Liverpool Waters Plans nodded through by Peel's planning poodles.

Yes it was unanimous. You have seen those nodding dogs on the back parcelshelf of a 1979 Rover. Well imagine having ten of them sitting in the front of you as a planning committee, latching on to every word that the arrogant Lindsey Ashworth says, up and down they go nodding away with the promise of jobs.
Ashworth says in a after meeting video done by the Echo.

 "This is the end of the beginning". he says
Well it could well spell the beginning of the end for Liverpools World Heritage site.  http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/_services/ajax/ajax_controller.cfm?event=kyteURL&t=video&u=channels/408938/1618277

David Swift a true heritage campaigner and Wayne Colquhoun were interviewed after the meeting.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/_services/ajax/ajax_controller.cfm?event=kyteURL&t=video&u=channels/408938/1618381

Here is the full text of the meeting put online by Neil McDonald of the Echo digital team.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/03/06/liverpool-council-planning-committee-unanimously-approves-5bn-liverpool-waters-scheme-100252-30472608/

Do Peel Holdings Want Liverpools World Heritage Status Scrapped?

And will their land value for Liverpool's North Docks increase if it is scrapped?

"Protect Liverpool's World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters" sign the e-petition now




http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30272



Protect Liverpools World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters

Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Due to the threat to a Unesco World Heritage Site from the development known as Liverpool Waters it would be most appropriate if the government "called in" this application for scrutiny.
Unesco say:
Mission’s Conclusion and Recommendation
The mission concludes that if the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme as outlined during the mission would be implemented, the World Heritage property would be irreversibly damaged, due to a serious deterioration of its architectural and town-planning coherence, a serious loss of historical authenticity, and an important loss of cultural significance. It strongly recommends that the three principal stakeholders, being Liverpool City Council, Peel Holdings and English Heritage, reconvene around the table.
The government must not let Liverpool lose its WHS status for a speculative scheme that lacks the skill to create a 21st century city that respects its heritage assetts.

Call In Liverpool Waters says Liam Fogarty-Mayoral Candidate for Liverpool.

liam4liverpool


March 5th, 2012

Dear Secretary of State,
Tomorrow, Tuesday March 6th, the Planning Committee of Liverpool City Council will consider whether to grant planning permission to the huge Liverpool Waters scheme in the city's northern docklands.
Council officers are recommending that permission is given for site owners, Peel Holdings, to develop the first phase of the project to be built between now and 2016.
You will be aware that the scheme is highly controversial both because of its scale ( described by council officers as "unprecedented" and "beyond living experience") and its proximity to the Liverpool Waterfront World Heritage Site (WHS.)
Putting arguments about the possible threat to WHS status to one side, it is clear that the scheme proposed by Peel is indeed of international significance and could change the face of Liverpool for generations.
It is our civic leaders' duty not to be dazzled by developer "hype" or tempted to ignore the scheme's shortcomings in order to approve something - anything - on such a derelict site.
I believe that Liverpool Waters - and its sister scheme in Wirral - represent an out-dated model of global property development that was discredited once the credit crunch began to bite. Notions of building not just a “Dubai” but an “Abu Dhabi” on either side of the River Mersey are surely fanciful.
And the architectural quality of what is being proposed is, to put it mildly, debatable. English Heritage, CABE and Civic Voice have been highly critical of what's being proposed.
For my part, I believe that Peel's plans for Liverpool Waters are mediocre and soulless.
Liverpool is proud of its heritage of outstanding architecture. With Liverpool Waters we shouldn't be afraid to insist on the highest standards of design and sustainability, even if our Council won't.
If, as expected, Peel's application is approved then I would urge you to call in the scheme and subject it to a public enquiry.
Yours sincerely,

Liam Fogarty

Prospective Independent Candidate
Liverpool Mayoral Election 2012

Liverpool Confidential Take An Interest In Liverpool Waters.

Greater Manchester Doubtful Over Peel's Atlantic Gateway
Liverpool Confidential writes http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Greater-Manchester-Has-Doubts-Over-Peels-Atlantic-Gateway

The regional authorities need convincing over Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters schemes

---

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED ON OUR SISTER SITE PLACE NORTH WEST.

GREATER Manchester Combined Authority is likely to vote against a proposal by the new Atlantic Gateway Board to prioritise Liverpool and Wirral Waters (the latter pictured above) as major projects for economic growth, unless there is more 'robust evidence' in their favour.

"It will work constructively with the scheme sponsors and the Atlantic Gateway Board to test the information and the evidence base to establish whether Wirral and Liverpool Waters should be identified as projects of more than sub-regional significance, and thus major projects for Atlantic Gateway to support."

A paper put to the executive board meeting of the GM Combined Authority in Oldham was written by Mike Emmerich, chief executive of GM policy think-tank New Economy, and Barbara Spicer, chief executive of Salford City Council. The pair responded to a request from the Atlantic Gateway Board to elevate Peel Group's Liverpool and Wirral Waters as 'major projects' within Atlantic Gateway.

The Atlantic Gateway Board is a public-private group made up of local authority officers, councillors, private sector advisors, and chaired by former Manchester Airport boss Geoff Muirhead.

The board, which includes representatives from Greater Manchester, was formed in late 2011 to promote large infrastructure and innovation projects (see below for list of board members) planned for the area around the River Mersey, Manchester Ship Canal and hinterland. Many but not all of the projects are proposed by Peel Group. Others promoted include Daresbury Science & Innovation Campus and Northern Hub rail expansion.

Emmerich and Spicer recommend that "the [GM] Combined Authority does not support [Peel's] Wirral and Liverpool Waters schemes as priority projects for Atlantic Gateway until it can be satisfied" on three points.

The points are:

a) There is a robust evidence base to confirm market demand for such a significant amount of grade A commercial floor-space outside any city centre

b) It can be clearly demonstrated that the projects will deliver net added value to the region as a whole, across all three LEP areas

c) There is a clear deliverable investment plan in place that shows the level of private investment involved, and considers the costs and benefits of any public investment that may be required including infrastructure support

The report goes on: "The Combined Authority is concerned to ensure that at a time when public investment to support priorities is likely to be severely constrained, that the focus is on those projects which really can contribute to the region's GVA at the minimum cost to the public purse.

"It will work constructively with the scheme sponsors and the Atlantic Gateway Board to test the information and the evidence base to establish whether Wirral and Liverpool Waters should be identified as projects of more than sub-regional significance, and thus major projects for Atlantic Gateway to support."

Manchester City Council and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities have objected previously on similar economic grounds.

Liverpool Waters, currently pending planning and subject to opposition from English Heritage, would cover 150 acres of dockland north of the city centre. Wirral Waters has outline planning consent and envisages more than 6m sq ft of mixed-use development in Birkenhead docklands.

Peel declined to comment.

The board members of Atlantic Gateway are:

• Geoff Muirhead, private sector
• Dennis Bate, private sector
• John Downes, private sector
• Peter Nears, private sector
• Martin Douglas, private sector
• Roger Milburn, private sector and Greater Manchester LEP
• Steve O'Connor, private and Liverpool City Region LEP
• Martin Ashcroft, private and Cheshire & Warrington LEP
• Walter Menzies, voluntary sector - environmental representative
• Cllr John Merry, public sector, Association of Greater Manchester Authorities
• Cllr Rob Polhill , public sector, Liverpool City Region
• Cllr Terry O'Neill , public sector - Cheshire and Warrington

Larry Neild also write now that he has left the dreadful Aurora Media(once October communications) he may well be less comprimised and we congratulate him for getting out of the slime. http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Crunch-time-looms-for-Liverpool-Waters-after-Peel-ultimatum

"Protect Liverpools World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters" sign the e-petition now

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30272
Just gone live today please take some time to sign the petition on the basis of;

Protect Liverpools World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters


Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport



Due to the threat to a Unesco World Heritage Site from the development known as Liverpool Waters it would be most appropriate if the government "called in" this application for scrutiny.

Unesco say:

Mission’s Conclusion and Recommendation
The mission concludes that if the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme as outlined during the mission would be implemented, the World Heritage property would be irreversibly damaged, due to a serious deterioration of its architectural and town-planning coherence, a serious loss of historical authenticity, and an important loss of cultural significance. It strongly recommends that the three principal stakeholders, being Liverpool City Council, Peel Holdings and English Heritage, reconvene around the table.

The government must not let Liverpool lose its WHS status for a speculative scheme that lacks the skill to create a 21st century city that respects its heritage assetts.

The Victorian Society Object To Liverpool Waters.

Buried in the annuls of the council planning file of Liverpool Waters is a document that has not been made public, a Victorian Society objection and that is before they have had a planning application for Jess Hartleys Dock Wall to be smashed open by the hole in the wall gang, the arrogant Peel Holdings.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2012/02/peel-holdings-submit-planning.html
This must mean every agency in the country and abroad if we include Unesco is against Liverpool Waters.
I noticed a comment on the Echo website yesterday that said
"Why is everyone saying the planners are going to pass the plans for Liverpool Waters, the planning committee are independent, aren't they or have they been bought"
Now this may seem unfair but what it says has some common sense.
Why is this planning application said to be a done deal. 

Liverpool Waters and the Liverpool World Heritage State of Conservation Report.

Prepared by DCMS (The UK State Party) dated 28th February 2012

Here is a link to a document produced by the DCMS at the request of Unesco.........by the 1st February.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/4168.aspx

This document goes on to outline how Liverpool Waters will seriously damage the OUV of the World Heritage Site.
It was only sent to 5 people one of those being the completely idle John Hinchliffe who will now try all he can to bury it for sure.

Here is an extract from pg
The UK Government welcomes this recognition of the progress made and the substantial amount of work involved in putting development strategies, planning procedures and management systems in place, largely reflecting the efforts of the City Council.


World Heritage sites in the UK are protected through specific national and local designations and the spatial planning system. National planning guidance on the historic environment (Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5)) emphasises the need to protect World Heritage properties as noted by the mission.

Since 2009, there has been a government planning circular in England specifically covering World Heritage (CLG Circular 07/09 The Protection of World Heritage Sites). This is supported by further English Heritage guidance, which has been endorsed by ministers. The Circular states:

• Statements of Outstanding Universal Value are key references for the effective protection and management of World Heritage Sites

• World Heritage Sites can also contribute to a national and local sense of community and to sustainable economic development and sustainable regeneration.

• Local authorities should have appropriate spatial planning policies to protect World Heritage properties which should aim to:

o protect the property and its setting, including any buffer zone, from inappropriate development,

o strike a balance between the needs of conservation, biodiversity, access, the interests of the local community and the sustainable economic use of the property in its setting

o protect a World Heritage Site from the effect of changes which are relatively minor but which, on a cumulative basis, could have a significant effect

o enhance the World Heritage Site where appropriate and possible through positive management

o protect World Heritage Sites from climate change but ensure that mitigation is not at the expense of authenticity or integrity

• World Heritage properties are a key material consideration in the planning system

• World Heritage properties should have Management Plans to protect their Outstanding Universal Value

• Management Plans should be prepared in a consensual way by the key stakeholders in each property, including significant landowners

• There should be a steering group of key stakeholders, including significant landowners

• Relevant policies in Management Plans are key material considerations in the spatial planning system

• Local authorities should support and promote World Heritage properties in all their actions, not just within the spatial planning system

• When a local authority is minded to grant consent for a planning application to which English Heritage has maintained an objection, the authority must refer the case to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for him to consider calling it in for decision at national level

The Government is currently reviewing planning policy guidance and intends to replace much of it with a much more succinct National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This will maintain existing levels of protection for World Heritage properties, which will continue to be treated as designations of the highest importance.

In Liverpool, the City Council has relevant policies in its Unitary Development Plan and, as noted above, adopted a Supplementary Planning Document in 2009 providing detailed planning guidance on the World Heritage property. This seeks:

“to provide guidance for protecting and enhancing the Outstanding Universal value of (the) World Heritage Site, whilst encouraging investment and development which supports a healthy economy and supports regeneration.”