Design Council CABE Slam Liverpool Waters.

DCCABE Slam the Liverpool Waters scheme even before the Unesco report. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2012/01/unesco-warn-liverpool-for-final-time.html 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.”

 http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-joe-anderson-biggest-threat-to.html
LETS GET THIS CALLED IN FOR A PUBLIC ENQUIRY.
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/cabe/design-review/1/liverpool-waters-liverpool/


Liverpool Waters, Liverpool

Designed by Chapman Taylor

Planning reference: 10O/2424

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

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2011/05/cabe-slam-liverpool-waters.html

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.
Sustainability
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.


http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news//tm_headline=unesco-inspectors-attack-liverpool-waters-scheme%26method=full%26objectid=30193588%26siteid=100252-name_page.html

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/01/24/unesco-warns-5-5bn-liverpool-waters-scheme-would-irreversibly-damage-city-s-world-heritage-waterfront-100252-30189591/

Liverpools World Heritage Status Faces Fresh Review-The Liverpool Daily Post Says

I met with Marc Waddington last week and he listened to what I had to say about the threats to Liverpools WHS.
Despite nobody at the local press being aware of a Unesco world heritage committee meeting he wrote it up. http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/06/15/liverpool-world-heritage-site-future-under-spotlight-at-unesco-paris-conference-in-development-row-92534-28879640/ And today's front page looks like this.

English Heritage have commissioned an independent report that damns the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme will will obliterate the Overall Universal Value of Liverpool's Maritime and Mercantile World Heritage Site. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2011/05/liverpool-waters-english-heritage.html
CABE slam the proposals. http://www.cabe.org.uk/transfer/liverpool-waters.pdf
Unesco may be like a big lumbering Elephant but when they fall on you it hurts.

We need to protect our WHS at all costs.

CABE Slam Liverpool Waters.

Liverpool Waters


Liverpool http://www.cabe.org.uk/transfer/liverpool-waters.pdf

A mixed-use masterplan including tall buildings for the central docks in Liverpool's Northshore. Designed by Chapman Taylor.

25 February 2011

Planning application: 10O/2424

We applaud Peel for responding to the advice of CABE and English Heritage during the design development process and for working with a CABE enabler with the aim of ensuring the outline planning process delivers a high quality scheme and can evolve over the 30 year timeframe. In our view, the planning application does not fully articulate the nature of what is being applied for in the material submitted and, in its current form, does not provide the confidence that a high quality scheme will emerge. It is critical that the planning application contains a clear, unambiguous written description of development that confirms this. This written description should relate directly to a defined set of scheme-specific principles to guide and manage future development on the Liverpool Waters site. We recognise that Peel is in the process of restructuring the planning application material to enable Liverpool City Council to progress the assessment of the development. We would like to comment on the restructured application alongside the qualitative aspects of the scheme once submitted.

Scheme principles

In our view, the principles detailed in the Masterplan and Key Principles document are mostly generic and are not organised or expressed in a meaningful way. A case in point is the principle relating to land use: ‘making the most efficient use of the land to meet the anticipated needs and aspirations of all sections of the future Liverpool Waters community’. It is difficult to grasp how this principle and the explanation that accompanies it reflect the unique opportunities and challenges particular to this site and this scheme, leaving it open to interpretation by the planning authority and developers. It is, therefore, critical that scheme-specific principles are developed to provide the local planning authority with a clear sense of the rationale underpinning the scheme parameters that flow from them.

Planning parameters

We 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, in our view, the parameters proposed in the drawings and referenced in the documents submitted will neither provide an effective mechanism to assess reserved matters applications against, nor give developers the necessary direction on what will, or will not, be acceptable. There is a crucial need for a greater level of commitment in the parameters. For example, whilst the submission seeks to fix maximum floorspace for each use class across the neighbourhoods proposed, this is not translated into identifiable block footprints with limits of deviation. Likewise, whilst the application sets maximum building heights relating to each illustrative plot, it does not provide minimum height thresholds. As a consequence, the usability of these parameters is severely limited as it leaves developers without a prescribed building ‘envelope’ to adhere to. Further, by not defining the ratio of uses across development parcels - in particular, how uses could be arranged both horizontally and vertically within buildings - it gives the local planning authority little sense of how richness across neighbourhoods will be secured in relation to the overall masterplan character. It is imperative that the outline application addresses this to provide a sense of the special quality and typology of the buildings proposed; this is particularly critical for the tall buildings, civic buildings and buildings addressing water, public spaces and key routes within the development.

Our concerns are not limited to those examples expressed above. Rather, they highlight a need to re-cast the parameters proposed to provide a more practical tool to guide those implementing future phases by setting ground rules that establish what is fixed in the masterplan and what can change over time. Other parameters might establish building lines onto major public spaces and the relationship of buildings to defined street types through the use of street sections. This could identify where active building frontages should be focussed. Given the significant heritage context for Liverpool Waters, parameters should be explicit about what highly significant historic fabric should be retained and incorporated to ensure that proposals protect historic features, waterfront character and key views across the City. We would expect the line of the building frontage along the waterfront to be exactly set out, for example. Parameters could prove a useful means to distinguish between background and landmark buildings and identify key groupings of buildings (such as those addressing public spaces). Equally, they provide an opportunity to define a hierarchy of public spaces, key vehicular movement and parking strategies, and principal connections to Northshore and the City Centre. Taken alongside parameters that promote architectural variety across the site and set out a key materials palette for the public realm, the suite of parameters can start to paint a clear picture of the nature of the neighbourhoods proposed.

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. Inevitably, some parameters will need to be fixed and some will remain loose. Therefore, clarity about their status in the approved submission will be essential.

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. We do not yet have the confidence that the parameters submitted 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. In our view, the 2-D ‘Illustrative Masterplan’ (Drawing CTL-016-01), submitted as one of the scheduled submitted plans, does not fulfil this role. It neither articulates a vision for Liverpool Waters, nor demonstrates how land use, landscape, transport, energy, infrastructure and building form considerations have been integrated into a coherent whole.

We recognise that the 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.

Masterplanning process

In order to help both the planning authority and client control the evolution and detailed design phases of the masterplan, we think that the outline application should be explicit about what will be defined at a later stage through detailed neighbourhood masterplans and reserved matters planning applications. 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 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 detailed 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.

Two Faced Liverpool Museums-Will Alsop Declares.

And Mike Storey has Twelve. The disgraced ex council leader has a face for everyone...when it suits him, or his mentors Trevor and Doreen Jones who passed all the plans for the three black coffins at Mann Island.
Moving on from my questions to Will Alsop. It is clear the Development Cabal have taken another hit here. Showing up the "cosy" relationship between the North Vested Interest Development Agency and Neptune Developments.
But we must not forget that Storey was on the NWDA committee, he was also the Council leader. He was also on the board of Liverpool Vision and was a trustee of Liverpool museums.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/06/wayne-colquhoun-asks-will-alsop.html


Today David Bartlett take the time to tell the news where it is.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news//tm_headline=architect-will-alsop-criticises-liverpool-s-8216-mediocre-8217-waterfront-buildings%26method=full%26objectid=26753889%26siteid=100252-name_page.html

THE ARCHITECT behind the failed Fourth Grace scheme has launched a withering attack on the buildings that are being built in its place on Liverpool’s waterfront.


Will Alsop, whose company designed the Cloud, said the buildings the city has “ended up with ... lie in the general malaise of architectural mediocrity that we find so popular with the current architectural press”.
He added: “In the end, this is all history but I do believe that Liverpool deserves much better than it got, whether it was my building or not.”
Three glazed black blocks in the Mann Island development and the new Museum of Liverpool are currently nearing completion at the city’s Pier Head where the Cloud would have been built.
Mr Alsop also hit out at the National Museums Liverpool (NML) for the organisation’s role in the collapse of the Fourth Grace, saying it had its own agenda.
He also claimed the North West Development Agency (NWDA) had pulled the plug on the project to meet a shortfall in funds for the ECHO Arena and BT Convention Centre.
The architect also claimed the city council had used its planning department as a “stalling device.”
His comments, during an online architectural webchat, have resurrected the row that erupted after his Cloud building was sensationally scrapped in July 2004.
The decision to abandon the project was made after it emerged that projected costs had risen by almost £100m.
Last night the council, the NWDA, and Neptune Developments who are building the three blocks rejected Mr Alsop’s claims. NML declined to comment.
Steven Broomhead, NWDA chief executive, said it was untrue that the scheme had been stopped because of a funding shortfall on the arena and convention project.
He said: “The public sector partners involved in the Fourth Grace – Liverpool City Council, Liverpool Vision, National Museums Liverpool and the NWDA – jointly concluded that the project had become unviable due to increasing costs and fundamental changes from the original scheme.
“The estimated cost had risen from £228m to £324m and there was a massive increase in the residential element of the project, which focused on ‘form’ not sustainable functions.
“All this was likely to have resulted in the scheme being called in, causing lengthy delays in making progress on the site.”
He said the partners had been determined to deliver a “world-class” scheme, adding: “The new Museum of Liverpool, extension to the canal link and complementary mixed-use development will deliver a major iconic visitor destination, as well as delivering significant economic benefits to Liverpool, Merseyside and the entire region.”

Steve Parry, chief executive of Neptune Developments, said Mann Island is a development of “exceptional quality” and had won many plaudits from the Commission for the Built Environment (CABE), English Heritage, and commentators like Stephen Bayley.
He said: “The appeal of the development to investment institutions, and commercial and residential occupiers is undoubtedly connected to the originality of a design.
“Will Alsop is renowned for his colourful and highly individual opinions.
“I think Will should actually come up and see the buildings before judging them.
“As he knows only too well, two dimensional images rarely do justice to visionary architecture.”
A council spokesman said its planning department had raised legitimate concerns regarding the Cloud’s design.
He said: “This was not a stalling device nor was it the reason the project did not happen.
“That was because Šthe estimated cost of the scheme spiralled to nearly £100m more than the original figure and that the scheme’s character changed fundamentally from what was originally envisaged.
“This included a proposed massive increase in the residential element of the scheme – doubling the original number of apartments to 700, and 200 apartments in the Canning Dock.”

The Cabal defend English Heritage...well http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/05/sir-neil-cossons.html who was also a trustee of Liverpool Museums. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-polices-heritage-police.html
And CABE http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/06/cabe-who-funds-them.html

Bryan Gray the Chairman of the NWDA was also a trustee of NML.

They are All Shysters together as far as I am concerned, they who destroyed Manchester Docks http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/03/manchester-docks-obliterated.html and who is Stephen Bayley anyhow to comment on a city he left decades ago.

Another Carbuncle Planned. This Time Its 54 Storeys High.

Liverpool is to get another skyscraper it is reported today in the Liverpool Ghost (will someone just put the old dog down) ……..the property developer’s friendly Advert-oral http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/02/08/age-of-the-skyscraper-returns-to-liverpool-with-130m-plan-92534-25784626/


Wouldn’t you think they would be a little cautious proclaiming another new skyscraper this time a 54 storey stretched shoebox in the sky.... on a site of an old pub that only had enough room for a couple of billiard tables. The old King Edward site. This is the World Heritage Site Buffer Zone. http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/tallest-tower-in-liverpool-redesigned-again/5213922.article

But both the Government’s architecture watchdog CABE and neighbouring landowner Peel objected. The application was withdrawn and never went to planning committee. http://www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/king-edward-street read the full review.
Now the King Edward consortium is optimistic of getting widespread approval.
They have been in prolonged talks with Liverpool Vision and Liverpool City Council over how the tower will fit into the landscape and work with future projects like Peel’s Liverpool Waters.
Last week, CABE was shown the revised plans and is expected to publish its official response in the coming weeks.
Its reaction to the first designs was damning and it urged the council to throw them out.
It said while it agreed with the principle of putting a tall building on the run-down site, the old plans had “confused architectural expression” and “low ambitions for sustainability”.
Well it is strange that Peel object as their plans to cancel the Panamax Terminal and concentrate on building blocks of flats that nobody wants to live in is exactly the same lack of common sense that we see here. Where are all the people coming from to fill them?
Architects Leach Rhodes Walker, who were also behind Liverpool’s Malmaison hotel, are being asked to include a high-level restaurant with a public viewing deck.
Jonothan Brown a council member of the Merseyside Civic Society is working for town planners doing landscaping….so there will be no objections from them.

Today is a rebranding of the, overpriced, at 60p, Daily Ghost. They say; Daily Post Editor Mark Thomas on our exciting new daily package http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/02/08/a-new-look-and-some-new-writers-for-your-liverpool-daily-post-newspaper-92534-25784079/

WELCOME to the first edition of the new-look Liverpool Daily Post.
The innovative design we have implemented from today is aimed at delivering more stories, more and better background, analysis and comment, and presenting everything to you in an even more accessible way.

The Daily Post will continue to set the agenda with its probing journalism, keeping you in touch with all the important developments in the life of our city region. You have responded very positively to the increase in national and international news we have introduced in recent weeks, and that is something we will continue to develop.
Probing Journalism you just have to laugh.
It looks the same of garbage contained within to me.

CABE-Who funds them?

Just who polices the Heritage police.

I thought it strange that CABE would have an office in Liverpool and thought to find who funded it.

http://www.designliverpool.org.uk/

Yes round up all the usual suspects.

How can you have a local design review panel funded by this City Council promoting the ideas by Liverpool Vision and funded by the NWDA.

UNESCO state clearly in their analogues on Liverpool that they have taken the advice of CABE and the English Heretics, yet recently when I met the obnoxious Paul Finch he was gobbing off about the need to send Unesco packing from Liverpool. "Its none of thier business" he said at a AJ conference in the Crown Plaza. I had a quiet word with him and told him in no uncertain terms that his opinion was unwarranted as he does not live here and therefore what has it got to do with him with his autocratic big mouth.

This conference chaired by Finch was a platform for Grosvenor, Broadway Maylan building the "Three Ugly Sisters" at Mann Island. Henry Owen John. The Riechmarchal Lee gave a guttural talk http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/search?q=nigel+Lee cracking jokes like a sad case with no-one laughing.

So just who is running the design of Liverpool.............if anyone at all.