Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Campaigners Lose Battle

  1. #16
    Local Historian Cadfael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by julia View Post
    Thanks, PhilipG. Does she accept volunteers who are neither lawyers nor architectural specialists? I'm just an ordinary person with a love of Liverpool's Victorian & Edwardian buildings. This Josephine Butler thing has really upset me. I've a full-time day job, so I don't want any money, I just want to help. Do you think that would do?
    People always want good helpers like you!!

    I've done a very small website on our buildings at risk at www.buildingatrisk.co.uk and need to do lots more on it too - I've only covered a small portion of buildings in town.


  2. #17
    PhilipG
    Guest PhilipG's Avatar

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by julia View Post
    Thanks, PhilipG. Does she accept volunteers who are neither lawyers nor architectural specialists? I'm just an ordinary person with a love of Liverpool's Victorian & Edwardian buildings. This Josephine Butler thing has really upset me. I've a full-time day job, so I don't want any money, I just want to help. Do you think that would do?
    I'm sure she'd love any help.
    I know she needs a typist.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Here is what they are building in its place. What a disgrace!!! The original building facade could still have been retained inside a new development. But that takes imagination. To think the council allowed this tripe and turned down the iconic Brunswick Quay Tower. Madness indeed! Vote them out on May 1st!
    Last edited by Waterways; 04-12-2008 at 12:35 PM.
    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. #19
    PhilipG
    Guest PhilipG's Avatar

    Default 15 January 2008.

    The 1930s building is also going to be flattened.
    I've always loved that staircase.


  5. #20
    Local Historian Cadfael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    494

    Default

    An utter joke. How much money in a brown envelope did (a certain party) get for this?

    To knock down such a lovely historical building for that tripe is a joke. It's really going to fit in with the Philharmonic Pub on one side and the Philharmonic on the other

    Wonder when Liverpool Cathedral will be turned in to apartments?

  6. #21
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kensington, Liverpool
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,195

    Default Letter to the Editor

    Block planning loophole
    Apr 14 2008
    Liverpool Daily Post

    WHILE I join my fellow citizens in utterly condemning the loss of Josephine Butler House, not all the blame can be laid at the feet of our planning officers.

    The present government, under the excuse of making planning applications less complicated, has opened the doors to a flood of developers in all our large cities, not just Liverpool.

    Readers will recall the unified opposition to the enlarged Tesco, on Allerton Road.

    This was condemned by the residents and the council. Unfortunately, Tesco took the rejection to London where Prescott saw fit to allow it, over-riding all local opinion.

    As central government will almost automatically overturn any planning denial by a council, developers have almost unlimited scope to buy any building, listed or not, and then apply to “develop” the site, knowing that should the council oppose it they can appeal.

    Members of the National Trust, the Victorian Society, the Georgian Society, etc, need to petition their groups to make a unified demand to government to amend this law.

    The rest of us must pester our MPs to do something positive about this, as opposed to simply wringing their hands and whimpering uselessly.

    Even if the law can be changed, we need to be aware that Maghull owns the magnificent Hahnemann Building, on Hope Street.

    The company has already submitted plans to demolish the back of this building and build what must be the most horrendous extension in the history of architecture.

    We can only hope that, as happened with the Casartelli Building, the three listed buildings in Seel Street, and the Lamb Hotel in Wavertree, the front does not then become unstable and fall down.

    It is important that as many people as possible try to block this loophole in the planning law, as it was not intended to allow developers to ruin the built environment.

    When Maghull has departed to count its profit, the citizens of Liverpool will be left with the replacement for Josephine Butler House: an architecturally dismal and functionally unwanted monstrosity in one of the most beautiful areas of Liverpool, looking like a rotten tooth in a winning smile.

    Ian Poole, Mossley Hill

    Source: Liverpool Daily Post

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Howie View Post
    Block planning loophole
    Apr 14 2008
    Liverpool Daily Post

    WHILE I join my fellow citizens in utterly condemning the loss of Josephine Butler House, not all the blame can be laid at the feet of our planning officers.

    The present government, under the excuse of making planning applications less complicated, has opened the doors to a flood of developers in all our large cities, not just Liverpool.

    Readers will recall the unified opposition to the enlarged Tesco, on Allerton Road.

    This was condemned by the residents and the council. Unfortunately, Tesco took the rejection to London where Prescott saw fit to allow it, over-riding all local opinion.

    As central government will almost automatically overturn any planning denial by a council,
    They didn't with Brunswick Quay Tower.

    developers have almost unlimited scope to buy any building, listed or not, and then apply to “develop” the site, knowing that should the council oppose it they can appeal.
    The appeal has to be successful

    It is a matter of protecting old, interesting and historic buildings, not the planning system - which stinks anyway. Buildings over 100 years old should have stricter planning control put upon them.

    Land Value Tax (LVT) should be applied to the city. This will stop people leaving historic buildings to rot and then pulled down on safety grounds.

    Introducing LVT has to come from Westminster.
    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

  8. #23
    Senior Member christy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    The 1930s building is also going to be flattened.
    I've always loved that staircase.

    That is even worse!! I have always loved that red brick building and always been amazed by the efforts put into designing both the rear shown in the pic aswell as the more classical/beaux arts style stone front which is down a narrow closed off street. From what I can see by the style(and therefore age) and location of the buildings around the building, both elevations would always have remained largely hidden.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Howie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kensington, Liverpool
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,195

    Default

    What the developer said to his chief critic: Dear sir, you are a ****ing ignorant pig
    Apr 15 2008
    by Mary Murtagh, Liverpool Echo



    A WAR of words has broken out between a millionaire property magnate and a tour guide over the £100m transformation of Liverpool’s Hope Street.

    Councillors last week approved a controversial plan to flatten much-loved Josephine Butler House at the junction with Myrtle Street, and replace it with a modern building.

    Beatles tour guide Philip Coppell expressed his disgust about the scheme to Maghull Developments managing director Michael Hanlon, questioned how it got planning permission and said he hoped the company went bankrupt.

    Mr Hanlon, who is seeking legal advice about Mr Coppell’s comments, launched a tirade of foul mouthed abuse in an email reply.

    Mr Hanlon’s expletive-strewn reply called Mr Coppell a “f*****g ignorant pig” and told him that “we could always make room for you in the foundations within the new development”.

    More...

  10. #25
    Senior Member petromax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Howie View Post
    What the developer said to his chief critic: Dear sir, you are a ****ing ignorant pig
    Apr 15 2008
    by Mary Murtagh, Liverpool Echo



    ...Mr Hanlon’s expletive-strewn reply called Mr Coppell a “f*****g ignorant pig” and told him that “we could always make room for you in the foundations within the new development”.

    More...
    Is there just the slightest chance that Mr Coppell might just have been what Mr Hanlon says he is ?

  11. #26
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    The problem is not the shark thicko developer, he is blinded by money and that is to be expected - it is the LibDem council/planners who approved this tripe.

    The 1930s red brick building has little merit. The facade of the house could easily have been incorporated into a new design. The new building would then look very attractive and distinctive and clearly more sellable. The developers has everything to gain as well.
    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

  12. #27
    Senior Member petromax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    The problem is not the shark thicko developer, he is blinded by money and that is to be expected - it is the LibDem council/planners who approved this tripe.

    The 1930s red brick building has little merit. The facade of the house could easily have been incorporated into a new design. The new building would then look very attractive and distinctive and clearly more sellable. The developers has everything to gain as well.
    I think both existing buildings have relatively little merit and certainly the space on the corner needs developing in such an important location. The incorporation of this average house would not add value commercially as it is so indistinctive.

    However, I also think the new design is mediocre and no match for its grander surroundings. Planners are not trained in Architecture and are in no position to judge the 'aesthetic' merits of any building. Indeed this is not the purpose of the acts. They must rely on qualified opinion. If this is to be effective, it needs to be enforceable under legislation ie an amendment to the current Town and Country Planning Acts.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •