Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Joe Anderson and Lawrence Kenwright's Signature Living Land Deal Exposed In Private Eye.

Private Eye entitles the article in the current edition, in ROTTEN BOROUGHS, CLASS ACT. Just who is writing all this stuff for Private Eye? We call it dodgy dealing right in front of the eyes of the public, and the local press, who should be watching what the property developing Mayor Joe Anderson is doing with our public funds. Some Time ago Wayne campaigned to bring some life back into the historic Albion House after it had lain there empty for years claiming it would be a perfect place to link Liverpool, on a global stage with the huge interest of the tragic events, that happened on the fateful night, when the Titanic was sunk. "There is so much public interest that it couldn't go wrong". he said. Sure enough Joe Anderson's mate Lawrence Kenwright must have been listening and miraculously got his hands on a pile of cash. Despite being previously banned as a company director. (you don't just get banned as a company director for bad book-keeping).
 But Joe Anderson and Co don't seem to care who they give the council assets to,  such as Municipal House in Victoria Street. 
 Kenwright was also the character that come up, out of nowhere, (and do we believe him) with a dodgy scheme to steal St Lukes Church from its rightful place as a monument to the blitz. 
If the wag bar at the new Titanic Theme Hotel is anything to go by, thank god he never got it and the public outrage made Anderson stop and think.    
The local papers called this refurbishment of Albion House a good news story without any checks pouring publicity over the opening.........even picturing Anderson on the steps of the new hotel with the Kenwright's, giving it a big thumbs up.

The local press should be checking everything that "Il Duce" Anderson is doing with public assets.
It seems that property developers always seem to have a link with Frank McKenna.
Is that what you need to get to Anderson?
Here we see Katie and lawrence Kenwright being awarded jointly Property Personality of the Year by McKenna and DLIB.

You couldn't make this up.

Thursday, 31 July 2014

Heaps Rice Mill Listed by English Heritage

31 July 2014

Dear Mr Ward,

Heap's Rice Mill, Beckwith Street, Liverpool – Awarded Listed Building Status

I am writing to inform you that the above building has been added to the List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. The building is now listed at Grade II.

I attach a copy of our advice report, which gives the principal reasons for this decision. The List entry for this building, together with a map, has now been published on the National Heritage List for England, and will be available for public access from tomorrow. This List can be accessed through our website.

Listing helps us to mark a building’s significance and celebrate its special architectural and historic interest. It brings specific protection so that its special interest can be properly considered in managing its future.

Please be aware that the listing of the building took effect on the day that the List entry was published on the National Heritage List for England.

As of 25 June 2013, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (ERRA) has enabled a number of heritage reforms, including an amendment to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that provides two potential ways to be more precise about what is listed. Whether or not the new provisions have been invoked with regard to this building is explained in the Advice Report. A List entry that makes use of these provisions will clarify what attached and curtilage structures are excluded from the listing and/or which interior features definitively lack special interest; however, owners and managers should be aware that other planning and development management constraints might apply to these structures, and should clarify these with the Local Planning Authority. Further information is available on our website at .

If you consider that this decision has been wrongly made you may contact the DCMS within 28 days of the date of this letter to request that the Secretary of State review the decision. An example of a decision made wrongly would be where there was a factual error or an irregularity in the process which affected the outcome. You may also ask the Secretary of State to review the decision if you have any significant evidence relating to the special architectural or historic interest of the building which was not previously considered. Further details of the review criteria and process and how to request a review are contained in the annex to this letter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. More information on designation can also be found on our website at

Yours sincerely
Victoria Ellis

Designation Co-ordinator - North

Designation Team North
English Heritage
37 Tanner Row

Data Protection Act 1998

Your personal details, along with the other information you have provided and information obtained from other sources, will be retained by English Heritage for administrative purposes and, where applicable, for future consideration. English Heritage will not release personal details to a third party if the disclosure would contravene the Data Protection principles.

Freedom of Information

English Heritage is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 which provide a general right of access to information we hold. We may provide the information you have supplied in response to a request made under this legislation, subject to any exemptions which apply. English Heritage will consult with external parties as necessary prior to releasing information.

Annex 1

Review Criteria and Process

A review will only be carried out in the following circumstances:

(1) there is evidence that the original decision has been made wrongly. Examples would include:

- where there was a factual error, eg. the wrong building was listed; or
- where there has been some irregularity in the process which has affected the outcome, eg. relevant
considerations were not taken into account or irrelevant considerations were taken into account.

(2) there is significant evidence which was not previously considered, relating to the special architectural or
historic interest of the building, as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. An example would be where new evidence relating to the date of a building has been discovered which might make a material difference to the architectural or historic interest of the building.
Having conducted a review, the Secretary of State will either affirm or overturn the original decision. It is important to understand that the original decision will stand until the Secretary of State has made a decision on whether the original decision should be affirmed or overturned. If the original decision is overturned, this will not have retrospective effect.

How to request a review of a listing decision

Reviews are carried out by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and review requests should be made on the Department’s ‘Listing Review Request Form’. The Form is accompanied by Guidance to assist you in making a review request. Both the Form and the Guidance can be downloaded from the ‘Reviews of Listing Decisions’ page of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s website at:

If you are unable to access the website please contact:
The Listing Review Officer
Heritage Protection Branch
Culture Team
Department for Culture Media and Sport
4th Floor
100 Parliament

Review requests should normally be made within 28 days of the date of this letter. Requests made beyond this period may be considered in exceptional circumstances.

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to English Heritage may become publicly available.

Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.

Monday, 28 July 2014

Liverpool International Festival for Business. State Sponsored Vandalism to Scum The Baltic Triangle.

Liverpool's International Festival for Business was hailed as a massive success focusing attention on Liverpool in a positive way.
But why did they sponsor the godawful graffiti fest that called itself Markit?
Sponsoring the Baltic Creative.....who are not really that creative, to scum the Baltic Triangle for a jolly weekend that was, well rubbish really.

Here's what the IFB website says.

MARK-IT presents Liverpool’s first Street Art Festival, bringing you the best of local, national and international Street Art. MARK-IT will turn the streets of the Baltic Triangle into an outdoor gallery filled with all sorts of delights : giant paper animals meandering through the streets, elevated bicycles of concrete and iron, splashes of animatedgloriousness, corridors of woolly colour, dancers in shadow and tiny performers singing songs of love and loss in the cracks and crannies of our metropolis. Investigate the world of the Hidden City this June and see the streets as never before!    

It has now become apparent that the City Council is sponsoring this area to be scummed by a bunch of no-mark spray can merchants.
At least one artist showed irony and sprayed F**K  THE IFB

The Brothers Grimm, The Dusanj Brothers were given the go-ahead to trash the Cains stables.

 Wayne bumped into one of the Dusanj brothers, the one with the Cai-ins private Registration number, so he is obviously recognised.
What are you doing he was asked as he was surveying the spray can merchant work like a proud father.
"Its alright its coming down"
"Have you not got any respect"
"Its not listed" He said
"Not yet its not, you are one of the Dusanj Brothers?
"Yes" he replied confidently
"Not only have you got no respect for all the people you made redundant by text, you also have no respect for architecture. You should be ashamed of yourself" 
He hung his head as if it had got to him and he slithered away to his car with its now worthless private reg, because Cains does not exist. He got back in his car and drove away.   

Anyway the week after the Victoria Monument in Derby square was vandalised by, what appears to be the young scruffy goths that hang out there.
 Young people are easily led so while Liverpool City council are proclaiming 
"Come and down and scum the Baltic triangle, don't worry we will even sponsor it"  
Some may get the wrong idea and think well its alright and this is the rather crude result of a mistaken idea. Is this evidence that STATE SPONSORED VANDALISM does not work.
They removed the graffiti on this Grade II listed monument with a high pressure hose, potentially doing more damage than the dim long haired Emo lookalike that had the can in his hand.

Liverpool Preservation Trust: 5-7 Bridgewater Street To Be Demolished-How Many More Historic Structures Can Liverpool Afford To Lose?

Liverpool Preservation Trust: 5-7 Bridgewater Street To Be Demolished-How Many More Historic Structures Can Liverpool Afford To Lose?

Liverpool Preservation Trust: Save Heaps Rice Mill-Its Too Good To Be Demolished.

Liverpool Preservation Trust: Save Heaps Rice Mill-Its Too Good To Be Demolished.

Friday, 25 July 2014

Heaps Rice Mill Demolition Refused 25th July 2014

Excellent. But its not all over. Last night an impassioned meeting attended by local Councillor Civic Society members general public and council funded vested interests such as Engage Liverpool and Baltic Creative, heard that the plans for demolition of Heaps Rice Mill were to be decided today by delegated powers by un-elected officials at the planning department.
Not sure whats happened yet at this early stage but we have just heard from World Heritage Watchdog David Swift that they have refused prior-application demolition. We thought the reason they were evoking delegated powers was to pass them. (Why did they need prior application discussions when English Heritage are considering listing it).
Maybe Councillor Mumby and the other ward Councillor have intervened, as there is a law that if two Ward Councillors object they cant use delegated powers. Having said that the groundswell of public opinion may have been enough to do it.
Its not all over but its good news.
It is so curios how they tried to slip this one in and last week the electric to Heaps was turned off by the utility companies.

Update: 12.30pm
It has now been confirmed that Councillor Steve Mumby declined to object to the delegated powers decision on the basis of legal advice he had received.
He refused to divulge this legal advise. His advice to campaigners was to do nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can we trust Steve Mumby? The ward councillor for Riverside.
Mr Mumby reminded the meeting about previous schemes, calling Windsor developments attempts to regenerate the area as bordering on fraud. Yet what did he do about it at the time.
How long can Councillor Mumby sit on the fence before he gets a sore behind.  

Update 15.45 pm David Ward

Why is Steve Mumby, who is a Cabinet Member, getting away with this inactivity.
After all its his council under Joe "Il Duce" Anderson's leadership, err we mean dictatorship, that has done away with the City Council Conservation Office.
 Now on this occasion it may have proved that the campaigners have got a stay of execution.......................but what about the next one.
The council website which has the planning application to view on planning explorer application no 14PM/1338 (what does PM mean its usually a F or L) was supposed to allow comments till the 30th July and there are complaints from campaigners that various planning numbers have been changed and altered.
Mumby's Cabinet members are the ones who give the un-elected officials the power.

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

Heaps Mill-English Heritage Slam Plans EXCLUSIVE

We have been informed by Head of International advice at English Heritage that the 25 Storey element of the proposals which will demolish Heaps Rice Mill will be in conflict with the Tall Buildings Element of  Liverpool's Supplementary Planning document for the World Heritage Site.

Liverpool City Council have been instructed by English Heritage not to consider the application until the application to have the building listed has been considered by them.

If you care about conserving your heritage, and stopping the demolition of Heaps Rice Mill, please come to the Public Meeting tomorrow at Unit 51, Baltic Creative, Jamaica Street Liverpool.It will take place from 6p.m. to 8 Joe Anderson Mayor of Liverpool has been invited, as has a representative of English Heritage, at least one local councillor we be there. Peter Brown from Merseyside Civic Society will chair the meeting. If you have ideas or comments about the Mill here is your chance to air them at the meeting. 

Thats Thursday 24th July 2014
This is exceptional news for us all who are campaigning to save Heaps Mill in light of the recent re-in statement of Liverpool on the Unesco "In Danger" list.

FRIDAY, 11 JULY 2014

Liverpool Mercantile and Maritime World Heritage Site-Stays On 2014 Unesco In Danger List

State of conservation of World Heritage properties WHC-14/38.COM/7A, p. 32

inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and 19.Northern Ireland) (C 1150)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 2004

Criteria (ii)(iii)(iv)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger 2012 to present

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

The proposed development of Liverpool Waters

Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

In progress

Corrective measures identified

In progress

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

In progress

Previous Committee Decisions See page

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0 Total amount approved: 0 USD For details, see page

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds


Previous monitoring missions

October 2006: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission; November 2011: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission.

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

• Lack of overall management of new developments;

• Lack of analysis and description of the townscape characteristics relevant to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and important views related to the property and its buffer zone;

• Lack of clearly established maximum heights for new developments, for the backdrops of the World Heritage areas as well as along the waterfront;

• Lack of awareness of developers, building professionals and the wider public about the World Heritage property, its Outstanding Universal Value and requirements under the World Heritage Convention.

Illustrative material See page

Current conservation issues

On 31 January 2014, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at

The report pointed out that, while the overall Liverpool Waters scheme received irrevocable approval, no concrete steps have yet been taken towards its implementation. It explained that detailed master plans for each phase of the 30-year-scheme as well as detailed proposals would need to be elaborated first and reviewed against numerous legal obligations and planning conditions before permission for actual execution would be granted. The State Party considered that this process would still allow addressing the Committee’s concerns and requests. It further informed that design and conservation bodies are being set up, which include the City Council, the developer Peel Holdings and English Heritage, to ensure the respect of the obligations and conditions for planning permissions.

State of conservation of World Heritage properties WHC-14/38.COM/7A, p. 33

inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

In its letter of 31 January 2014, the State Party confirmed that it had received a first draft of the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) prepared by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS on 29 April 2013. On 15 April 2014, the State Party submitted a draft DSOCR prepared on its behalf by English Heritage in coordination with and agreed by the property’s key stakeholders, City Council, Peel Holdings and the chair of the property’s World Heritage Steering Group. The State Party explained that the draft DSOCR focuses on those arrangements and controls that the English legal system allows within the terms of the non-cancellable planning permission. The draft DSOCR is currently being reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in view of its presentation to the Committee at its 39th session.

On 15 April 2014, the State Party also expressed its willingness to consider organising a consultative seminar that would gather the key stakeholders, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre.

Furthermore, the State Party reported on concerns about an approved demolition scheme for an area within the World Heritage property (Ropewalks area), for which a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) had been elaborated, based on which English Heritage recommended to refuse consent.

Finally, the State Party also informed about achievements in restoring and converting significant landmark buildings of Liverpool to new functions, in particular hotel and conference uses.

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM

The findings of the joint reactive monitoring mission of November 2011, as expressed in the opinion of the World Heritage Committee in its previous Decisions, indicated that the Liverpool Waters development scheme, if implemented as currently planned, would irreversibly damage the attributes of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and the conditions of integrity that warranted inscription, and could lead to the potential deletion of the property from the World Heritage List.

The State Party expects detailed master plans for each phase of the overall Liverpool Waters scheme to be developed as well as detailed proposals for each plan, all of which would need specific planning permission; it also considers that this process could address the Committee’s concerns. This process would need to clearly define how this can be achieved based on a revised overall vision for the entire development area.

It is noted that the State Party provided a draft DSOCR and a proposal for corrective measures, and also expressed its willingness to take concrete next steps to work in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies. It is recalled that the corrective measures must be deliverable and clearly linked to an overall vision for the property.

While the State Party submitted a draft DSOCR and a set of corrective measures, it is considered that there have been no further actions to remove the potential danger as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th and 37th sessions. The property is therefore considered under continued threat and it is consequently recommended that the Committee retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Draft Decision: 38 COM 7A.19

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decisions 36 COM 7B.93 and 37 COM 7A.35, adopted at its 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) and 37th (Phnom Penh, 2013) sessions respectively,

3. Also recalling the results of the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission of November 2011,

4. Reiterates its serious concern over the potential threat of the Liverpool Waters development scheme on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, and notes that the implementation of the development, as currently planned, would

State of conservation of World Heritage properties WHC-14/38.COM/7A, p. 34

inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

irreversibly damage the attributes and conditions of integrity that warranted inscription, and could lead to the potential deletion of the property from the World Heritage List;

5. Also notes the information provided by the State Party, and requests it to:

a) submit comprehensive documentation for any proposed detailed master plans and detailed planning proposals, before they are adopted, together with an overall vision for the property over-arching such master plans, as well as details of the draft legal obligations and draft planning conditions for granting permission for any future development proposals,

b) ensure that the process whereby master plans and detailed plans for the Liverpool Waters scheme, when developed, takes into consideration the concerns of the World Heritage Committee;

6. Strongly urges the State Party to consider all measures that would allow changes to the extent and scope of the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme to ensure the continued coherence of the architectural and town-planning attributes, and the continued safeguarding of the OUV of the property including the conditions of authenticity and integrity;

7. Further notes with appreciation that the State Party submitted a proposal for the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger along with a set of corrective measures, and expressed its willingness to pursue consultations with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in view of its finalisation for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015;

8. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015, an updated report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015;

9. Decides to retain Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) on the World Heritage List in Danger.