A SKYSCRAPER at Liverpool's Brunswick Quay would create a "them and us" mentality, a public inquiry heard.
Paul Tucker, a lawyer for Liverpool Council, claimed plans for a 51-storey building on the city's waterfront were in the "wrong place at the wrong time".
Mr Tucker insisted the city should not be seduced by promises of regeneration and investment.
He told the final day of a public inquiry into the development: "It is not lightly that the city seeks to resist a development which would make something of a statement about the future of Liverpool.
"However, the concern about the building is not that such a building might not add beneficially to the skyline of Liverpool, but not in this place and not at this time.
"The point is best illustrated by asking the question as to whether those living to the east of Sefton Street, with a view of the looming mass of the building permanently in their field of view, would consider that the 'them and us' mentality is being reinforced or being eroded.
"It is the planning of wonderland to suggest that the effect will be to promote social inclusion and integration of the existing population in the way envisaged."
Yesterday was the final day of a public inquiry into the proposed building after developers Maro appealed a Liverpool City Council decision to reject the skyscraper.
The site was previously home to a small business centre, set up after the Toxteth riots, which has been gradually emptied over the past few months and is now shut.
The firm claims the building, which would include a hotel, flats and offices, would be a positive and breathtaking addition to the waterfront.
Christopher Katkowski QC, representing Maro, said the £120m tower would hugely improve this part of the city centre. He said: "Liverpool has lagged behind its fellow 'regional pole' Manchester in delivering regeneration.
"There are promising signs that Liverpool is going through an upturn in regeneration activity but there is no room for complacency. Significant investment should not be turned away lightly.
div>
"Enter Maro with a £120m investment in a remarkable scheme that even the 'Save Our City' group, an opponent, acknowledges would be beautiful and elegant and should not be lost to Liverpool.
"The proposals would set a new and high standard for contemporary architecture in Liverpool whilst improving the housing stock close to the city centre.
"Not only do English Heritage (EH) not oppose the appeal proposals in relation to their effect on the city's heritage, EH has been fulsome in its praise of the quality of design of the schemes.
"Then there are the reasons for refusal that can only be described as dour and depressing in their limited horizons.
"It is said that the proposals - for the finest and most remarkable contemporary scheme in Liverpool with £120m of investment at stake - should be turned away in order to retain a shabby and tired, cheap and basic, employment building, all against the background that Liverpool is awash with a vast supply of employment land.
"Liverpool stands to gain a great deal from these schemes and little if anything from turning them away."
The public inquiry is not set to make a ruling until September at the earliest.
samlister@dailypost.co.uk
Bookmarks