Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Is Joe Anderson Driven By Peel Holdings?

Is Joe Anderson going to be the Council leader that loses Liverpool its World Heritage Site Status?                               Is Joe Anderson really clever enough to think out of  the Arrogant Peel Holdings Box?                                                Is Joe Anderson really silly enough not to understand what World Heritage Site status means?                                         Is Joe Anderson sitting far too close to Lindsey Ashworth of Peel Holdings?

Is Ged Fitzgerald-The Chief Executive Who Loses Liverpool World Heritage Site Status?

It looks that way even the planners say we will lose the WHS status if the plans for Liverpool Waters are approved.
David Bartlett, who is showing himself above and beyond most at the local Trinity Mirror writes in todays Echo;

LIVERPOOL must be prepared to lose its World Heritage Site status if the £5.5bn Liverpool Waters scheme for the city’s northern docklands is approved, officials warned today.
Planners have recommended Liverpool council’s planning committee backs Peel Holdings’ £5.5bn Liverpool Waters project on Tuesday. There is a video on the Echo website showing the full horror.
But they warned the decision could have dire consequences for the city’s World Heritage Site, which includes large parts of the development area, the waterfront and the city centre.
They suggested approving Peel’s proposals next week will lead to the city being put on the “danger list” of under-threat World Heritage Sites in the summer.
Liverpool Waters was the subject of intense debate after Unesco, the body which oversees World Heritage Sites, sent an inspection mission to Liverpool in November last year to assess its impact on the city’s waterfront.
Their subsequent report said the huge scheme would damage the city’s World Heritage Site “beyond repair” and the Three Graces would be relegated to playing “second violin”.
The government’s official heritage watchdog English Heritage has also objected.
Liverpool Waters promises to create 20,000 jobs. It features 9,000 apartments, hundreds of offices, hotels, bars and a cruise terminal, as well as the 55-storey Shanghai Tower.
A 513-page report written ahead of next week’s meeting sets out the view of council planning manager Mark Loughran, who believes the inspection report had “significant weakness” and believes the heritage benefits outweigh the negatives.
But he warned the committee must fully understand the implications.
Mr Loughran believes Unesco will first place Liverpool on the “World Heritage In Danger” list and then remove it from the main World Heritage list “if/when the ‘damaging’ components of the proposal are commenced”.
His report stated: “The Liverpool Waters proposals are clearly unique and have the potential to change the future of the city.
“The development proposed is on an unprecedented scale almost beyond living experience which, if delivered, would transform the city’s waterfront, creating a new international business destination, expand the city’s economy and regenerate north Liverpool.”
If approved, as widely expected, the application will be referred to communities secretary Eric Pickles MP to see if he wants a public inquiry.
It may also have to be referred to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Mr Loughran also said a public inquiry is “probable”.Peel Holdings have warned they will walk away if a public inquiry is called and concentrate exclusively on Wirral Waters – a similar project in Birkenhead which already has planning permission.

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

Lindsey Ashworth-What an Arrogant Man. And Fib after Fib after Fib!

Well what do you expect when working for a company such as Peel Holdings.

But its the way he tells them, he keeps on going on about how the world and his dog is against them, but they just don't get the message....they are arrogant bastards. Oh and blackmailers, now they threaten to walk away from a scheme that they cant deliver on, because they have not got the class and they blame English Heritage for it and everyone else but it is they who are at fault.

Eddy Rhead of the Manchester Modernists says in the Architects Journal
 The arrogance of Peel and Lindsey Ashworth in particular holds no bounds. The fact they are prepared to take their ball home with them if they dont get to win is typical and shows their lack of commitment to sustainable development. Ashworth is the one, when faced with criticism from English Heritage and UNESCO that Lverpool Waters would threaten Pier Head's World Heritage Site status claimed "We are right and they are completely wrong".

Wayne backed Eddy up
Call my Bluff is a game this arogant developer Peel Holdings and its oily rags are used to playing.

Only this time they are playing it with a Unesco World Heritage Site and the city council...Peels poodles are allowing them to do what they want only to lose us the coveted title.

Why not look to Amsterdam for inspiration and how they are able to build humane sustainable architecture around its historic waterways?

Why would you want to turn a WHS into Milton Keyne-on-Sea it makes no sense.

The fact of the matter is the developers do not have the class to deliver and will flip the schem if planning permission is granted.

Trafford Park-On-Mersey is just not good enough for my city.

Now the hole in the wall gang John Whittaker and his Lap-Dogs, not content with stealing our World Heritage Site in a smash and grab are whacking hell out of Jesse Hartleys Dock Wall, some of the finest masonry, built by Napoleonic prisoners of war, in the country in a seperate planning application.

Friday, 24 February 2012

Liverpool Waters-A Second Rate Presentation for a Third Rate Scheme.

It looks like a bunch of amateurs have set up an exhibition for Liverpool Waters scheme that will destroy Liverpool's World Heritage Site.
Well one could hardly call the ruthless and sinister Peel Holdings amateurs could one.
It is on in Lord Street Liverpool in the old Specsavers shop, for two days only, Friday 24th February and Saturday the 25th February.

Obviously the architects who drew up the third rate scheme, should have gone to.............

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Peel Holdings Submit Planning Application To Smash Open Historic Dock Wall.

Planning application no 12L/0428
Proposal To alter dock boundary wall. To enlarge existing opening of dock boundary wall at Princess Dock.
Create new opening at Junction of Dublin Street and Regent Road. Installation of new gate piers.

While all the fuss is going on over the application for Liverpool Waters Lindsey Ashworth has sliced an application into the planners to knock a hole in the Grade II listed Dock wall.
This was built by Napoleonic Prisoners of War and has always been held in such esteem by consecutive planners that it could not be touched.

Liverpool waters plans are incoherent CABE and EH say..........why are they being so devious to knock these plans in now?
 Are they hoping no-one will notice.

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

Peel Holdings Stranglehold On The Region Investigated by the BBC.

Last night Arif Ansari investigated the Peel Group's, holding over the area around the Mersey basin. Wayne gave a soundbite as did Frank McSpiv of Downtown Liverpool, which Peel belong to.
Joe Anderson again goes on about the World Heritage being a badge.
 Someone should pin a badge on his forehead. "I am a Spiv for Peel Holdings".
It is clear that Peel are moving as much industry down the Manchester Ship Canal and with it jobs in the industrial sector.
 click on link to watch programme.
It did not mention just exactly happened to Cuba Mill in Ramsbottom a couple of decades ago when John Whittaker was just starting out though. Peel said they take consultation seriously, yes and my auntie is my uncle.
 Arif is no Jeremy Paxman but this is BBC Northwest and he does his best......not to upset anyone.

Monday, 20 February 2012

Peel Group Investigated by BBC.

Yesterdays Sunday Politics show had one of the "sinister" Peel Holdings directors questioned by Ari Ansari.
Arif is no Jeremy Paxman but he tried to bring them to account.
Inside Out tonight will also feature a look into their stranglehold on the region. 
Watch it here

What is alarming is how Luciana Berger the MP for Wavertree is so out of touch saying Peel Holdings have now dealt with the Unesco concerns. This is what happens when you have absentee M.P's representing the region. Why was Louise Ellman not asked questions as it is her constituency?

Friday, 17 February 2012

Investigating Peel Holdings-Inside Out-7.30 BBC 1 Monday February 20th 2012

Arif Ansari investigates the investment plans and the influence of The Peel Group in the Nort West.

Liverpool's Cruise Liner Cock Up-What is Southampton's View.

We at the LPT, on this blog, said right from the start, just pay the Cruise Liner European aid money back and we can start running a business that matters and helps the local economy.
The level of journalism at the local press, is alarming and we think needs correcting forthwith.
 There are certain journalists who seem to think they can help Joe Anderson to become Lord Mayor of Liverpool by giving him a platform, to perform, without telling the other side of the story.
This article by Peter Elson starts

CUNARD Line is set to start transatlantic crossings from Liverpool now the city’s cruise terminal turnaround row is resolved.
It will be the first such sailing in 47 years and a triumphant end to the Post’s Get On Board campaign to allow cruises to start and finish at the Pier Head.
It goes on;  Cllr Joe Anderson, Liverpool Council leader, said: “This is the icing on the cake for allowing turnarounds from Liverpool Cruise Terminal.
“We should celebrate restarting these historic links to America and it builds on what we plan to do.
“I am thrilled about this for our tourist industry and its job prospects. We can even think about direct Liverpool-New York air links to service the fly-cruise market.
“It is the rocket fuel for the future, giving us the opportunity to strengthen our sustainable growth.
“We have also got exploit this through the cruise-and-stay market by expanding our events programme and protecting our heritage.
“It also gives me the opportunity to ask Peel Holdings about developing its planned Liverpool Waters cruise berth.
“We could link the two facilities so two liners could berth at once.”

(It has 7 comments) the articles below have 200 comments combined.

 Sunday February 5th Southampton Echo
LIVERPOOL has been accused of jumping the gun after boasting it had struck a deal with ministers to expand its cruise operation within three months.
read the comments section

The shock development was revealed by council leader Joe Anderson, who said he was “really excited” about the city becoming a turnaround port – placing it in direct competition with Southampton.
Aside from repaying up to £9.2m to the Government, Liverpool is attempting to write off all of the £8.6m in EU funds it was given to build its £21m Pier Head terminal.
The Merseysiders’ move was branded “arrogant” by a Hampshire MP, who forecast a possible legal challenge from Southampton unless all the cash is paid back.
The Department for Transport insisted it was still waiting for an independent assessment of how much state funding Liverpool should pay back.
But Cllr Anderson, who has just launched a high-profile bid to become the new Mayor of Liverpool, said: “We can now look forward to the big ships returning to the Mersey to start and end cruises.” He also said Liverpool would be able to spread its UK repayments over “a number of years” – based on cruise income.
Southampton council leader Royston Smith said: “It’s nothing more than political posturing. I believe he’s trying to force the
minister’s hand by announcing a deal has been reached when it clearly
Southampton’s port boss Doug Morrison, right, said Liverpool’s announcement was “frankly bizarre” and insisted it must pay back all public subsidies for a “level playing field.”
“Full repayment of all the public money, including the European grants, should be a mandatory condition if the Liverpool terminal wants to compete with private investment for the turnaround cruise business,” he said.
Last month, shipping minister Mike Penning rejected Liverpool’s offer to pay back £5.3m of the £9.2m UK grants it received to lift a ban on cruises being allowed to start and finish at its City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal.
He said he would seek independent advice on an appropriate figure, and was clear that turnaround operations would require state aid clearance from the European Commission.
The Commission said it would wait for the UK government’s final decision before its next move. Liverpool believes it is under no legal obligation to repay any of the European funds, and is pressing ahead after claiming a deal with Mr Penning.
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis said he would accept nothing short of total repayment of both grants.
He said: “This shows a degree of arrogance which may well be humbled in the courts.
“It’s a particularly reckless move they may end up regretting.”
Southampton Itchen MP John Denham said: “There is no way a British minister can simply do a deal to
settle this. Our position has still got to be we are not afraid of competition, but it has to be fair competition.”
A Liverpool council spokesman said it was not being “presumptive”, but was “getting the wheels in motion”.
Councillor Anderson said: “We have held talks with the minister and agreed we will pay back any sum decided by the independent panel.”
A Department for Transport spokesman added: “As the shipping minister made clear last month, we are currently seeking independent advice on an appropriate repayment figure, and any decision on whether to lift the restrictions on turnaround operations will be subject to state aid clearance from the European Commission.”
LIVERPOOL City Council has revealed that it plans to cater for turnaround cruises in three months’ time. Friday 3rd February

The shock announcement was made by council leader Joe Anderson, who said the city would pay back whatever cash is demanded to use it £20m taxpayer funded terminal to start and finish cruises.
The shipping minister last week rejected an offer by Liverpool to repay £5.3m of the taxpayer funding it was granted by the Government to lift the ban.
Independent experts are now advising ministers on how much Liverpool should repay after complaints from Southampton and other ports over unfair competition.
But the latest Liverpool announcement made no mention of the £9m of EU cash that it received to build its Pier Head terminal.
The public handouts were granted on the strict condition the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal, which opened in 2007, was only used for stop-off cruises.
The audacious move was met with surprise and dismay in Southampton, which has fought Liverpool’s attempts to lift the restrictions on turnaround cruises before paying back all the public subsidy it received.
Councillor Anderson, who has just launched a bid to become the new mayor of Liverpool, claimed to have an agreement with the minister, and told the Liverpool Post: “I am very excited about what will be a new era for us.”
He added: “I expect Liverpool to be so popular for turnarounds we will be developing a second cruise terminal with Peel in its Liverpool Waters plans.
“I want to thank Mr Penning for being so attentive and giving us a fair hearing.
Southampton council leader Royston Smith said: "If he is now prepared to pay the entire public subsidy back then I can only say perhaps he should have offered that in the first place.”
The Department for Transport insisted nothing had changed, saying it was waiting for an independent assessment of how much state funding Liverpool should pay back.
Doug Morrison, ABP port director for Southampton, said repayment of UK funding could not be considered in isolation to the EU funding.
He said: “Our position has been straightforward all along. We have never had an issue with cruises starting and ending in Liverpool, but we believe the cruise industry should be run on a commercial basis and that there is no place for public subsidy of any kind.
"Full repayment of all the public money, including the European grants, should be a mandatory condition if the Liverpool terminal wants to compete with private investment for the turnaround cruise business.”

This article has 137 comments

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

John Whittaker of Peel Holdings May Have a Revolt on His Hands.

By Chris Barry - Editor, North West Business News

THE planned acquisition by Trafford Centre owner Capital Shopping Centres of two parcels of land owned by John Whittaker, the founder of Manchester property investment giant Peel Group, faces more opposition from investors.
Shareholders - including Mr Whittaker who is CSC's deputy chairman and controls more than 20% of the group's shares - will vote on the controversial property deals on Friday.
The Sunday Times said investors, including Simon Property Group - which holds 4.1% of the stock, is planning to oppose the acquisitions of the land from Peel in Spain and Scotland.
click on pic to enlarge
The £8.4m Spanish land aquisition which Peel had ear-marked for the development of Trafford Centre Espana - a 860.000sq ft leisure and shopping complex near Malaga - is seen as the most controversial deal.
US-based Simon Property Group - which last year threatened to bid for Capital Shopping Centres around the time of the group's £1.6bn acquisition of Peel's Trafford Centre - described the transaction as "sweetheart deals".Another CSC investor, Thames River, has also questioned the deal, describing it as "negative in the context of corporate governance."
A third group, Henderson Global Investors, says Mr Whittaker should abstain from the vote given the "conflicts of interest."
CSC has defended its position, with chief executive David Fischel descirbing claims of sweetheart deals as "nonsense" and that lawyers had carefully scrutinised the deals to ensure all was well.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Tesco Opens a Store In Liverpool's World Heritage Site.

 They promised us a "landmark building coming soon" and then they passed plans for a Travelodge in the World Heritage Site. Then to make the matter worse in the Travelodge, is going to be a Tesco...........Every Little Hurts, but this is killing me.

You have to question the mentality of those who oversee planning blight in Liverpool. Lets show the world how you look after a world heritage site, and then you trash it. Tesco tear-aways will we see the mumbies who fought to stop Tesco opening ion their beloved Hope Street. No We think not.
In December 2009 a big fuss occurred In a planning inspector ruled in favour of the city council, which had rejected Tesco’s scheme for a 27,000 sq ft superstore and indoor and outdoor markets after a major public outcry.

Tesco-pool the new name for Liverpool? Unless someone at the council decides to shop at another supermarket that is.
World Heritage S#ite.

Thursday, 9 February 2012

AEW Turn a Blind Eye To Shoddy Work At The Museum Of Liverpool

Architect says contractors to blame for faults at National Museum of Liverpool Courtesy of our friends at Building Design.

The architect blamed for a host of problems that have plagued the newly opened National Museum of Liverpool (NML) has said they were the fault of contractors and nothing to do with the building’s design.
The £72 million landmark opened last summer but has been blighted by a series of faults, including dangerous and defective outdoor steps and ceiling problems linked to a collapse that injured a workman.
Owner and operator, the Board of Trustees of National Museums & Galleries on Merseyside, issued a £3.5 million writ to Manchester practice AEW last autumn.
But, in a counter-claim filed at the High Court at the end of last month, AEW hit back, defending the design and blaming the project’s contractors.
AEW, brought in to finish the project after the original architect, 3XN, was removed from the project, dismissed the museum’s allegations that the system used for the building’s suspended ceiling was dangerous and a “material cause” of its collapse.
“The [ceiling] panels were not prone to failure by reason of any design exercise undertaken by AEW,” it said. “To the extent that there are any deficiencies in the suspended ceiling, they are the responsibility of [the contractor]. The panels were not prone to catastrophic collapse as a result of any failure by AEW.”
In its claim, AEW said parts of the museum’s allegations were “vague, insufficiently particularised and embarrassing”.
In its claim, the museum said it would need to replace precast steps and the entrance terrace because of AEW’s “defective” design. It added the steps were unsafe and rainwater leaked through them into rooms below.
But AEW said the design of the steps and terrace was not defective and added that remedial work undertaken by the museum had caused a waterproof membrane to leak.
“There was no need to remedy the steps and terraces,” it said. “The closure of the area to the public was unnecessary as was the removal of substantial sections of the step and seat units. Leaving the membrane exposed and without any protection will cause deterioration and risk of damage.”
AEW said the contractor had cast the steps in the wrong shape and size, which prevented their installation in accordance with the design.
“The original design for the steps and seats could have been built had [the contractor] correctly manufactured the step and seat units,” it added.
The architect went on to say that it would seek a separate order for costs from NML “to the extent that additional costs are incurred by reason of NML’s refusal to provide the further information requested”.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Unesco may put brakes on Waterloo redevelopment.

Heritage inspectors claim projects by Chipperfield, Squire and Hopkins would destroy views

Unesco is threatening to delay work on a string of high-profile schemes near London’s Waterloo Station because it is worried they will destroy views from the Palace of Westminster.
In December, a team of inspectors visited the World Heritage Site, which also includes Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church, and is drawing up a report for this summer’s meeting of the World Heritage Committee in St Petersburg.
While Unesco has no statutory powers, it can ultimately remove World Heritage status and planning authorities will be anxious not to upset it.
The view from Parliament Square across the Thames towards County Hall
Its concerns centre on a view from Parliament Square running between Portcullis House and Big Ben to the other side of the river Thames where it says planned redevelopment work could spoil views of the World Heritage Site.
Among the schemes in question is David Chipperfield’s Elizabeth House, which developer Chelsfield is expected to submit to Lambeth Council planners this spring.
Also under threat are Squire & Partners’ Shell Centre and Hopkins’ proposed masterplan for Waterloo station — which is linked to the Elizabeth House scheme. All are part of a prominent redevelopment zone called the Waterloo Opportunity Area which was launched by the London mayor’s office in 2007.
Unesco’s visit was prompted by a report made last summer which raised a number of concerns about the Palace of Westminster site. It said not enough had been done to protect views and, as a result, local planners “should refrain from approving any new development”.
But developers have accused the heritage body of scaremongering. One developer, who asked not to be named, said: “They want to cause a fuss and scare the government in an Olympic year. The heritage protection in place is absolutely adequate.”
Another developer added: “They were talking about a buffer zone a few years ago, which is just mad.”
A Unesco spokesman defended its most recent visit and added that conservation sites were regularly reviewed to ensure safeguarding was adequate.
As part of an attempt to appease Unesco, mayor Boris Johnson has unveiled proposals to protect the views between Portcullis House and Big Ben. A four-week consultation about this view ends next week, but in the consultation document architects and developers are told that any developments within the Waterloo Opportunity Area should be “sensitively designed and be of the highest architectural quality”.
It adds: “Any development that appears in the interval between the Clock Tower and Portcullis House should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site.”
Last year Johnson gave his backing to developers working on plans close to London’s four World Heritage Sites, which also include the Tower of London, Kew Gardens and Maritime Greenwich.
He said: “The challenge is to ensure we protect the qualities of the designated sites that make them worthy of international designation, while allowing the city to grow and change around them.”
Chipperfield and Squire & Partners both declined to comment.

Courtesy of our friends at BD Magazine

Monday, 6 February 2012

Design Council CABE Slam Liverpool Waters.

DCCABE Slam the Liverpool Waters scheme even before the Unesco report. They condemn the incoherent and ridiculous Peel Holdings proposals that Liverpool City Council seem willing to support. Meanwhile Joe Anderson Liverpool City Council leader says;
"Whatever happens in 2012, let me be absolutely clear about one thing: we will back Liverpool Waters.”

Liverpool Waters, Liverpool

Designed by Chapman Taylor

Planning reference: 10O/2424

Previously reviewed: 25 February 2011. Read the previous Design Review comments

We continue to applaud the level of ambition of Peel Holdings for the Liverpool Waters scheme. We appreciate the work carried out since the initial submission of the application in an effort to clarify the intent behind the application. We see the potential in the proposals submitted, but we think that this continues to be hindered by a weakly expressed masterplan and parameters that are not yet strong enough to serve as an effective planning tool by the planning authority or useful guide to developers. In our view, while the principles and objectives are broadly more scheme specific, they remain difficult to grasp due to the complex structure of the application. There is a need to convey these in a more straightforward manner in a single place alongside the scheme vision to give the planning authority a clearer sense of how the proposals will secure a development that draws on its special history to become an attractive place live, work and visit.

Scheme principles

We welcome the decision to revise the principles governing the Liverpool Waters scheme. Those contained in the Design and Access Statement are now more closely tied to the Liverpool Waters site. However, this is undermined by the variously referenced ‘key principles’, ‘overarching principles’ and ‘overall principles’ found across the application documents, including the Building Characterisation and Precedent Study and Public Realm Characterisation Study. Many of these continue to be generic or vague, for example ‘to connect spaces’ and ‘visibility of landmark buildings’. Therefore, overall the principles remain difficult to grasp and lack coherence. Every principle should be specific to the site and give a clear sense of the rationale underpinning the scheme parameters that flow from it. Clear, unambiguous principles are vital to assist the local authority in determining the acceptability of reserved matters applications, particularly in cases where applications challenge the approved outline scheme but still remain within the spirit of the masterplan.

Planning parameters

We continue to support the strategy for a parameters-based planning application. This could prove an effective way of implementing agreed principles by setting the physical confines within which development should come forward. However, while we appreciate the submission of further illustrative detail intended to support the parameters submitted, we continue to think there should be a greater level of commitment in the parameters themselves. As noted in our original response to the application, the decision not to define block footprints with limits of deviation or set minimum and maximum height thresholds for buildings highlights the limited value of the parameters as currently proposed. Developers will be left without a prescribed building ‘envelope’ to adhere to, causing potential uncertainty and confusion. The local planning authority will also find it both difficult to assess the compliance of reserved matters applications against the masterplan and harder to resist schemes that challenge the intentions of the masterplan if these are not translated into usable parameters that are expressed spatially.

The Building Characterisation and Precedent Study’s illustrations of the intended type and form of blocks and how the uses within them could be arranged gives some sense of the typology and quality of buildings sought and how richness across neighbourhoods may develop. We also welcome the analysis and guidelines on how significant historic fabric should be protected and incorporated across the neighbourhoods proposed, including buried archaeology across the site. We support efforts to create a hierarchy of public spaces, although it is unclear how the parameters will define this. For example, parameters might have set building widths and frontages to roads and water to show how blocks framing these spaces will support such a hierarchy.

We understand the intention to control all of the above through planning conditions and the sub-masterplans for each of the neighbourhoods. However, in our view, it will be very difficult to capture requirements in conditions that are best expressed spatially. While the sub-masterplans might provide that spatial dimension, the intentions of the outline masterplan could be misinterpreted if this is left to be defined at a later stage, neighbourhood by neighbourhood. Therefore, we remain of the view that the outline masterplan is the best vehicle to secure this. It would help to ensure a consistency of approach across the site, giving clear direction on aspects like the definition of building frontages along the waterfront.
We note the inclusion of a development parcel phasing diagram but think its scope could be extended to include triggers for physical and social infrastructure delivery on a phased basis. In our view, parameters could also be employed to codify sustainability targets, setting a baseline against which developments should be measured.
Ultimately, the key test for any set of parameters should be whether it allows the masterplan intentions to be clearly understood and, in turn, how it can ensure design quality is maintained over the lifetime of the development. Therefore, if they are to serve as a practical tool to guide those implementing future phases, setting ground rules that establish what is fixed in the masterplan and what can change over time, it should be evident as to which parameters are absolute and which will remain loose. As submitted, we do not yet have the confidence that the parameters will provide a sound basis by which to control design quality across the Liverpool Waters site. We ask that the design team revise them to address the concerns raised above.

Spatial masterplan
It is critical that the outline submission includes a fully illustrative spatial masterplan for the whole site in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the scheme principles could be applied so as to achieve a positive outcome. The planning application refers at various points to the ‘spatial masterplan’ although no such document has been submitted. While the sketch 3-D axonometric gives some sense of the intended scale and massing of the proposals it is not a replacement for this. The 2-D ‘Illustrative Masterplan’ (Drawing CTL-016-01), submitted as one of the scheduled submitted plans, does not fulfil this role either. It neither articulates a vision for Liverpool Waters, nor demonstrates how land use, infrastructure, landscape, and building form considerations have been integrated into a coherent whole. Instead, it raises serious questions over the level of connectedness Liverpool Waters will actually achieve with its hinterland, especially the North Shore Area. It also suggests an overly complex network of routes within the site, making the legibility of streets and connections difficult to grasp.

We recognise that the spatial masterplan will need to be adaptable enough to accommodate change over the 30 year build-out of the site. Nevertheless, it is an important instrument to be used alongside the planning parameters to set a scheme which is ‘fixed for now’, that establishes a quality benchmark against which the impact of any future departures proposed can be measured. In other words, it should provide a full illustration of a potentially positive outcome for Liverpool Waters. We urge the design team to provide such a plan in its submission.

Sub-masterplans and selection of architects
Given the importance placed on the sub-masterplans to translate principles and parameters into well-functioning neighbourhoods, it is critical that these are subjected to a high level of scrutiny by both the lead masterplanner and the local planning authority. Therefore, we advise that the process of selecting sub-masterplanners should be agreed with the local planning authority to ensure that appointed designers have the necessary experience and skills to masterplan these neighbourhoods. The lead masterplanner should then continue to oversee the sub-masterplanners to ensure that they carry through the intentions of the Liverpool Waters masterplan. This has been critical to the success of Hafen City in Hamburg where both the lead masterplanner and the City maintained strong control throughout the detailed masterplanning process. This ensured that the ‘non-negotiable’ elements of the masterplan like block scale in relation to street widths were respected while other aspects like architectural expression could be varied. If this approach is adopted at Liverpool Waters it will give the City the reassurance that a minimum quality threshold will be met by every building on the site regardless of the experience of the architects involved in its build-out. The most prominent building projects should, however, be subject to international competition, particularly in cases like the Shanghai Tower where the impact will be felt much more widely than just the site itself.

Planning conditions
We understand that a design panel would be established to review individual detailed planning applications but there will be a need to step back to review the scheme as a whole as it develops. Reviews of the masterplan will need to take place at key points in the build-out of site to ensure that the intentions expressed in the approved masterplan are carried through. In our view, it is essential that an independent design review process is a condition of the planning consent as proposed.
The framing of planning conditions will be a crucial element in the delivery of a successful scheme for this historic and highly significant site. Their role will be vital in ensuring that the pace of development is managed so as to ensure successive phases do not commence until the necessary social and physical infrastructure is in place. Equally, the conditioning of any outline approval should ensure that sub-masterplans and reserved matters applications which deviate from the approved masterplan and associated parameters will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they improve upon or equate to the permitted scheme. The local planning authority will need to work closely with Peel Holdings to develop a set of robust conditions to the satisfaction of both parties. The design team should consider how other projects of a similar scale and complexity have been conditioned, such as London’s Kings Cross.
The outline planning application does not make clear how Liverpool Waters will achieve truly sustainable economic development, as defined in the new National Planning Policy Framework. We think this critically important aspect of the proposals needs to be more clearly defined at this stage. Generic statements, such as ‘buildings will generally face south’, are not helpful and give little confidence that this has been considered as fully as it needs to be. The development will need to encourage its residents, workers and visitors to adopt environmentally sustainable patterns of behaviour, for example in respect of travel habits. The local authority will need to satisfy itself that areas such as public transport provision have been given enough attention to ensure that attractive alternatives to the private car are provided.