Wednesday, 2 December 2009

Setback on University Campus Scheme.

Have the planning committee finally been taken by a stroke of common sense?.
Yesterdays meeting was a done deal Florence Gersten feared. She a fearless and talented heritage campaigner was joined by several (total of 7) objectors armed with signed petitions, who put a case forward in a most understandable manner. A representitive of Minster Court Residents association did a fine speach as did several local residents. This is a scheme that most consider needs to go back to the drawing board. Unless you are David "Do I live in Liverpool or Southport" Irving who it appeared did all he could to assist this application through. The amendment was put forward by Labour Princes Park councillor Anna Rothery who is up for re-election soon.
There were no press at the planning meeting. No the local papers do not even turn up to planning meetings now.more content to rehash the same stories over and over again than leave the warm office. Example
1st December.
August 11th
Lazyness will get you nowhere the people of Liverpool deserve better than this.
It was Nick Small who phoned the press outside and a photographer came over to get a flick.
It is no wonder they get the height of the building wrong which is why the plans are objected to on the grounds of the scale and the massing and a load of other facts but what do we expect from the local press.


  1. Brilliant. A decently-sized and good quality building proposed on an empty carpark on the university campus and aimed for student accomodation (and therefore 100 pc appropriate for its location) knocked back.

    Wayne is celebrating. Do you like empty derelict sites in the middle of the city? Do you like their miserable and depressing use as surface carparks? You must as you crow whenever a proposal to repair the many gaping holes in the city's inner fabric is fustrated.

  2. Henry read the article again. I neither passed an opinion or wrote the above. It said it had hit a setback and most think it needs to go back to the drawing board. Which was the opinion of the rubber stamping planning committee.
    Of the opinions I trust is that of Florence Gersten.

  3. Dear Henry the M,
    The proposed building was most certainly not 'decently sized' when compared with other structures in the area. There is no building of more than 4 floors along Myrtle Street, and there is most definitely no construction of the mass of the proposed hall of residence. The University of Liverpool cites the Roxby Tower as a building of comparable height to that of the proposed residences. However, the Campus Master Plan included with the original Planning Application for the building shows that the Roxby Tower will disappear and be replaced with a much lower construction.
    As for you belief that the L7 / L8 border is a '100 pc appropriate [...] location' for a huge hall of residence, this does not reflect in any way the views of local residents who are fully aware of what happened to the local community in Marybone when 2,500 students moved in. An influx of 710 students into the building (plus many hundreds, and possibly thousands more into future developments planned by the University of Liverpool for the Myrtle Street area) will 'ghettoise' the neighbourhood and place under great strain a community that local residents have striven extremely hard to construct since the Toxteth Riots 28 years ago. All locals know that students enjoy an active (and noisy) nightlife, and while they are aware of this they cannot countenance experiencing yet more of it -- perpetrated by massive numbers of undergraduates -- right on their doorsteps. Local residents are rightly very concerned about the future of their community in the face of a mass influx of students. God forbid that tensions arising between the two groups ever lead to anything even vaguely akin to what happened in the area in the summer of 1981.
    People who live in the area welcome its development and regeneration, but these need to take place in a manner sensitive to the realities of the local community.
    Nobody likes to see land lying empty (although, Henry the M, the car park is most assuredly never empty, and this area of L7 / L8 is most decidedly not 'the middle of the city' as you put it, but a quiet, outer city centre residential neighbourhood), and local people would welcome development.
    However, this should be in line structurally with other local buildings (i.e. three to four floors high), and should aim to provide accommodation for persons whose profile matches that of existing local residents, e.g. families with children, couples, retired or working individuals, or those currently seeking employment, but NOT large numbers of single undergraduates. The University should consider construction of houses and flats for students with families, with a large percentage of the properties available to external rental (NOT to undergraduates) or even for purchase.
    Now, Henry the M, talking of those 'empty derelict sites in the middle of the city' of which you speak, let's think about places such as our beloved Royal Insurance Building on North John Street, or the Fruit Exchange on Victoria Street. Those (and plenty more) are empty and fast becoming derelict. If the John Moores University could turn hulks such as the Bullring into quality student accommodation, why can't the University of Liverpool buy up large, empty buildings in the city centre and convert them into student residences? The students would love to live right in the middle of the city and, given that the city centre residential population is still fairly small, the students would inconvenience far less people than they would in the middle of a QUIET residential neighbourhood in L7 / L8.

  4. And that was by someone who knows what they are talking about and took the time to go to a planning meeting. Henry.

  5. It's on the bleeding university campus! Anonymous is simply a nimby. Why or earth he or she moved to Liverpool university's campus if he or she hated students... Unbelievable.

    And 20,000 people live in the core city centre.

  6. Henry-the-Plant more like he has to a member of Liverpool Vision or someone with a vested interest.

  7. It is strange they at Liverpool Vision always use the ugly car park or derelict land routine to sell something. Usually it is the very people who own the land who have made it a derelict piece of land as was the case at the Pier Head when NML owned the land.

    I note that one of the reasons for defferment is the lack of car parking space in the vicinity.


  8. Dear Henry the M, You are indeed right that the proposed nine-storey hall of residence would have been built on the university campus. So what's your point? Does the fact that it was proposed for a piece of land that lies inside the current boundary of the campus in any way invalidate or contradict my earlier point that it lies on the border of L7 and L8?
    Although the car park on which the University of Liverpool plans to build is indeed part of the campus, it is on the very outer boundary of the campus and is very, very close to a significant number of homes occupied by local people.
    To reiterate my earlier points, then: the proposed building is entirely out of keeping with other construction in the area in terms of height, mass and scale, and the influx of hundreds -- and, in future, possibly thousands -- of students would endanger the community that local people have worked hard to construct over the years since the riots.
    As for your question as to why I 'moved to Liverpool University's campus', note the following: 1. The university is called the University of Liverpool, not Liverpool University. 2. My family came to live in the area (within less than half a mile of the proposed development site) over a hundred years ago -- is this the 'move' to which you refer? If so, please check your historical facts to discover which parts of Myrtle Street belonged to the University of Liverpool a century ago. 3. Local people do not live on the campus; we live in a residential neighbourhood. But perhaps your comment reveals an 'insider knowledge' of how the University of Liverpool proposes to develop the Myrtle Street area, thus expanding the campus to the south of that particular thoroughfare? Perhaps that is why you think local people live on the campus? (Or will do if the University of Liverpool's master plan goes ahead.)
    And what on earth makes you claim that I hate students? There is no evidence whatsoever in my text to back up your assertion. Local residents (amongst which I include myself) are fully aware of the financial benefit to the city that large numbers of students suppose, and many people appreciate students as personable and knowledgeable young people. We are also more than aware, however, that students can lead a busy and often noisy social life, often very late at night, thus causing massive inconvenience to local people whose quality of life is significantly impaired by student behaviour. To state this, which is backed up by an extensive number of local voices and reports to the police, is not in any way an indication of hatred towards students but an articulation of local knowledge.
    A nimby, as you call me, is a ‘not in my back yard-er’. I don’t have a yard, but I DO have a community. I’ll call myself a nimc, then: not in my community. Because if thousands of students were to move into the neighbourhood – and they could do if the University of Liverpool’s plans for Myrtle Street were to go ahead – the community would be devastated.
    We understand the University of Liverpool’s imperative to make a profit from renting accommodation to students, and local residents are in no way opposed to the institution’s prerogative in that regard. We also understand that the university wishes to improve its standing among the Russell Group, a desire we also support and which we laud. But these ends must be achieved without occasioning the devastation of a cohesive, coherent local community.

  9. Peter Brown the Chair of the Merseyside Civic Society teaches Civic Design at the University.
    Brian "Mad Hatter" Hatton also works there isnt that strange and the place is still in a derilict state.

    What do they have to say on the matter?

    Not sure if it was bomb damage or wanton vanadalism that seen off a huge part of Abercromby Square as a new fresh bit of design. Clever!

  10. Florence Gersten can tell you which local institution knocked down all of the fine Georgian terraces around the Myrtle Street / Chatham Street area... And also knocked down the facade of a beautiful (albeit bomb damaged) church that fronted onto Abercromby Square... Answers on a postcard (but no prizes for guessing!!).

  11. Lets face it this part of L7/L8 is pretty rubbish and lacks any real sense of place. Sadly the very solid Georgian and Victorian urban fabric of this area has since WW2 been slowly but surely ruined and knocked down and replaced with low quality flats for social housing or just empty land. We have the 'lovely' Myrtle Parade, which needs to go, and is totally offensive, this could be replaced with flats or townhouses for families and workers.

    It seams right for the Uni to redevelope their carpark by providing decent accomdation for students. The proposed plans are acceptable providing its decent architecture and good quality. Height isnt an issue, as its an inner city residential area and should be of decent density, plus the site doesnt over look any houses. Crown Street and Grove Street already have a high number of student housing, and doesnt have any big issues as a result.


    It has now been nodded through by th planning committee.

    It is easy for everyone to say get rid of car parks they are of no use..........where will people park their cars though.

  13. is the date passed ? if not so please let me know how can i apply and what will be the process of payment, I want to get price of Addmission in your university for one of my relative,

    Student accommodation close to Manchester University | Student accommodation close to Manchester