Peel Holdings Media City-PAID FOR BY THE PUBLIC. Are you reading this Roger Philips

Roger Philips, Liverpool's own BBC commentator tried to steer an argument on air http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/p00n0293/ about Wayne being anti-peel holdings.
He informed him on air that he, Roger had his trip to Shanghai for the Peel Holdings Circus, paid for by the taxpayers and he should make the public aware of his "jolly" trip that cost us the taxpayers 5 Grand. Maybe he should read this. He also says Unesco like the Pier Head he has not obviously read the Unesco report.

HOW THE PUBLIC PAID FOR PEEL HOLDINGS SALFORD MEDIACITYUK

Star date: 18th January 2012
http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1256
A Salford Star Exclusive
OUR FRIENDS AT SALFORD STAR KNOW A BIT ABOUT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM Here is recent argument they put foraward 
HOW PEEL HOLDINGS HAS CASHED IN ON MEDIACITYUK – WITH PUBLIC MONEY
As Peel Holdings records profits of £55million, Salford Star reveals the huge amounts of public money that have been sunk into MediaCityUK, virtually covering all of Peel's £490million costs on the development.
Meanwhile Salford Council has waived its financial contribution policies on the site which remains in private hands, with Peel's private security company ejecting anyone it feels like…
As Peel Holdings submits plans for the huge twenty year expansion of MediaCityUK, featuring five million square feet of offices, apartments, a hotel, retail units and car parks (see here), the Salford Star can reveal that the costs of the first built phase of MediaCityUK will be almost entirely met by public money.
According to the latest set of accounts from Peel Media (Holdings) Ltd - one of the three Peel subsidiary companies that own and run MediaCityUK - the `historical cost' of its properties on the Quays was £490.8million.
Meanwhile, the public sector will pay Peel nearly £487million in rents, grants and hire fees. This breaks down as…
• BBC rent of studios £233million (over 20 yrs)
• BBC rent of offices £170million (over 20 yrs)
• University of Salford campus rent £19.126million (until 2020)
• Salford Council lease on Media Enterprise Centre £3.8million (until 2016*)
• NWDA**/Salford Council (et al) grants for public realm and transport £61million.
The total of £486.9million in public finance for the privately owned MediaCityUK means that Peel have virtually covered all its costs - before raking in profits from its 378 apartments (est value £56million), its car parks, and its office space and studios rented out to private sector companies, including ITV.
NWDA and Salford Council financial contributions for things like the main piazza at MediaCityUK and the Metrolink, have only ever been disclosed as being £30million. But a Salford Council report recently stated that a "total public sector investment of £61m has been committed into Media City for the provision of public realm and transport infrastructure".
Normally when developers build hotels and apartment blocks they have to make payments to Salford Council under Section 106 for things like open space, infrastructure and heritage. In the original application put in by Peel for outline planning permission for Media City, this was calculated to be £5.56million. But Peel never had to pay it…
"…a significant amount of public realm and infrastructure works would be undertaken as part of the proposals, which I consider would outweigh the need for the above contribution" wrote the Salford Council planning officer.
Yet the `public realm and infrastructure works' were paid for by public money from the NWDA and Salford Council! What we now know is £61million's worth of `public realm and infrastructure'. This is the same NWDA that had an ex-Peel Deputy Chairman as its Chairman, and the same Peel Media that had an ex NWDA Chairman as its Chairman (see here)
The Salford Star put in a Freedom of Information request to Salford Council asking what contributions under Section 106 Peel Holdings had made in regard to Media City…"In the case of MediaCityUK the developer committed to providing a series of public areas, including parks and squares, as well as a waterside piazza" the Council responded "...In this case the scale of the provision included within the development itself has been massive, and with the developer's commitment to maintain these areas as well, this meant that Section 106 would not be required in order to achieve the same outcome."
In other words, Peel contributed virtually nothing towards the main piazza***, which was almost entirely paid for by public money - yet its private security `police' have already ejected legal pickets from outside the University of Salford building (see here), while the Salford Star has received many complaints from people who have been stopped from handing out leaflets or filming (!) on the site.
Meanwhile, Salford Council also has in place a policy that any major housing development should make provision for 20% of it to be affordable housing. Peel Holdings has 378 apartments on MediaCityUK – but, again, this policy was waived by Salford Council's planning officer who "concluded that, given the large amount of investment and the level of public realm and infrastructure that would be provided within the site, the applicants are not required to provide affordable housing in this instance."
But the "public realm and infrastructure" was paid for out of public money!
Salford Council also has in place a policy that "encourages developers to provide or contribute to accredited training programmes for construction workers. Where this does not happen, a financial contribution to the Salford Construction Partnership is recommended."
Yet again, this policy was waived... "The applicants have commented that the proposals would result in the creation of in the region of 15,000 jobs in addition to training opportunities" stated the planning officer "Clearly, this would represent a significant economic benefit to the city. In view of this, and the other benefits and investment highlighted above, I do not consider it necessary to require the applicants to make a contribution towards training for construction workers in this instance."
So there you have it. The costs of Peel Holding's investment in the first built phase of MediaCityUK are almost entirely covered by public money. While its commitments under Section 106 were also either waved or covered by public money.
Yet MediaCityUK remains a totally private enterprise even down to the cameras the BBC use, with all profits from car parks, apartments, hotels, rents and other fees going straight to Peel Holdings.
Peel Holdings parent company, Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Ltd posted profits of £55million in its latest accounts. Peel Holdings Isle of Man based svengali, John Whittaker, last year saw his personal wealth double from £1,015million in 2010 to £2,075million in 2011, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.
Peel Holdings gave a paltry £17,000 to charity according to its latest accounts. The Salford Star is still waiting for a response from Peel Media as to whether it has taken on any apprentices from Salford. As reported yesterday (see here), just 16 people from Salford have been given proper jobs at the BBC's new base at MediaCityUK.
As plans for the huge five million square feet, twenty year expansion of MediaCityUK are about to be put before the planning panel, the Salford Star is waiting to see whether Salford Council will again waive all its financial contribution policies for Peel Holdings…
* The Media Enterprise Centre is Salford Council's new £8million office complex at MediaCityUK that will "offer a range of services to help stimulate and support the growth of media companies". Salford Council has contributed £1.7million, with NWDA (£2.5million) and European funding (ERDF £4.2million) contributing the rest.
** NWDA is the North West Development Agency soon to be abolished in March – see here for details of the very close ties between Peel Media and NWDA, starring Peter Mandelson
*** In response to another Salford Star question back in 2009, Salford Council did state that Peel was contributing £1.68million out of the initial £31.68million public realm costs but the Freedom of Info response didn't include this.
See also: How Salford BBC Jobs Cost Over £200,000 Each!

Peel Holdings Pillorised by Salford Residents. Are You Listening Mayor Anderson.

Are they the worst most unscrupulous developer that we have ever encountered?  http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1688 Draining the public purse. Are they Government Grant farmers?
Peel Holdings have got Liverpool put on the Unesco World Heritage "In Danger" List. What a shower of arrogant bastards http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/peel-holdings-arrogant-bastards.html they are
But we are not alone,  all over the North West the Peel Organisation are trying to get away with whatever they want...............and they are supported by Louise Ellman who may remember them from her Lancashire County Council days that I am sure she would like to forget.
PEEL HOLDINGS WORSLEY PLANS SLAMMED BY SALFORD RESIDENTS

http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1681
Star date: 5th February 2013
OVER 600 RESIDENTS VOICE OPPOSITION TO PEEL'S GREENFIELD HOUSING PLANS
Last night, over six hundred residents met to unanimously oppose plans by Peel Holdings and Taylor Wimpey to build hundreds of houses on greenfield sites in and around Worsley, Roe Green, Ellenbrook and Boothstown.
A steering group has been set up and people are being urged to join the campaign to fight planning applications which are expected in the immediate future…
A hint of what was to come appeared last April when a Habitat Appraisal of areas around Worsley was commissioned by Peel Holdings. The study, by Ecological Services Ltd and listing an array of stunning fauna and flora, concluded that "The marketing of 'an excellent network of footpaths and variety of wildlife habitats on your doorstep' would surely appeal to many home buyers'.

The survey didn't state whether building hundreds of homes on the local greenfield sites would harm, and maybe destroy, the `variety of wildlife habitats on your doorstep'.
After the Planning Inspector basically told Salford Council to tear up its Core Strategy which protected much of the city's green belt and greenfield sites (see here), and armed with ConDem Government's free for all National Planning Policy Framework, developers are literally having a field day.
Peel Holdings and developer Taylor Wimpey are planning to build over five hundred houses either side of Worsley Road (Broadoak North and South) in what Wimpey calls its `Garden City' concept. Elsewhere, according to campaigners, there are plans afoot for…
…140 houses off Vicars Hall Lane/Highclove Lane, 19 houses on Greylag Crescent, Ellenbrook, 23 houses Simpson Grove, Boothstown, 50 houses off Lumber Lane, Roe Green, up to 200 houses Crossfield Drive, Worsley, 450 houses at Hazelhurst, Worsley, 18 units on Boothstown canal basin, 15 houses off Mesne Lea Road, Worsley, and 60 houses behind Roe Green Cric. Peel Holdings' fingers are in the financial pie of most of the developments.
Last night over six hundred residents packed into St Marks Church, Worsley, to hear the plans and launch a campaign against destruction of greenfield sites. The meeting was called by local Tory councillors but also attended by Barbara Keeley, Labour MP for Worsley and Eccles South.
Community leaders, including Andrew Moore from WRAGE (Worsley Residents Against Greenfield Erosion), expressed their concerns about the developments, including increased traffic congestion, and the resulting air pollution, loss of green space and the impact on already overstretched schools.
A steering group is being set up and there was a request for people to come forward who have skills to help the campaign and launch a fund to fight the forthcoming planning applications.
Meanwhile, Taylor Wimpey are holding two sessions of consultation exhibitions on Thursday and Friday this week (7th and 8th February) at the Novotel Hotel on Worsley Brow. Residents are asked to attend to show their opposition to the Broadoak `Garden City' development.
For further information see http://www.broadoakworsley.co.uk/
For further information and news on the campaign see the Worsley Civic Trust website – click here
There is also a WRAGE facebook group which you have to apply to join – see here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/wrage/
The Battle Lines Are Drawn...
A first hand account of the meeting by resident and campaigner Steve Allington...
Several hundred braced the cold and wintry conditions last night to show their solidarity in uniting against the proposed development of 1,600 homes in and around the Worsley, Boothstown and Ellenbrook areas.
The main areas affected would be Worsley Road where up to 600 homes are planned adjacent to Bridgewater School and on the opposite side, effectively linking Worsley Village to Broadoak Park, Crossfield Drive where up to 200 homes are planned on farm land desecrating current woodland walks and 450 homes on green belt land off Hazelhurst Road.
However, not satisfied with concreting these areas Peel and Taylor Wimpey are proposing to put plans in to shoe horn 75 homes into Lumber Lane, Roe Green, and 60 houses behind Beesley Green community centre adjacent to the local cricket and tennis club.
Mention was also made by local councillors of the need to support residents of Irlam and Cadishead who face losing green belt land to 1,400 homes erected by the developers.
The vote in favour of a concentrated protest and challenge to the plans was passed unanimously and a steering group will now mobilise residents, councillors and local community groups to fight the plans.
The first act will be to storm the Novotel Worsley - when Peel Holdings unveil their planned build on Thursday 7th and Friday 8th February - and voice dissent.
Peel Holdings and Taylor Wimpey will be left in no doubt that they are not wanted.
Local residents fought off the threat of a racecourse in the village several years back and they are confident they can win this battle. Protesters voiced concern over lack of school places, traffic congestion, air quality, over burdening local NHS dental and GP practices as well as the impact it would have on conservation and leisure activities for Salford residents.
Exiting the meeting, resident Graeme Mooney complained about traffic congestion stating, "Each morning it takes me longer to get onto the motorway driving the 1 mile from my home in Roe Green to the grid locked Worsley roundabout than it does to then drive to my office in Warrington. Where the hell are these extra cars going to go? We have one of the busiest motorway intersections in the UK running through a tiny village".
Meanwhile, our schools are already over subscribed and these plans make no provision for more additional places. Who is going to buy the houses anyway? Worsley is already strewn with overpriced new builds at the Boatyard and Stableford that they can't sell now. Why do we need more?

"Worsley is one of the last tracts of green open space Salford is lucky to possess" said Roe Green resident Steve Rennie "Concreting over, what is a vital green lung of our city is something Peel and Taylor Wimpey should never be allowed to do..."

Heres one or two we did earlier.

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/joe-anderson-spiving-for-peel-holdings.html Is Joe Anderson spiv-ing for Peel Holdings.

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/peel-holdings-media-city-paid-for-by.html

Peel Holdings Want the Pier Head-Stinky Ink Bartlett Goes Native in Cannes.

Here we have todays headline from the Putrid little excuse for a newspaper, The Liverpool Daily Ghost. (dead man walking will someone put it out of its misery). So up the behind of local property developers are they, that Stinky Ink Bartlett has been dispatched to to Cannes for the MIPIM Booze Cruise junket. We are not sure who paid his expenses but all week he has been reporting on Peel Holdings http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/03/17/around-1-000-new-jobs-to-come-to-liverpool-with-superport-plan-92534-26048018/  and Peel Holdings http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/03/17/mps-warn-liverpool-world-superport-scheme-will-be-hit-by-unfit-planning-shake-up-92534-26048019/


And Peel Holdings http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/03/18/double-cunard-liner-visit-coup-for-liverpool-92534-26057171/  and more from Peel Holdings.
Then yesterday they lined us up with this one http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/03/18/double-cunard-liner-visit-coup-for-liverpool-92534-26057171/  and today they put this into the arena. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news//2010/03/19/liverpool-s-pier-head-could-become-a-base-for-cruise-liners-100252-26065361/ Can the public really be so stupid to take this hook line and stinker.

This time it’s a plan to illegally get rid of the Ferries and put in its place a cruise liner facility.
The Ferries are protected by law by an act of Parliament and still they try it on. Smoothed along by Stinky Ink and edited by "No" Mark Thomas you have to say the local papers are selling us down the river with their marketing of Peel Holdings on behalf of tax exile and owner of Peel http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/09/cruise-wars-liverpool-gets-full-naval.html

Stinky writes

LIVERPOOL'S Pier Head could become a base for cruise liners under radical temporary plans to transfer business from a dilapidated dock.
Last year the Government blocked plans to make the waterfront location a start and finish base for cruise liners – forcing ships to continue using Bootle’s Langton Dock to access full "turnaround" facilities like baggage handling and passport control.

But officials from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, owned by developer Peel, are in discussions with the city council to temporarily transfer cruises from Langton Dock to the publicly owned landing stage at the Pier Head.
He stinks on Peel today insisted this was a short term solution as it wants to build its own cruise terminal as part of its £5.5bn skyscraper Liverpool Water scheme.
And on

Ian Pollitt, development surveyor for Peel, said the company was trying to find solutions to cruise liner companies having to use Langton Dock.
"What we are looking at now is a half way house. Rather than lose the business we are talking about relocating it to the Pier Head."
It is hoped the plan would avoid the need for any grants to be paid back as it would only be a temporary move.
Once Peel's terminal had opened the cruise liners would return to a base further up the River.
Peel's terminal is already fully designed and located near the 60-storey Shanghai Tower in the Liverpool Waters Scheme.

The tower would be built at Princes Half Tide Dock.
In the comments section.
Moriarty wrote:
Stuff Southampton and stuff Peel Holdings. Let's have our OWN terminal and put a stop to the 'St Johnification' of the waterfront. Enough is enough. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/02/liverpool-waters-glass-pie-in-sky-we.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-have-peel-holdings-ever-done-for.html 
David Bartlett had to admit that when he came to Liverpool he did not know who Bill Shankly was, he had no trouble finding out who Lyndsay Ashworth was though. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/02/daily-peel-trinity-smoking-mirrors.html
All week we have been hearing from the Daily Peel with its chief publicity agent “The Milky bars are on Peel” Bartlett http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/10/peel-holdings-liverpeel-its-happening.html

They have stolen the iconic Skyline now they even want the world famous Ferries.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/12/liverpools-cruise-liner-cock-up-its.html

Peel Holdings Win Salford Star Exellence Award

PEEL HOLDINGS WINS SALFORD EXCELLENCE AWARD





Star date: 5th December 2013



PEEL WINS SALFORD STAR MARY BURNS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN WRECKING SALFORD



Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the annual Salford Star Mary Burns Awards, given out to stupid statements, dodgy dealings and iffy activities over the past 12 months.



The judges had no hesitation in awarding habitual Mary Burns gong winners, Peel Holdings/Peel Group this year's prize for Excellence In Wrecking Salford. Cover yer eyes, bring out yer sick bags and give it up – give it all up including yer environment, yer identity and yer money – for Peel Holdings.



This way down the red carpet please…



THE SALFORD STAR MARY BURNS AWARDS 2013

Category: The Excellence In Wrecking Salford Award

Winner: Peel Holdings/Peel Group

Well, ladies and gentlemen, what can we say that hasn't been said before about Peel Holdings – except that no-one knows what they're actually called these days – Peel Group? Peel Investments North? Tax Dodge Inc?

Anyway, this coveted Mary Burns Award is for services to wrecking Salford in so many different ways…

Identity

Yes, incredibly, after sucking up £millions in public money from Salford Council, Salford University, BBC etc plus £millions in public money subsidies to build MediaCityUK (see here)…back in July, Peel suddenly decided that Media City was actually in Manchester and re-branded its website MediaCityUK Manchester! (see here for the full gory story). Peel just cares s-o-o-o- much about the city it almost owns…


Environment

Where do we start? Attempting to build hundreds of houses on Greenfield sites in Worsley, Boothstown and Ellenbrook (see here)? Attempting to build 600 houses on the Greenfield site of Broadoak (rejected for the time being – see here)? Vulturing around with a future planning application to build on Green Belt land in Irlam?
…Port Salford with its zillions of lorry movements a day?... Or perhaps the cherry on Peel's cake – fracking on its land all under Barton? The current IGas exploratory drilling site is on Peel land and smack in the middle of everything that the mega-bucks company owns in the area…Somehow we can't see Peel objecting to a trillion drilling rigs on Green Belt land should fracking go ahead.



Public Money

For such a rich company, that is supposed to have so much investment from China and Saudi Arabia, Peel isn't opposed to grabbing as much public money as it can get its hands on.
When it went into a joint venture company with Salford Council to build the `Salford Community Stadium' - now renamed AJ Bell Stadium – it was Salford tax payers who stumped up the £22million loan (see here)…



Port Salford gets another £15million from cash-strapped Salford Council – an £11million loan and a £4million grant, plus another £15million from the Regional Growth Fund (see here)
Indeed, Salford Star proved that Peel Holdings and all its related companies were pulling in an average of £1million in public money per month via Salford Council (see here).
Meanwhile, MediaCityUK Manchester has had, and is still getting £millions from tax payers and Salford council tax payers. For what?... "We do not have a full breakdown of what they do, but the company on the whole, at maximum, pays 10% corporation tax. That is at maximum. They do not pay their fair share of corporation tax" MP Margaret Hodge said at the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee hearing this year (see here).
"When you are using taxpayers' money…it ought to be with companies that pay their fair share back into the communal pot" she added "That is all; it is a very simple proposition."
So, for its incredibly negative impact on Salford's identity, its environment and the city's coffers, the Salford Star Mary Burns Award for Excellence In Wrecking Salford goes to…
P-e-e-e-e-l H-o-o-o-l-d-ings!!!



Applause
If someone from the Peel Group would like to make a thank you speech please use the comments box below…
Salford Star Mary Burns Award Winners 2013



http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=2057&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sstar+%28Salford+Star%29

Joe Anderson-Spiving for Peel Holdings.

Joe Anderson is working for Peel Holdings, he may not be taking a wage, but he is working for them alright.  Today's paper is a joint effort from the Daily Peel and Council to propagate the myths that English Heritage will not be listened to by this current council. We have laws to protect us from Joe and the cosy little relationship with Peel Holdings, and the World Heritage Steering Group and all that the council is.  They are proving to be no better than the last lot of uneducated clowns that destroyed the Pier Head.  Take no nonsense from this man he is far too close to Peel Holdings and Lindsay Ashworth their chief arrogant bastard.   http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/09/peel-holdings-arrogant-bastards.html  So you expect a developer
 who lives on the Isle of Man, who is building a new port in .......Salford to care about Liverpools heritage? 
But Joe come on you are proving no better than Mike Storey and Trevor Jones, this time spiving for Peel.
 Just read what the council leader says about English Heritage. He apears to think he is above planning law. He is so clever, its painful.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/11/03/liverpool-council-leader-joe-anderson-hits-out-at-english-heritage-for-blocking-city-development-92534-27590506/ 


See what Bill Gleeson of the Daily Ghost business section pre-ambled.  http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-bill-gleeson-peel-holdings-spiv.html.             

So just to let you know where we are up to Mr Anderson. We have been in correspondence with Unesco and the DCMS for months, well over a year in fact. The DCMS who are charged with reporting, usually badly to Unesco. The OUV is at great risk here from these naff developments that will compete against Wirral Waters. Read some of the letters by clicking on them.

 Todays Daily Ghost gives an insight into Joes mind, well.
Remember all the promises when they were after power. This is what they said.  Cllr Paul Brant, the deputy leader of Liverpool’s Labour group and who represents the city ward covering Mann Island, lamented the loss of the views at mann Island.

Cllr Brant, who said he had no idea the planning brief existed, lobbied against the buildings when they were being considered by planners.

He told the Daily Post: “I think they’re in the wrong place or on the wrong scale or massing.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/04/26/protected-views-of-liverpool-s-three-graces-lost-to-new-mann-island-development-92534-26317623/

Funny, That I didn’t see him or hear him objecting he then continues.
It seemed to me to be madness to be downgrading views of some of our architectural heritage in a way that might make it less attractive to visit, especially as these areas were deemed to be so exemplar that they were given World Heritage status.

“It’s a major piece of investment and what was there before – the Mann Island car place – was hardly exemplar.”
He added that the building’s impact on the views has not taken him by surprise because he had looked at models of the area before they were built.
But he said: “I’m deeply disappointed that those views are now being lost. It’s bizarre that Liverpool residents now have to go to Birkenhead to see that best view of the Three Graces.”
A Liverpool city council spokesman added: “The development brief set the framework for schemes on this site. It was intended as guidance and was not prescriptive.
“Planning applications are considered in the light of this guidance and when this scheme was determined it was considered that it followed the principles of the brief in that developments should provide ‘glimpse’ views of the Three Graces.
“This view was endorsed by ICOMOS, who visited the site on behalf of the World Heritage Committee.”
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/04/mann-island-is-penny-finally-dropping.html

So now the new Labour administration all get a free trip to Shanghai and change their minds. Joe Anderson no better than the last lot really, and not as clever.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/09/mike-storey-destroyed-world-heritage.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/08/liverpools-world-heritage-site-more.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/07/joe-anderson-backs-peel-holdings-wirral.html

Dont forget he is very close to Frank McKenna of Downtown Liverpool, maybe he has spent too much time listening to him.

Cruise Wars. Southampton Gives Liverpool A Full Naval Salvo.

Southampton Echo fires a Naval salvo at Peel Holdings chairman, claiming the biggest benefit to the increase in Port Traffic will be for the port authority and that company is Peel.

They have even got a Cruise Wars logo and all this week they have run a series of articles relating to "Cruise Wars" while the Trinity "Smoking" Mirror Groups papers the Oldham Echo and the Daily Ghost have not uttered a word since acting as protagonist and trouble maker Friday last. They claimed Southampton were blocking the plans to make the Cruise Liner Jetty into a fully operational turnaround facility. No-one in Southampton knew the first thing about it.
Built by Balfour Beatty the jetty in my opinion was overpriced.
Southampton Echo Says;
The billionaire tax exile at the centre of cruise wars
9:30am Thursday 24th September 2009
Comments (7) Have your say »
By Gareth Lewis »
ONE of the biggest winners from the £20m taxpayer funded cruise terminal in Liverpool that threatens Southampton’s trade is a billionaire tax exile, the Daily Echo can reveal.
John Whittaker, the chairman and majority shareholder of Mersey Docks owner Peel Holdings, is the richest resident of the Isle of Man tax haven with a personal fortune estimated at £1.3 billion.
Although the terminal is run by Liverpool City Council, all visiting ships pay fees to Peel Ports as the harbour authority and liner visits are expected to soar if controversial plan to open it up to lucrative turnaround cruises is given the green light.
Whittaker, 67, is ranked as the 28th richest man in the country with vast property investments and his Peel Holdings empire stretching from Clydeside in Scotland to the Manchester Ship Canal and Trafford Centre as well as the Mersey docks and Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport.
Currently cruise ships are only able to visit the Liverpool terminal, but the city council is now asking to be allowed to use it as a base for the more profitable type of voyages that start and end at the terminal, known as turnaround cruises.

When you realise what Southampton got for £20,000,000 in the way of facilities we have to ask where did the money go.
http://www.bbcel.co.uk/capabilities/marine_river/76_liverpool-cruise-liner-facility

We are not saying any price fixing went on in Liverpool but Balfour Beatty have just been fined for Frigging in the Rigging.
Balfour Beatty Construction Limited and Balfour
Beatty Refurbishment Limited (for infringements
from 2000 onwards) and Mansell Construction
Services Limited (for infringements from 19
December 2003), together with their current
ultimate parent company Balfour Beatty plc. For
infringements involving Mansell prior to 19
December 2003, Mansell and its former ultimate
parent company Mansell plc (50% leniency)
£5,197,004
Mansell and Mansell plc
are jointly and severally
liable for the entire
penalty
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/parties-and-fines.pdf

Peel will also benefit from the Shanghai 2010. Reported in the Daily Peel was the following

Liverpool’s presence at the World Expo is estimated to cost about £3m, of which half is expected to come from the public sector.
Liverpool council has committed £300,000 to the project, while the Northwest Development Agency agreed to hand over £1.25m.
Peel Holdings will be the lead private sector sponsor, and has pledged £100,000.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2009/09/23/liverpool-insists-it-is-committed-to-world-expo-shanghai-2010-92534-24758510/

Robert Hough is a ex Executive of Peel Holdings he is now the new NWDA Chairman.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/07/liver-peel-conflicts-of-interest-begin.html I wrote to Gordon Brown and Louise Ellman MP complaining of this conflict of interests.
The biggest beneficiary to this Shanghai expo will be Peel Holdings and why do we have to subsidise them circumnavigating the port of Liverpool and shipping the traffic to their new port of Salford. And all they pay is 100K while they are raking it in.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/07/liverpeel.html
AND NOT A MENTION IN THE DAILY PEEL
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-daily-post-and-echo-mouthpiece-for.html

Peel Holdings-Arrogant Bastards!

THE developer behind the multi-billion pound Liverpool Waters project last night said it will not bow to any more pressure from heritage groups.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/09/13/liverpool-waters-developer-peel-holdings-refuses-to-make-any-more-changes-for-heritage-group-92534-27255622/



Peel Holdings wants to regenerate the city’s northern docklands with a series of skyscrapers creating more than 25,000 jobs and 14,000 apartments in a £5.5bn development.
Lindsey Ashworth, director of investment for Peel Holdings, said he was not prepared to make any more changes after already substantially reducing the size of the development.
He said he thought the scheme now looked fantastic and hoped to submit a planning application at the end of the month or early October.
“If you started to take more buildings off the site, it would become a nondescript scheme – that’s not what this is about,” said Mr Ashworth.
“I want people to remember it for the new architectural features, as well as the heritage.”
But conservation watchdog English Heritage said the plans still have the potential to harm the city’s World Heritage site.
Peel and English Heritage are currently locked in a dispute over how the 50-plus heritage buildings in the huge north Liverpool docklands site should be classified, for conservation purposes.

Last night, Mr Ashworth said: “We met with them [English Heritage] and the council last week, and it was a pretty positive meeting. We are currently debating with them whether you do a five, seven, or nine point assessment of heritage assets.
“There are at least 50 heritage assets. We consider that a five point assessment is enough, but English Heritage want a nine point assessment, that would be like making an encyclopedia.
“What I am saying to English Heritage is that it would be very nice to spend the next 12 months debating this, but we need to reach a conclusion before the end of the month because we want to submit a planning application.”
He said he expected English Heritage to take a neutral approach once a planning application is submitted: “I don’t think we will get a letter of support, and I don’t think they will object.”
He said he was hoping to get the application submitted by the time the next big Liverpool delegation travels to the World Expo in Shanghai on October 11.

“I am not making any more major changes, I have done what I think is reasonable,” said Mr Ashworth.
“There will be no tall buildings on the line of the frontage of the Mersey, but they are still 15 storeys high. I think we have the right balance now. It looks fantastic, but not over the top.”
In July, the Daily Post revealed how Peel had been forced by English Heritage to massively scale back their plans.
Last night, an English Heritage spokesman said: “Liverpool Waters has the potential to improve access to and understanding of the city's World Heritage site, but it also has the potential to harm the setting of internationally important historic buildings on the waterfront.
“As a statutory advisor to Liverpool City Council, English Heritage is working closely with the council and Peel Holdings to assist in the development of a scheme which delivers major regeneration benefits while safeguarding the outstanding heritage of Liverpool's waterfront and docks. We are working with both parties to assess the potential impact of the proposals and will continue to inform the discussions prior to the submission of the formal planning application and while it is being considered.”

City must strike delicate balance


Sep 13 2010 Liverpool Daily Post

THE conflict between the progressives in our society, and the conservatives who want to cling on to all they hold dear for all time, will never, ever cease.
The two sides are too diametrically opposed for there ever to be a permanent truce – and, to be honest, we really wouldn’t want it any other way.
Who would really want ambitious developers to be given absolute carte blanche to build wherever they want, razing our heritage to the ground in the cause of progress? And an inability to change anything, just because it was old, as reactionary conservationists might demand, would stagnate and fossilise any society, to the detriment of all who lived in it.
Liverpool has long been a battleground for this particular squabble. We have more listed buildings than anywhere in Britain outside London, and are in the midst of a mammoth regeneration programme – is it any wonder the heritage dilemma has exercised many leading city figures?
The Liverpool Waters development, in the northern docklands, is a massive plan by any standards, with 14,000 apartments planned in the £5.5bn scheme. Yet heritage campaigners complain it “has the potential to harm the setting of internationally important historic buildings on the waterfront”.
We undermine our heritage at our peril. There are many people around the world who come to Liverpool to marvel at it. But the key to mega- projects like Liverpool Waters is compromise.
Developers Peel Holdings, to be fair, have already modified the plans with the aim of addressing conservation concerns – but insist now that the time for tinkering is past, as they want to move on to the next stage of the planning process.
It would be difficult to argue against that point of view, when they have demonstrated their commitment to a major Liverpool project and have now actually reduced the size of the scheme because of heritage issues.
The balance between progress and conservation is a delicate one to maintain. But the generations yet to come would not thank us, were we to get it wrong.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2010/09/13/city-must-strike-delicate-balance-92534-27254411/
 
Tell the arrogant bastards to bugger off back to the the tax exile haunts of Isle of Man with this deplorable arrogant bastard attitude of Peel Holdings with Liverpools heritage.
 
Unesco have been informed.
 
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/07/liverpool-water-english-heritage-sound.html
 
 
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/07/stinky-ink-bartlett-comes-up-smelling.html
 
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/07/liverpool-waters-english-heritage-hold.html
 
 
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/07/joe-anderson-backs-peel-holdings-wirral.html

Unesco Warn Liverpool For The Final Time!

Wayne was asked by Larry Neild of Liverpool Confidential to put a piece forward for inclusion in a piece about UNESCO. http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Unesco-tells-city-to-think-again-over-Liverpool-Waters Joe Anderson.........tries to reposition himself from his "Cosy" relationship with Peel Holdings.
I see this damning Conclusion to the Unesco report as a major opportunity to withdraw the planning application and get Peel Holdings to go back to the drawing board and to give to the city, what the people of Liverpool deserve. A regeneration scheme fit for the future that we can stand behind, that will create jobs.
If Peel Holdings are serious, and its not a planning permission flip, why wont they give us something we can be proud of. Why do they want to build Milton Keynes-On-Sea, what is the point in that.
It is Amsterdam that we should be looking to for inspiration and how they have developed an urban landscape that interacts with its historic waterways. This report is damning and it insists that Liverpools historic waterways should not be filled in, as that would ruin the Outstandung Universal Value. Despite that, plans for Wellington dock, that will mean no more tall ships for Liverpool were recently passed just ahead of the deliverance of the report.
In 2006 Unesco told the UK Government that Liverpool had to draw up a supplementary planning document that protected it from future administrations and their links with developers.This was ratified by the city council in 2009 and this gives us as a city, all the planning protection we now need. Planning guidance PPG 15 lays down government policies for the historic environment this city council were about to breach every rule in the book. Why?
We are as a city chjarged with managing the WHS not destroying it.
No one wants the regeneration of the historic docks more than I, all my life I have waited for it, but the intelligence of those in charge is sadly lacking the class that befits the qualities required to be a World Heritage City in the 20th Century. We will create more jobs for future generations if we respect that our history is our future. My father was a docker and I ask "Why are Peel Holdings shipping jobs to Port Salford and who is going to fill the glass shoeboxes they want to put in its place"? We need jobs but there is room for regeneration and the right job creation why not just turn Liverpool into a giant Tesco and be done with it.
What is alarming, in my view is the "Cosy" relationship between the developer and the city council.
The people of Liverpool are being denied their right to exercise their views by a compliant council who are sponsoring Peel Holdings and have hijacked the planning procedure.
I recall the last Labour administration bulldozing Clayton square, a historic listed Georgian quarter, in the name of progress.
Remember this is the town ,that knocked the Cavern Club down, then called itself Beatles City.
And gets a world heritage site status and then sets about ruining it.
World Heritage Site status is not a badge on the wall of the town hall, Joe Anderson says it is.
No it is much more than that, it is an honour to be bestowed and if managed will create jobs for our city.
With such a title that puts us up there in the top tier of world class cities. Why risk it, why chance the embarrasment, why drop an architectural timebomb on the city. Trafford Park-On-Sea.
The city council under Joe Andersons leadership now have to understand who they represent and curb the arrogance of Peel Holdings.
The city council need to take note of all the damning recomendations and insist this current backdated planning application is withdrawn and is taken back to the drawing board, whats another couple of months, before it costs the city a million pounds in public inquiry.

Mission’s Conclusion and RecommendationThe 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 and work out an adjusted scheme that includes the observations put forward in this report.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/01/02/liverpool-council-leader-joe-anderson-says-city-would-sacrifice-world-heritage-status-for-liverpool-waters-scheme-in-new-year-report-100252-30044864/
Joe Anderson on the 2nd January on scrapping WHS status.


These are some of the recent press activity on 25.1.12


Unesco

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

Liverpool Echo

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/
Liverpool Daily...... err I mean Weekly Ghost
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/24/liverpool-heritage-waterfront-damage?newsfeed=true
Guardian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00n0293/Roger_Phillips_25_01_2012/
Radio Merseyside today

Unesco
24.1.12

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/01/24/unesco-inspectors-urge-compromise-on-5-5bn-liverpool-waters-plan-to-protect-city-s-world-heritage-site-status-99623-30187368/

Daily Post

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16698234  BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01b4fyt/
BBC unesco

Peel Holdings-Just How Much Do They Owe?

I posted last week about the strange finances of Peel Holdings who are a privately owned company.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/12/peel-holdings-land-division-make-loss.html

There is no doubt that they are a successful group, but may they have overplayed their hand, and are they ready for a steep decline. It cant go on forever.
My opinion is that the Liverpool Waters proposals are a planning permission exercise and John Whitaker their principle shareholder is due to cash all his chips in soon ahead of retirement.

 Today of all people Neil Hodgson of the Daily Post looks into the finances of the Trafford Park deal.

THE battle over the Peel-owned Trafford Centre outside Manchester took another twist today after it emerged the site’s proposed new owner spurned another intervention by one of America’s biggest shopping mall firms.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local//tm_headline=capital-shopping-centres-rejects-call-to-abandon-trafford-centre-deal-with-peel%26method=full%26objectid=27813952%26siteid=92534-name_page.html

Capital Shopping Centres, which owns Essex’s Lakeside centre, described the latest plan from Simon Property Group, which is also one of its biggest shareholders, as "completely impracticable".
Capital has been locked in a row with Simon after it offered £1.6bn – comprising a purchase price and taking on almost £800m of debt – to buy the Trafford Centre from developer Peel Holdings, giving the company controlled by billionaire John Whittaker nearly 20% of its shares and a seat on the board.


A Peel statement released this morning said: "Peel Group is aware of the letter from Simon Property Group Inc to Capital Shopping Centres Group plc, proposing fundamental changes to CSC’s agreed Trafford Centre transaction with Peel.
"Peel Group remains committed to the agreed transaction with CSC, subject to approval of CSC shareholders on December 20.
"Peel has no intention of selling the Trafford Centre for cash and this has never been an aim of the group – in spite of the fact that Peel has been advised a cash sale would achieve a higher price – and nor does Peel intend entering into such a discussion.
"Rather, Peel’s stated objective is to increase and diversify its exposure to the UK shopping centre market via a long-term investment in CSC."
It added: "The transaction will bring to CSC the value of John Whittaker’s extensive experience in the retail and leisure property sectors and, through the addition of the Trafford Centre, will create an unrivalled portfolio of UK regional shopping centre assets."


Liverpool stockbroker Panmure Gordon backs CSC’s proposed deal with Peel, saying: "In the long-run, if the business stays publicly quoted, the future looks improved with ownership of The Trafford Centre and a strengthened balance sheet."

Most people would wish to get out of retail even if they are as successful as the enterprise known as the Trafford centre.

So what is exactly going on in the secretive world of Isle of Man tax exile John Whittaker, owner of Peel Holdings.

PEEL HOLDINGS £31 MILLION PUBLIC SUBSIDY FOR PORT SALFORD

We take the opportunity to inform Liverpool public how public subsidies are being used to ship Liverpool Dockers jobs out of the city.

PEEL HOLDINGS £31 MILLION PUBLIC SUBSIDY FOR PORT SALFORD
 http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1493


Star date: 11th September 2012
HUGE PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR PEEL – IN RETURN FOR HOW MANY JOBS?
`wild claims and job figures that venture into the realms of fantasy…Like, the implication that Port Salford will wipe out two thirds of unemployment in the city…'
Yesterday Salford Council signed a £30million agreement with Peel Holdings for the development of Port Salford and its new infrastructure. Peel has also had almost one million Euros from Europe for its plans.
In return for near £31million of public grants and loans Port Salford is supposed to create jobs – but the figures vary wildly from just over 1,000 jobs to over 10,000 jobs. Like MediaCityUK was going to provide 15,500 jobs, yet again, this is all based on gobbledygook…

Full story here…

PORT SALFORD PART 2
Calculating jobs is all so easy…
AI = [GI x (1-L) x (1-Dp) x (1-S) x M] – [GI x (1-L) x (1-Dp) x (1-S) x M]
This is the simple equation that Amion Consultants, acting on behalf of Peel Holdings, has used to work out the amount of jobs that might be created at Port Salford, Peel's massive road, rail and Manchester Ship Canal project in Irlam.
The final figure is worked out by `employee per square metre' and then slapping in `net additional impact' (Al), `gross impact' (Gl), `leakage' (L), `displacement' (Dp), `substitution' (S) and `multiplyer' (M). It's all very scientific. Until you realise that virtually every document you look at regarding jobs at Port Salford comes up with a different figure.
This particular equation comes up with a total of 3,067 jobs for Phase 1 of Port Salford. Which is a bit of an increase from the Port Salford planning application from 2009, when there were only 1,170 jobs on offer. And slightly different from Peel's own website which states that the Port will generate "3,858 gross permanent jobs". The figures vary by over 2,500 jobs.
Does it matter? Very much so! Because Peel Holdings – one of the richest companies in the country, run by tax exile John Whittaker, the 29th richest person in Britain (who saw his personal wealth grow by £100million last year according to the Sunday Times Rich List) - is using Salford's poverty to gain million of pounds of public money and to destroy the Green Belt in the process.
Yesterday, Salford Council finally approved the agreement to hand over £30million of public money to Peel Holdings for the Port Salford scheme. Within that is a £4million grant from Salford Council, plus an £11million loan for infrastructure which is costing the Council £360,000 per year in repayments for the first five years.
Meanwhile, the Government's Department for Business Skills and Innovation's Regional Growth Fund is chipping in another £15million, and Europe's Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) has handed over a grant of 998,125 euros for viability studies.
When Salford Star first broke the story of the £30million grants last November (see here), the then Leader of Salford Council, John Merry, justified the payments in terms of jobs.
"This is great news for the city and puts us another step closer to creating 3,800 new jobs for the region" he said "We want to make a wide range of job opportunities available for the people in Salford and I am pleased that this conditional offer means we are getting closer to realising our vision."
According to the Amion equation, of 3,067 jobs it optimistically reckons will be created by Port Salford, only 730, mainly unskilled, low paid jobs will be created for Salford people. And if it pans out that there are only 1,170 jobs, as originally claimed, that would be only around 250 Salford jobs – for millions of pounds worth of investment.
But this is just the first phase of Port Salford that's not even been built yet. Peel Holdings is currently pushing for its future 100 hectare expansion into the Green Belt, with wild claims and job figures that venture into the realms of fantasy…Like, the implication that Port Salford will wipe out two thirds of unemployment in the city…
"If Salford residents with the relevant occupation were able to access the jobs created by the total Port Salford project then there is the potential for up to 63% of claimants within Salford (5,100) to find employment through the Port Salford project" states Amion's Port Salford: Employment, Gross Value Added and Business Rates Impact Paper.
Does anyone, even its authors, seriously believe that? Another wild, mad claim is that an expanded Port Salford, which would be three times the size of Phase 1, would have positive health impacts.
The same Amion `Impact Paper', almost weeping for Salford's working class, implies that Port Salford will bring down the area's shocking mortality rate through giving people what it calls `elementary occupations'.

"It can be seen that residents in the area around Port Salford have very poor average health levels" it states "It is widely acknowledged that economic deprivation has a major impact on health…"
It's also widely acknowledged that concreting over the Green Belt and letting loose 3,780 HGVs per day on the approach roads, plus freight trains thundering past, isn't good for people's health either. But that isn't mentioned.
Salford Council is currently (hopefully) opposing the intended expansion of Port Salford, during this month's `Core Strategy' Planning Inspector hearings at Swinton (see previous Salford Star article Part 1 – click here).
No doubt Peel will be rolling out these `Impact' papers, showing how 10,000 jobs will be created, if only it could concrete over the city's Green Belt.

Peel is using Salford's deprivation figures to squeeze public money and Salford's green heritage in return for jobs. The same arguments were used for MediaCityUK, when the hype suggested 15,500 jobs would be created. Hmmm. What was it? 16 jobs at the BBC for Salford people?

The job figures for Media City were worked out using similar gobbledygook…

AI = [GI x (1-L) x (1-Dp) x (1-S) x M] – [GI x (1-L) x (1-Dp) x (1-S) x M]

Peel Holdings Land Division Make A Loss. Just Exactly How Will They Fund All Their Projects?

Peel Group’s land and property division increased its turnover and pre-tax profits during the year, but ended up making a loss overall.

IT IS REPORTED ON MANCHESTER CONFIDENTIAL

see: http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Property/General/Peels-land-division-narrows-losses_16267.asp?eid=1142

Newly-filed accounts for Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Ltd show the Trafford-based behemoth, which is in the final stages of completing MediaCity on Salford Quays, recorded turnover of £91m for the year to March 31, 2010, compared to £82m in 2009.

Profits at the firm, controlled by Isle of Man-based John Whittaker, shot up to £56.5m (2009: £48m), but £64m of interest and charges pushed the firm to a loss of £3.8m for the year, an improvement of the £39m it lost a year earlier.

The debt of the group also increased however, to £907m, compared to £888m the year before.

The company’s commercial rent roll dipped by £3m to £66m. It is still spending £5m a year on empty rates charges, on the 958,000 sq ft of space it has vacant. The firm had more than 1m sq ft sat empty in 2009, however.

The company controls a 25,000-acre land portfolio. It firm recently got planning permission for its Wirral Waters scheme and submitted proposals for Liverpool Waters, the UK’s largest planning application. Last June, it was given planning consent for the 1.5m sq ft Port Salford.

It also said it intended to progress planning work on its £50bn ‘Ocean Gateway’ scheme, which links Manchester and Liverpool via the ship canal corridor.

Peel failed in its bid to build a horse racing track at Salford Forest Park, however. It now says a ‘luxury golf course concept’ will be drawn up for the site.

The firm employed 133 people during the year, with a wage bill of £7.9m The highest-paid director received £343,000. It also contributed £7m to charity during the year, an increase on the £1m it dished out to worthy causes during 2009.

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-daily-post-and-echo-mouthpiece-for.html

You wont find any of this in Trinity "Smoking" Mirrors at Oldham Hall Street. Peel Holdings Liverpool PR company.

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/10/trinity-smoking-mirrors-peels-poodles.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/09/peel-holdings-arrogant-bastards.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/07/stinky-ink-bartlett-comes-up-smelling.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/05/trinity-smoking-mirrors-helping-peel.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/04/peel-holdings-asset-stripping-liverpool.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/03/peel-holdings-want-pier-head-stinky-ink.html

Meanwhile Stinky Ink Bartlett "The Prisoner" sits on this story.

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/11/liverpool-waters-public-inquiry-is.html

Peel feels the crunch in annual port results-Even the Liverpool Daily Post are Questioning Their Financial Situation.

I wrote last week about the financial situation of Peel Holdings, asking just how are they going to fund their over ambitious, and looking even more ridiculous, schemes for both Wirral and Liverpool, combined with empty promises for the Panamax Terminal, whilst building Port Salford.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/12/peel-holdings-just-how-much-do-they-owe.html
It has taken over a week but the Daily Ghost writer for Peel Holdings finaly catches up with a in depth look at the situation from Peter Elson. It raises concerns about the position of John Whittakers Empire and just clears a little bit of, those, Smoking Mirrors at Oldham Hall Street. 
Peel feels the crunch in annual port results

Dec 22 2010

by Peter Elson, Liverpool Daily Post
PORT of Liverpool owner Peel Ports suffered a sharp fall in trade last year because of the global economic downturn, according to figures filed recently.
The company’s financial performance was further impaired by interest payments of more than £1m a week.
The group owns the Manchester Ship Canal, River Medway Ports (Port of Sheerness and Chatham Docks), Clydeport (Hunterston, Greenock, King George 5th Dock Glasgow and Ardrossan Harbour) and Heysham Port.
It also operates port facilities, freight forwarding and cargo handling businesses at Glasgow, Greenock, Hunterston, Dublin and Belfast, plus Irish Sea and North Sea freight shipping services.
In a period that coincided with the peak of the recession, the group’s turnover fell £36.6m to £362.5m. Pre-tax profits rose 9%, up £914,000 to £11.6m.
This was boosted by resilient performances by its joint ventures, including its 47% shareholding in Cammell Laird shipyard.
Accounts just filed at Companies House for the group company, Peel Ports Shareholder Financeco, show that interest payments remain high as the group services £1.2bn debt.
Although down slightly, by £2.9m, the group paid interest of £62.1m.
Peel Ports paid a £24m dividend which contributed to net liabilities of £435m.
The directors have relied on a number of factors in continuing to adopt the going concern basis.
Its borrowings of £1.06bn are in place until the end of 2013, subject to covenants which have not previously been breached, and their forecasts anticipate this will be maintained.
The group, which had net debts of £213m to other group and related companies, also had undrawn loan facilities of £60m at the end of the financial year through a variety of banks.
It expects that costs will be lower in the year to March, 2011, because of the restructuring that has taken place.
Its port and canal operations, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of the group’s turnover, slipped 3% to £230.2m, compared to £238.1m for 2009..
Shipping income suffered a bigger drop at £61.1m for 2010, in contrast to £81.3m for 2009, down 25%.
Transport income, too, fell sharply, with £38.8m for 2010, from £48.1m in 2009.
Rental income remained stable, at £28.5m.
The group has continued to reduce the number of people directly employed by the company, down nearly 400 people in the year to 1,300. The group employed more than 2,000 people just two years ago.
It reduced staff costs by nearly £14m to £55m, although it spent £8.5m on restructuring, which included redundancy costs.
The group’s immediate parent company, Peel Ports Holdings (CI), is registered in the Cayman Islands and its ultimate holding company, Tokenhouse, is an Isle of Man company.
The directors proposed and paid interim dividends of £24m, compared to £30m in 2009.
According to the Report and Financial Statements, the tonnage throughput has decreased year on year, which was fully expected as a result of the decline in the wider global downturn.
“The resulting lack of liquidity in the financial markets has reduced the ability of businesses and individuals to borrow money and this has ultimately led to a lack of demand in the global marketplace,” said the report.
“Despite the continued downturn in the global economic environment, the results for the year have remained strong, which is largely attributed to the benefit of a strong and diverse portfolio of customers and service provision.
“Although several European ports have been hit by the global decline in container volumes, Peel Ports Group is not as reliant on container handling as many other port businesses.
“With its strong and diverse service offering the Group is showing greater resilience in the current environment.”
The Port of Liverpool is by far the biggest element in the group, and the UK’s seventh largest freight port.
Taken together, all six Peel Ports form part of a wider transport infrastructure.
The key operational risk and uncertainty relates to the dependency upon the economic activity of the businesses and consumers within the port hinterlands, says the report.
The report continues: “These consumers and businesses generate the trade which flows through the ports.
“When they are subject to economic cycles, or at the extreme, to failure, there is an unavoidable impact on the port.”
Peel Ports’ five gateways handle a wide range of international trade which amounts to more than 65m tonnes of cargo a year. Meantime, the battle for ownership of Peel Holdings’ giant Trafford Centre shopping mall goes on.
Capital Shopping Centres (CSC) group is recommending that shareholders support a proposal that would see John Whittaker’s Peel Holdings sell the Trafford Centre – one of Britain’s biggest – to it in an all-share deal.
This leave Mr Whittaker’s company owning 24.7pc of CSC and the businessman becoming deputy chairman of CSC and avoiding capital gains tax.
David Simon, the largest shopping mall operator in the US, who owns 5.1% of CSC through his Simon Property Group (SPG), released details of an alternative financing proposal, which he claimed would be “more attractive” for CSC shareholders.
Mr Simon said he continued to have concerns about the £1.6bn price being sought by Peel.
Read More http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2010/12/22/peel-feels-the-crunch-in-annual-port-results-92534-27866598/#ixzz18wEhKsmU

English Heritage Slam Liverpool Waters.

Looks like those arrogant bastards who are Peel Holdings have had a dent to their over inflated egos.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/09/peel-holdings-arrogant-bastards.html

Or is this a game that the English Heretics who sanctioned some of the worst architectural disasters since Goering sent wave after wave of the Luftwaffe over during the blitz, to bomb the gubbings out of us, are playing to look like they are going through the motions.
HENRY OWEN-JOHN the Regional Development Director is, in my opinion, a disgrace to his profession but he has now come out publicly against Peel.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/05/henry-owen-john-english-heretic.html

We broke the depressing news that another, slimy, in my opinion, character, and ex English Heretic, is employed by Peel.
 http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/09/peter-de-figueiredo-opinion-for-hire.html Opinion for hire, (to the highest bidder) Peter de Figueiredo.
 http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-polices-heritage-police.html


 
We are not messing around with Liverpool's corrupted planning system anymore we are applying our energies to the DCMS who are legally obliged to protect the WHS.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2011/02/liverpools-dodgy-planners-and-its.html

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/12/peel-holdings-being-helped-by-liverpool.html

Yesterday David Bartlett who is doing a good job tracking this planning process reported.


THE regional head of English Heritage last night warned it would fight the £5.5bn Liverpool Waters scheme – unless Peel agreed to make further changes to its plans.
Henry Owen-John said Peel had a “significant” way to go to persuade English Heritage that it should back the scheme and that it would not damage the city’s World Heritage Site.
Peel Holdings wants to regenerate the city’s northern docklands with a series of skyscrapers, claiming it will create more than 25,000 jobs and 14,000 apartments in a £5.5bn development.
Last year Lindsey Ashworth, director of investment for Peel Holdings, said he was not prepared to make any more changes after already substantially reducing the size of the development which Liverpool council planners are currently considering.
If English Heritage lodges an objection and the city grants planning permission, the scheme would automatically be referred to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles – dramatically increasing the chances of a lengthy and costly public inquiry.
Mr Owen-John also revealed that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has notified Unesco, which oversees World Heritage Sites, about the Liverpool Waters project.
Unesco’s specialist advisers are currently preparing a report on the scheme.
English Heritage has also commissioned an independent report into the potential impact of the scheme.
In an exclusive interview with the Daily Post, Mr Owen-John said: “We fully support the principle of developing the area. Clearly it is a brownfield site at the moment which is inaccessible and there is real opportunity that could have enormous benefit for Liverpool widely and north Liverpool particularly.
“I think we have come a long way in three years and we are appreciative of the changes that Peel have made.
“The scheme is now very significantly different, there were many more tall buildings.
“The adjustments that have been made are clearly significant from Peel’s point .
“We feel, despite that, we are not quite there in being able to reach agreement with Peel.”

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/02/24/english-heritage-demand-more-changes-to-liverpool-waters-92534-28225547/

Read more here.

http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/11/liverpool-waters-public-inquiry-is.html

 And what is the world heritage waste of space John, "backbone of a jellyfish" Hinchliffe doing...well probably the same as ever..........nothing.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/02/john-hinchliffe-liverpools-world.html

Which Politicians Have Been Lobbying for Peel Holdings.

We know that The ex Mayor Joe Back'Anderson was working for them. Even if it has not been made public.

So if this was the case, then Why?

Are the local press corrupt. Well ask anyone on the streets of Murkeyside and you will get the answer to that one.

There is an old saying; For Evil to Succeed it takes good men to do nothing.

There are no good men, or women at The Liverpool Echo.

Peel Holdings never get interviewed especially by BBC Northwest Tonight or ITV Granada Reports. When the mega rich Margaret Hodge accuses them of Tax Dodging well....

Peel Holdings are the owners of Media City (winner of 2011 Carbuncle Cup award) in Salford. So they are the landlords of both. Radio Merseyside seem to pick thick people like Tony Snell to commentate on important matters.

Are there people in high places that think they are above the law.

Uncultured people who don't care about Liverpools image or the loss of World Heritage Site status.

That dont care about keeping Nursing homes running or services financed and libraries open.

All they care about is grabbing what they can when the door is open.

You would have to summise that one person can't be reponsible for the level of corruption that has gone on in Liverpool.

What was Mertro Mayor Steve Rotheram doing?

Liverpool is as bad as Napoli in the 80's. Those who are paying the piper were protected. The Liverpool Mafia were running the city.

Don Anderson would dish out the perks to his mates and some got away with it. Not mentioning any names. Derek Hatton. Eliot. Frank McKenna. But mostly Peel Holdings.

They were given privilidges to circumnavigate the planning system, bending the rules to suit.

Then you have the local politicians like Nasty Nick Small.

His constituancy is a hotbed for corruption. Just look at how a convicted fraudster was given St Andrews Church by the council....for a quid.

The Lime Street fiasco, that he supported. And India Buildings.

So who could be the lobbyist, or lobbyists for Peel LLP.

Could it be David Cameron, rumoured , as Prime Minister to be on the same plane as John Whittaker the owner and founder of the unsrupulous and hated, Peel Holdings, on a journey to The Shanghai Expo in 2010.

LouiseEllman who has known John Whittaker since her infamous days at Lancashire Council said the best thing she ever did and her swansong to retiring as Liverpool Riverside MP was to help plans for Everton F.C's new stadium in Bramley Moore Dock. In her constituancy.

So why was the planning application that lost Liverpool World Heritage Site Status not called in by Robert Jenrick?

Many questions have been asked about him.

While his office was sending in commissioners because of corruption.....he was turning a blind eye to it.

Then the commissioners were kept away from the Planning Department.

Its like a corrupt third world state here in Liverpool.

Corrupt politicians, commissioners. What is the point in having an investigation if you dont look in the right places.

HOW MUCH, IF AT ALL, HAS ANY ONE OF PEEL'S 200 ASSOCIATED COMPANIES PAID INTO LABOUR PARTY COFFERS.

HOW MUCH HAS BEEN PAID TO CONSERVATIVE PARTY COFFERS?

WHO HAS LOBBIED ON THIER BEHALF.

MichaelHessletine The Minister For Merseyside?

George Osbourne? Whose old constituancy of Knutsford was the centre of the idea for, The Northern Powerhouse. Knutsford, next to the central powerhouse of the founders of The Trafford Centre, in fact right next door.

And what did Jeremy Corbyn know about it all?

And when Kier Starmer does not reply to correspondence well you have to assume he knew all along what his Labour Council have been up to.

Whatever happened to Stella Shiu.     Lindsay Ashworths plaything.

Worst of all Boris Johnson thinks he is above it all. Ignoring correspondence.

You have to summise he and his old mate Cameron know exactly whats going on.

So why doesn't a decent journalist do some work and find out........

WHO IS LOBBYING FOR PEEL HOLDINGS?

Liverpool Waters-Heading for a Public Inquiry, Its The Only Way.

THE £5.5bn Liverpool Waters scheme would cause “significant damage” to the city’s World Heritage Site – according to a scathing new report.

Peel Holdings wants to regenerate the city’s northern docklands with a series of skyscrapers claiming it will create more than 25,000 jobs and 14,000 apartments in a £5.5bn development.

But Government advisers English Heritage commissioned an independent report into the project after revealing it had concerns about the scheme.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/05/16/liverpool-waters-scheme-could-damage-world-heritage-site-new-report-warns-92534-28699451/ David Bartlett who has already won an award for reporting on the arrogant Peel Holdings, and their idea to sell our world heritage site down the river and create Dubai-on-Sea. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/09/peel-holdings-arrogant-bastards.html

It seems now we are heading the only way for a public inquiry...lets hope so.

The Liverpool Daily Post say there is an opportunity for compromise. http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2011/05/16/an-opportunity-to-compromise-92534-28699480/
I question what they would know about heritage with their track record of being led by PR companies on heritage matters such as October Communications, watching while the Pier Head was decimated.

The only way forward is for a public inquiry.

Lets hope this is not just Orchestral manoeuvres in the Dock by Henry Owen-John and he finally does something to regain his awful record on Liverpool's Heritage.  http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2011/03/liverpool-waters-orchestral-manoeuvres.html

The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce has appointed a Senior Executive of Peel Holdings on to its board. Who it is heavily claimed is involved in the Liverpool Waters Scheme.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2011/05/03/liverpool-chamber-of-commerce-appoints-top-peel-surveyor-to-board-92534-28622154/
Its current Chairman is N eel Scales...........who got upset because we suggested he was far too close tp Peel Holdings. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2011/05/merseytravel-try-to-gag-us-we-will-not.html Yes Mr Scales, you should feel well and truly rattled..........we are watching you.
The truth often hurts. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2011/02/neil-scales-spiv-for-peel-holdings.html

While all the current crop of carpet-baggers are destroying the place before they bugger off to Spain with their loot...it is us who will remain who have to afford their tacky and corrupted architectural disasters to our world heritage site.
 Lets hope this is a turning point by the local press David seems to have grasped the mettle of this argument.......but it must not be allow our World Heritage Site to be compromised further.......that is the job of the public inquiry.