remaining properties.

http://liverpooldev.co.uk/?ctid=78 Please Read!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

Yet another delaying of the inevitable. This has gone from it being someone fighting for what they believe in, to someone blatantly not caring about their community and being extremely selfish. Surely she must realise that the vast majority of people want the houses demolished and that keeping the houses would be extremely dangerous and unpleasant for both pedestrians and cars.
She is simply misguided and must realise that the houses are going to be demolished eventually. I suspect she is just holding out for more money. If they offered her an extra 10 grand she would be out of there like a shot, but they won't do that as it will look like they are bribing her.
I just hope that LLDC get those CPO's quickly and continue to buy the remaining properties.

http://liverpooldev.co.uk/?ctid=78 Please Read!

---

I have to disagree there totally. Having worked with Elizabeth, she is not doing this for the money. She has said that she wouldn't entertain any amount of money, she is now fighting for all the people that have already had to leave their community. Elizabeth works silly hours, despite being disabled and I am in regular contact with her over this.

The council are riding rough shot over all of this and they cannot afford to back down.

You may not have read all of my website but I would draw your attention to :

http://www.edgelane.moonfruit.com/surveys

Click on 'Edge Lane Survey Report' which will show you an independant review by Chartered Building Surveyors - this isn't hearsay - this is the true Survey of each major property which is stated that needs very little more than maintainence.

I agree with both sides of the coin, but for those that want to have their houses demolished, they have just as much say as Elizabeth has at the end of the day.

I understand that some of the houses are ok, but it just isn't safe to keep them. I have looked at your website which clearly shows that the road is just feet from the front door of alot of the houses. It also shows that there would be very little greenery and that the pavement is tiny. There is also nowhere to park any cars therefore all the cars would have to be parked either on the road or on the pavement. The LLDC plan would solve all these issues and create better local amenities for residents.
You can't ignore the fact that most people want the houses gone, and that the LLDC plan won't just widen the road like yours, it will create a better environment and better facilities for local people.
I do actually like those houses and do wish that they could stay, but that just isn't an option in this case. To secure the long term future for this part of Liverpool, the houses must be demolished.
Lastly, with reference to the comment that people where made to move out of their homes, that is completely wrong. The population was already falling rapidly long before LLDC got involved and the fact is most of the residents where waiting for someone like LLDC to come along so they could get out.
Liz is holding back a vital regeneration project for Liverpool that has been in the making for the past 10 years. She must concede defeat and stop being so selfish. She is doing what is in her best interests, not what is in the vast majorities.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/l...name_page.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

I understand that some of the houses are ok, but it just isn't safe to keep them. I have looked at your website which clearly shows that the road is just feet from the front door of alot of the houses. It also shows that there would be very little greenery and that the pavement is tiny. There is also nowhere to park any cars therefore all the cars would have to be parked either on the road or on the pavement. The LLDC plan would solve all these issues and create better local amenities for residents.
You can't ignore the fact that most people want the houses gone, and that the LLDC plan won't just widen the road like yours, it will create a better environment and better facilities for local people.
I do actually like those houses and do wish that they could stay, but that just isn't an option in this case. To secure the long term future for this part of Liverpool, the houses must be demolished.
Lastly, with reference to the comment that people where made to move out of their homes, that is completely wrong. The population was already falling rapidly long before LLDC got involved and the fact is most of the residents where waiting for someone like LLDC to come along so they could get out.
Liz is holding back a vital regeneration project for Liverpool that has been in the making for the past 10 years. She must concede defeat and stop being so selfish. She is doing what is in her best interests, not what is in the vast majorities.

---

If trying to keep a roof over your head when you have reached the age of 60 without being bullied by the council to leave is being selfish?

Why shouldn't she be doing this? I would be doing exactly the same if I was in her position and I'm sure if it was a member of your family - someone older than the rest of us, you'd give her as much backing as possible.

Is it a crime these days to fight for what you believe in? That is what she is doing and I'm pretty sure we'd do the same if we had to.

I take it you have spoken to some of the ex residents of Edge Lane? Elizabeth let me have a nose through a massive database of residents that had left her a contact address - I have been in touch with over 40 people who said that they wish they had guts like Elizabeth and only wish they had stayed and supported her.

If you are talking to more people than I am on the subject then I really must be speaking to the wrong people.

Firstly, if I was in her position, even though I would be upset at leaving my house, I would still leave. I would look at the bigger picture and realise that most people want this development and I wouldn't get in the way of a project that is going to improve hundreds of lives.
People do have a right to fight for what they believe in, but if you and a few others are the only ones and there are hundreds more that believe the opposite, it is only right to concede that you are wrong.
Finally, lets not forget that a 200 signature petition was handed in to LLDC last week from local residents who want the properties demolished. All these signatures where collected in just one day!
The needs of the many!!!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

Firstly, if I was in her position, even though I would be upset at leaving my house, I would still leave. I would look at the bigger picture and realise that most people want this development and I wouldn't get in the way of a project that is going to improve hundreds of lives.
People do have a right to fight for what they believe in, but if you and a few others are the only ones and there are hundreds more that believe the opposite, it is only right to concede that you are wrong.
Finally, lets not forget that a 200 signature petition was handed in to LLDC last week from local residents who want the properties demolished. All these signatures where collected in just one day!
The needs of the many!!!:)

---

I admire the people who want to leave and admire your stance on this too. Someone really should get together from their side of the coin and try and do the opposite to what Elizabeth is doing. Democracy and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

I understand that some of the houses are ok, but it just isn't safe to keep them. I have looked at your website which clearly shows that the road is just feet from the front door of alot of the houses. It also shows that there would be very little greenery and that the pavement is tiny. There is also nowhere to park any cars therefore all the cars would have to be parked either on the road or on the pavement. The LLDC plan would solve all these issues and create better local amenities for residents.
You can't ignore the fact that most people want the houses gone, and that the LLDC plan won't just widen the road like yours, it will create a better environment and better facilities for local people.
I do actually like those houses and do wish that they could stay, but that just isn't an option in this case. To secure the long term future for this part of Liverpool, the houses must be demolished.
Lastly, with reference to the comment that people where made to move out of their homes, that is completely wrong. The population was already falling rapidly long before LLDC got involved and the fact is most of the residents where waiting for someone like LLDC to come along so they could get out.
Liz is holding back a vital regeneration project for Liverpool that has been in the making for the past 10 years. She must concede defeat and stop being so selfish. She is doing what is in her best interests, not what is in the vast majorities.

---

It is not true to say keeping these houses would be dangerous. Both proposals will actually slow the traffic down in mph terms but speed the journey through better management. Also having the front doors 'just feet' away from the road as you say, will make little difference to anything or anybody. Do you believe that all of the Victorian and Edwardian shops/shopping districts around the country should immediately be demolished due to the shop doorways being too close to the road? Surely busy shopping streets like County road, Allerton road and Old Swan would be more dangerous with people moving in and out of shops into others walking on the pavement?
As for parking, a bit of imagination would show that as the buildings are empty or being emptied and would be converted into flats/apartments then the parking could be placed at the rear with further entrances there.
Greenery again is not so important on a road like this because it is what it is, an urban innercity road. Yes greenary is pleasant but the planting that approaches this section is sufficient. Again if people where desperate for planting, a bit of imagination by the architects would solve this. Planting does not just have to be trees lining a road.
I understand your point based on the facts that you and the developers are putting forward, however, these 'facts' are mistruths and therefore invalid.
What makes me most angry, is that what the developers plan to replace these substantial houses with pastiche new brick rubbish that would look more at home on the outskirts of Birchwood,Warrington and will impress nobody approaching our city. It will simply make the approach look provincial and cheap. If we have to put up with eventually losing this piece of our heritage, at least replace it with something better!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christy

It is not true to say keeping these houses would be dangerous. Both proposals will actually slow the traffic down in mph terms but speed the journey through better management. Also having the front doors 'just feet' away from the road as you say, will make little difference to anything or anybody. Do you believe that all of the Victorian and Edwardian shops/shopping districts around the country should immediately be demolished due to the shop doorways being too close to the road? Surely busy shopping streets like County road, Allerton road and Old Swan would be more dangerous with people moving in and out of shops into others walking on the pavement?
As for parking, a bit of imagination would show that as the buildings are empty or being emptied and would be converted into flats/apartments then the parking could be placed at the rear with further entrances there.
Greenery again is not so important on a road like this because it is what it is, an urban innercity road. Yes greenary is pleasant but the planting that approaches this section is sufficient. Again if people where desperate for planting, a bit of imagination by the architects would solve this. Planting does not just have to be trees lining a road.
I understand your point based on the facts that you and the developers are putting forward, however, these 'facts' are mistruths and therefore invalid.
What makes me most angry, is that what the developers plan to replace these substantial houses with pastiche new brick rubbish that would look more at home on the outskirts of Birchwood,Warrington and will impress nobody approaching our city. It will simply make the approach look provincial and cheap. If we have to put up with eventually losing this piece of our heritage, at least replace it with something better!!!

---

:handclap: :handclap: :PDT11

It was also interesting to note that the Judge quashed the latest CPO as he also agreed that these houses were perfectly safe.

There is a difference between houses being feet from the road and shops being feet from the road. People wouldn't want to live there especially families, plus the fact that the houses have pokey back yards, not exactly family friendly. They would end up being diced up into flats and falling into a bad state of repair again.
Some of the houses only need a lick of paint, but some of them need extensive repair costing thousands and some of them are unfit for habitation and need to be demolished. As I have said many times before, the vast majority of people are behind the LLDC plan and this is the plan that will be better in the long term.
As for the judge saying they shouldn't be demolished, if he actually visited the area and saw just how grotty, neglected, dark and unsafe it is, I'm sure he would change his mind.
I do genuinely hate to see any of our 'heritage' lost, but I feel in this case that demolition will be better for the people wheras renovation will only be better for our history. People are more important.:)

Apart from rush hour I have never experienced Edge Lane as being all that busy. This area has been an eyesore for years. LCC deliberately allowed the area to run down rather than transforming it in an adaptive way that allowed the local community to work with the LCC and enabled the city as a whole to keep the best architecture in this area and avoid traffic congestion. The proposed plans for the redevelopment of this area and the awful housing envisaged are unimaginative in the extreme - more suitable for the East Lancs Road than a key road into the heart of the city cente.

It's no coincidence that it's the poor areas of the city that are continually being torn apart by LCC's lack of thinking ahead and refusal to stem the process by which an entire area becomes blighted (Norris Green, Granby parts of Kensington, Kirkdale etc). It started in the 60s and it's still going on. How the hell do they get away with it?

There are certain times when edge lane isn't busy but it is very busy during rush hour. The widening and realigning of the road by LLDC is a preventative measure. In the next couple of years that section of edge lane will become gridlocked unless the road is improved. The LLDC plan is about the long term future for edge lane to ensure it will become a safer and more pleasant experience for drivers and the public.
I do agree that the council did leave areas like Kenny, Norris Green and Anfield in an awful state for way too long, but this was largely due to lack of co-operation from the public and lack of funding. The council now has both of these in most cases and is now carrying out major improvements in all the areas mentioned. There is new high quality housing being built in Norris Green and alot of the houses have been refurbished. Kenny is undergoing massive changes with victorian shop frontages being restored and new facilities such as a new fire station and community centre being built. Anfield is about to undergo massive changes with new houses and community facilities being built alongside the new stadium. The council had to wait for the stadium to get funding before they could do anything in Anfield.
One thing that annoys is when people suggest that the council love demolishing our victorian architecture. If this was the case then why are hundreds of victorian houses in Anfield and Kenny being refurbished. Wouldn't the council have just demolished them and started again. Leopold road in kenny is a prime example of how the council does retain victorian buildings when it is safe and viable to do so.:)

Please Read!

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/l...name_page.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

Please Read!

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/l...name_page.html

---

As long as they keep the air raid shelters next door then I'd be well chuffed to see this building put to some good use! :handclap:

Not sure about them, i'll try to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK1

Not sure about them, i'll try to find out.

---

Not many people know about them, not even Sub Brit have been in them. They'll have a job demolishing all those concrete slabs though - and as they go down towards Wavertree Road, they're not small!

"Geraud UK, owner of Liverpool wholesale fruit and vegetable market, has this week begun a nine-week evaluation of the market’s potential with a view to creating a “future-proof” market for the north-west.

Liverpool City Council has identified the Edge Lane location of the market as a strategically important site, obliging Geraud, which took on ownership of the site in 2003, to undertake research to define the future direction of the market and its tenants."

[More]

Judge blocks £70m Edge Lane gateway

A VITAL £70m scheme to reshape the vital Edge Lane corridor into Liverpool was legally frozen last night, following the latest court victory by campaigning grandmother Elizabeth Pascoe.

More...

DERELICT houses will line Liverpool’s Edge Lane for the foreseeable future :PDT_Xtremez_12: