Author Topic: Liverpool Waters approved  (Read 1921 times)

Offline Stussy

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,777
Liverpool Waters approved
« on: March 6, 2012, 04:12:30 PM »

Its happening, subject to governmental approval.



+++++

A £5.5 billion scheme to regenerate 60 hectares of dock land in Liverpool has been approved by the city council’s planning committee.

The approval of the outline application will now be referred to the Government.

Council Leader Joe Anderson said: “Today’s decision to grant planning permission for Liverpool Waters is one of the most significant and far-reaching made in Liverpool’s recent history.

“It is a vote of confidence in a new beginning of a great city.

“The scale of what is being proposed is breath-taking – it represents a five and half billon pound investment to create thousands of jobs, provide new housing and attract new businesses and more visitors to the city. It is a scheme which is unprecedented in its ambition, scope and potential to regenerate a city.

“Liverpool has to grow and redevelop if we are to thrive and succeed in the future. We do not live in the past, we are not a museum. I care passionately about the future of Liverpool and the opportunities and life chances we give our children. Today’s decision is for future generations. The new investment, businesses and employment opportunities Liverpool waters will bring is the future for our city.

“In arriving at their decision the city council’s planning committee considered a very comprehensive report which thoroughly examined all the issues concerned and listened to a number of different presentations from both supporters and objectors and visited the site themselves.

“Everybody – including the committee - is well aware of the concerns about heritage, but we can have the strikingly modern, while retaining our world heritage status. I have never regarded this as being “either, or”.
 
“With the safeguards the planning committee has insisted on, we can have Liverpool Waters living comfortably alongside the World Heritage Site.

“If this application had been rejected then we would have been left with huge stretches of derelict dockland cheek-by-jowel with our World Heritage site. Instead we now have the prospect of one of the most ambitious schemes ever seen in this country taking shape – it is one that will transform Liverpool’s fortunes for future generations.”

More information about Liverpool Waters is available at www.liverpoolwaters.co.uk

FACT FILE:

*Liverpool City Council’s planning committee has granted outline planning permission for Peel Holdings Liverpool Waters scheme. The permission is subject to the signing of a legal agreement and has to be referred to the Government who will decide if a public inquiry will be held
   

*A large number of conditions including those relating to timescales, the heights of buildings and phasing of works were imposed

*Liverpool Waters involves a comprehensive redevelopment of up to 60 hectares of dock land over a 30 year period

*It includes creating more than 9,000 homes, 3 million square feet of commercial development, a cruise liner terminal, hotels, shops, restaurants and leisure facilities


http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/news/details.aspx?id=213550
"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Had Napoleon had that idea he would have conquered the bloody world. I wanted Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Offline Spongebob Redpants

  • Is a spingly spangly
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #1 on: March 6, 2012, 06:20:20 PM »
Glad it's got the approval , but still have reservations .

Have to wait and see now regarding a public enquiry .
Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you do criticise him, you're a mile away and you have his shoes.

Offline Torpedo Tommy

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,469
  • Always next year!
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #2 on: March 6, 2012, 06:48:30 PM »
Good for the area.

What happened about the Bitters moving to the banks of the Mersey?

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,292
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #3 on: March 6, 2012, 06:59:47 PM »
Good for the area.

What happened about the Bitters moving to the banks of the Mersey?

They threw themselves in.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Torpedo Tommy

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,469
  • Always next year!
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #4 on: March 6, 2012, 07:29:26 PM »

Offline jillc

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,678
  • "I'm surprised they didn't charge me rent"
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #5 on: March 6, 2012, 09:48:57 PM »
Not a surprise but I have reservations about it.
"He's trying to get right away from football. I believe he went to Everton"

Offline Rome-77

  • No new LFC topics
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #6 on: March 6, 2012, 10:33:39 PM »
Not a surprise but I have reservations about it.

why this is brilliant news,
the site of the development is on a scrapyard and wasteland,it nowhere near the 3 graces.
anything of historical importance in being kept like the dock wall and the tobacco warehouse.
it would be absolute madness to turn down 5-5 billion of private investment.in a recession. 
it would be Europes biggest single development. and would have the tallest uk building and a second cruise terminal.

     

Offline Big Red Richie

  • Thread killer extraordinaire. For future reference the order is T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,236
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #7 on: March 6, 2012, 10:47:41 PM »
Now that Wirral Waters, and Liverpool Waters have both been given the go-ahead, can we not just build the Argonath, and be done with it.

That should bring in a few tourists.  ;)


Offline Jonathan Hall ☆☆☆☆☆

  • aka DangerPaddy. Olores de cebollas. Carly Cole Stalker. Likes to drink at Bar Fanny.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,322
  • Tapas y Cerveza y vino tinto!
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #8 on: March 6, 2012, 11:14:36 PM »
Now that Wirral Waters, and Liverpool Waters have both been given the go-ahead, can we not just build the Argonath, and be done with it.

That should bring in a few tourists.  ;)



If i remember rightly, you're about that fucking size...
Right which bastards eaten me Tapas?

http://hfdinfo.com/digital/

Online Fiasco

  • Just add water to foam at the mouth. Can't spell San Francisco. Has promised to eat his own cock. Cannibal Self-Harm in that case.....
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,637
  • JFT96.
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #9 on: March 7, 2012, 12:03:14 AM »
Peel have said they will walk away if it goes to a public inquiry. Anyone have any idea if that is likely or not?

Offline Cesar

  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #10 on: March 7, 2012, 12:16:05 AM »
why this is brilliant news,
the site of the development is on a scrapyard and wasteland,it nowhere near the 3 graces.
anything of historical importance in being kept like the dock wall and the tobacco warehouse.
it would be absolute madness to turn down 5-5 billion of private investment.in a recession. 
it would be Europes biggest single development. and would have the tallest uk building and a second cruise terminal.

     

It looks awesome, although the new sky scrapers dwarf the building I live in now on that picture... I already have tower envy looking at the Beetham building!

Offline Jonathan Hall ☆☆☆☆☆

  • aka DangerPaddy. Olores de cebollas. Carly Cole Stalker. Likes to drink at Bar Fanny.
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,322
  • Tapas y Cerveza y vino tinto!
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #11 on: March 7, 2012, 07:56:14 AM »
If Peel walk away, wonder if the council can do a compulsory purchase?
Right which bastards eaten me Tapas?

http://hfdinfo.com/digital/

Offline Spongebob Redpants

  • Is a spingly spangly
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #12 on: March 7, 2012, 09:34:27 AM »
Peel have said they will walk away if it goes to a public inquiry. Anyone have any idea if that is likely or not?

This is an article taken from The Echo today :

DEVELOPERS face a three-month wait to find out whether the government will call a public inquiry into a £5.5bn skyscraper scheme for Liverpool’s northern docklands.
 
Yesterday the city council’s planning committee unanimously approved Peel’s Liverpool Waters plan for the 150-acre site.
 
But because of its size and concerns over its possible impact on the city’s World Heritage Site, the huge planning application must now be sent to communities secretary Eric Pickles MP.
 
Unesco, which oversees World Heritage Sites, believes the massive scheme would damage the city’s waterfront “beyond repair” and relegate the Three Graces to playing “second violin”.
 
Mr Pickles has to decide whether to call a public inquiry in the face of a threat from Peel that the company will walk away from the development if he does that.
 
Peel said it would instead concentrate exclusively on its similar Wirral Waters project in Birkenhead, which was given planning permission and did not face a public inquiry.
 
A verdict from Mr Pickles is expected by June.


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/03/07/liverpool-waters-three-month-wait-on-5-5bn-plan-after-council-approval-100252-30476077/#ixzz1oQDyPY8S
Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you do criticise him, you're a mile away and you have his shoes.

Offline Red Beret

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,776
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #13 on: March 7, 2012, 03:38:42 PM »
I don't want it.

Offline aggerdid

  • Reads the subtitles on "Queer as Folk" from right to left
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,529
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #14 on: March 7, 2012, 04:44:40 PM »
i honestly dont see the issue like its not like theyre squashed in between the 3 graces. it'll bring loads of money into the city so surely thats the main thing
We must embrace pain and burn it as fuel for our journey - Kenji Miyazawa

Offline Rafette

  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
  • Every other Saturday's me half day off.....
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #15 on: March 7, 2012, 07:58:02 PM »
It's in an area that needs real redevelopment, I'm for it. Let's not forget that people objected to the Liver Building when that was being built. We can't leave the north docks to rot away. The chance to develop the area to support the cruise liner terminal has to be taken.

Have noticed though, the building I currently work in has been replaced by something different on the artist's impression....do I read anything into that?! ;)
"If you can't make decisions in life, you're a bloody menace. You'd be better becoming an MP!" Bill Shankly

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #16 on: March 7, 2012, 09:02:16 PM »
It looks fancy on the artist's impression and certainly, jobs and money would be there during construction and in limited numbers, post completion. Is it actually needed though? A lot of the development I saw in the city (around the Capital of Culture) was posh flats - there are already lots of them - are more needed?

Anyway, it brings this article to mind - is this a signal of the impending downturn for the city? More white elephant office buildings and another glut of aspirational housing. All made in a little into an enclave of posh, while the outlying areas are starved for investment. The construction will suck up a lot of resources and taxpayer money (one way or another).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16494013

Skyscrapers 'linked with impending financial crashes'

View from Burj Dubai
There is an "unhealthy correlation" between the building of skyscrapers and subsequent financial crashes, according to Barclays Capital.

Examples include the Empire State building, built as the Great Depression was under way, and the current world's tallest, the Burj Khalifa, built just before Dubai almost went bust.

China is currently the biggest builder of skyscrapers, the bank said.

India also has 14 skyscrapers under construction.

"Often the world's tallest buildings are simply the edifice of a broader skyscraper building boom, reflecting a widespread misallocation of capital and an impending economic correction," Barclays Capital analysts said.

The bank noted that the world's first skyscraper, the Equitable Life building in New York, was completed in 1873 and coincided with a five-year recession. It was demolished in 1912.

Other examples include Chicago's Willis Tower (which was formerly known as the Sears Tower) in 1974, just as there was an oil shock and the US dollar's peg to gold was abandoned.

And Malaysia's Petronas Towers in 1997, which coincided with the Asian financial crisis.

The findings might be a concern for Londoners, who are currently seeing the construction of what will be Western Europe's tallest building, the Shard.

That will be 1,017ft (310m) tall on completion.

China bubble?
The 27-storey Antilia, the newly-built residence of Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani, is seen in Mumbai on October 19, 2010. The 27-storey home of one Indian family in Mumbai

Investors should be most concerned about China, which is currently building 53% of all the tall buildings in the world, the bank said.

A lending boom following the global financial crisis in 2008 pushed prices higher in the world's second largest economy.

In a separate report, JPMorgan Chase said that the Chinese property market could drop by as much as 20% in value in the country's major cities within the next 12 to 18 months.

In India, billionaire Mukesh Ambani built his own skyscraper in Mumbai - a 27-storey residence believed to be the world's most expensive home.

Local newspapers said the house required 600 members of staff to maintain it. Reports suggest the residence is worth more than $1bn (£630m).

"Today India has only two of the world's 276 skyscrapers over 240m in height, yet over the next five years it intends to complete 14 new skyscrapers," according to Barclays Capital.

Barclays Capital's Skyscraper Index has been published every year since 1999.


Online John C

  • Likes it kinky. Feedback loiterer. mere clutz
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,828
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2012, 12:55:17 AM »
The City was always going to approve it, its massive with a capital M. In terms of the heritage status people worry too much. All you have to do is something which very few scousers have done is go an view Liverpool from Wallasey (where the eggy ferry pub is) where you'll get some perspective of the waterfront and how long it is and how uninterrupted it will be.
Other concerns about the approach from the sea view don't take in to account the bend before the city centre.

All the Cormorants are lined up, if any one shoots them down they're a c*nt.

Offline fox1977

  • Anny Roader
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • freepremiershiponline.com
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2012, 09:00:26 AM »
Let's hope the tories let it go through without a public inquiry as part of their private sector to grow the economy approach
http://www.freepremiershiponline.com/ - guide to streaming football online

Offline TomDcs

  • Cross dressing, pant shitting, clothes thief
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,506
  • We won it 5 times......
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2012, 09:28:38 AM »
I wonder if the Tories will do us over again...
Raw kite.

Offline smig

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,445
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2012, 02:54:36 PM »
Great news this. Me dad lives in Waterloo Quay by Costco and Toys R Us and it's been derelict round there for donkey's years now.
"Fire in your belly comes from pride and passion in wearing the red shirt."

Offline SalisburyRed

  • No fun "budding young Tory"!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,839
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2012, 03:11:57 PM »
There's a column about this in today's Sunday Times which I'll post here (assuming the mods don't mind). I still have mixed feelings about the proposed developments.

Quote
The three graces of Greek mythology were goddesses of charm, beauty and creativity. But talk about the Three Graces in the northwest of England and people will think of the three century-old buildings on Liverpool’s Pier Head that are as much a global reference point as the Sydney opera house and that appear in every documentary made about the Beatles: the Port of Liverpool, the Cunard and the Royal Liver buildings, the last topped by its Liver birds.

All three of these landmarks were built in Liverpool’s days of glory as the supreme commercial port in the British Empire. Their significance — along with the Albert Dock, other port structures and the city’s merchants’ buildings — was recognised in 2004 when Unesco named Liverpool’s maritime and mercantile city a World Heritage Site.

There was once, incidentally, a “Fourth Grace” beside the Port of Liverpool building but it was bombed during the second world war and the jobless were paid to demolish it — starting a taste for demolition of the historic fabric among the city’s elders.

The latest threat to the Three Graces and to Liverpool’s listed commercial buildings — it has the largest number of grade I-listed structures outside London — comes from Liverpool Waters, the largest planning application in the country, which was granted permission by Liverpool city council last week.

This 150-acre redevelopment of the northern docklands with a £5.5 billion forest of skyscrapers is intended to attract Chinese investors and to create more than 25,000 jobs. It is the brainchild of Peel Holdings, a private company run by John Whittaker, a reclusive billionaire from Bury, who now lives on the Isle of Man.

Peel already has permission for a vast redevelopment of 500 acres of docks across the Mersey in Wirral. It also owns Manchester’s Trafford Park and the Manchester ship canal. Its proposed Merseyside developments have a total value of more than £50 billion and promise to return the northwest to its merchant heyday. No wonder a Liverpool council committee member hailed the Liverpool Waters scheme as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity”.

No doubt an opportunity exists, but the scheme also puts a government that is committed to growth and localism in a quandary. For not only has the government’s adviser, English Heritage, lodged a formal objection to the scheme, but Unesco, the international arbiter of heritage value, has warned that the development would “relegate the Three Graces to playing second violin”, a fate that could lead to the city’s world heritage designation being threatened.

English Heritage’s main objection is to the scale of the development. It says the Three Graces, not to mention such other structures as the listed and shortly to be refurbished Stanley Dock Tobacco Warehouse, would be dwarfed and vistas across the water from Wirral overshadowed with parts of the city obscured. Critics say the development should have created views towards landmarks instead of blocking them, made better links to the river and provided better public spaces.

This scheme may be the shape of things to come. The government wants the planning system to bend to its growth agenda under new rules to be published shortly. Peel is behaving as if those rules were already in force. Since the development was first proposed five years ago it has disdained advice from the government’s heritage adviser — thereby extending the delays of which it complains.

Unlike Grosvenor, the development company owned by the Duke of Westminster, which took a more constructive approach when building its admired shopping development, Liverpool One, Peel has threatened to walk away if the scheme is called in for public inquiry. The company knew Liverpool councillors would line up behind the scheme, as they could not be seen to be against jobs and growth.

This is the dilemma for Eric Pickles, the communities secretary. Because of the formal objection by English Heritage he will now have to decide either to call a public inquiry — thereby ditching the government’s pro-growth agenda — or to wave through the development and be criticised for favouring a bullying company not known for world-class design, which I note has its hand out for as much public money as it can get, whether from European or national coffers, to make its plans happen.

Everyone wants Liverpool's northern docks to be developed — it's just what a truly civilised, far-sighted nation would be aiming for is to promote growth and the historic environment at the same time. What Liverpool city council did last week was choose one at the expense of the other. That isn’t what I think is meant by sustainable development, a concept supposedly at the heart of the new planning rules.

You may say that the future of port cities such as Liverpool is to be seen in Shanghai and Singapore. I agree. But don’t assume that developers in the Far East would abandon quality for growth: the standard of developments in Singapore these days exceeds the quality of what is proposed in Liverpool Waters. Peel should be told to come back with a scheme that has the charm, beauty and creativity a truly modern, world-class city deserves.

Offline Red Beret

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,776
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2012, 02:45:28 PM »
Threatening to walk away if things don't go their way is nothing short of blackmail.  They own all the land around there already; if there's a reason that it's derelict then look no further than Peel.  All it took was for Peel to shout 'jobs!' and the council couldn't wait to suck dick.  Frankly I'd take quality over quantity when it comes to jobs, every time.  How many of these jobs will be in the service sector, with locals making themselves into doormats for the loaded OOT's this project is so clearly aimed at?

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2012, 03:32:08 PM »
Threatening to walk away if things don't go their way is nothing short of blackmail.  They own all the land around there already; if there's a reason that it's derelict then look no further than Peel.  All it took was for Peel to shout 'jobs!' and the council couldn't wait to suck dick.  Frankly I'd take quality over quantity when it comes to jobs, every time.  How many of these jobs will be in the service sector, with locals making themselves into doormats for the loaded OOT's this project is so clearly aimed at?

Cleaners and security guards for the enclave of posh that Peel is effectively buying from the council if it goes ahead. It'll be a money pit for the city tax/rate payers and Peel will profit handsomely regardless.

But there will be some big phallic buildings so it's all good from the council's perspective. 

Offline Istanbul Therapy Group

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,009
  • You'll hear our famous noise
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2012, 03:57:03 PM »
Where is the demand for 9,000 more apartments coming from?

Would be interested to see if there has been some published Market Research done about future city centre housing requirements.

Beethams & City lofts suffered from building too much and not selling the apartments, Peel are probably too big to go into administration, but it does feel like Deja Vu a bit here. Throw some sky scrapers up and bang 250 apartments in at £200k each. Yeah Business plan!!

He never shows mercy, he would put 6 past your sons school team.

Offline Red Beret

  • Wants to sit in the Lobster Pot
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,776
Re: Liverpool Waters approved
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2012, 04:56:06 PM »
A fair number of apartments remained empty during the property boom.  They were traded like shares.  It was only when the housing market collapsed that owners had to look at renting the buggers out.