----- Original Message -----From: christopher.speck@bt.comSent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:17 PMSubject: meeting with Angela Leckie - report backI met with Angela Leckie in Planning Dept today.
I provided her with the background of the previous campaign and how the lack of transparency, untruths and so called consultations increased the anger and frustration about this development. This led to the widespread criticised of the Council in allowing this development and why any further Applications for this site will certainly be criticised.
I made clear few were anti development and that W hotels would be good for the area. But was the extra height needed? Angela noted the idea to downscale bedrooms a small amount and so keep within 13 storeys. I even mentioned West losing a few floors off the Apt block if W hotels wanted southerly views……Angela did not note this down !
l said the public space sold the original Application - but it would be a turning circle. Also the Big concern is - Where will it end up?
Angela says they are considering a Personal consent for W Hotels. So if they then pull out etc then the new Application would no longer apply - so West cannot use just to get extra floors.
I asked where the Win was for anyone other than West and W hotels. S106 etc. Angela mentioned merit of W as a premium 5* so extras floors maybe supportable. But I challenge W as 5*. Angela said told distinction between 4 and 5 hotel is if there is 24 hr room service. Can we check this out ???
EH - Angela says discussions about materials were occurring but knew nothing of increased height discussions on other 2 buildings. But nothing to stop West Applying. Suggested they would need an extra Win or merit for the Council to consider any increases elsewhere on the site.
Angela mentioned reduction in height on apt block was the concession before. I made clear this was such a small change (half a floor?) it was an insult. I mentioned outstanding right to light issues with Granby Village and Cotton Mill on Whitworth street - so any increased in height of apt block would further impact this - and harm Regency.
Conservation and Historic Buildings Panel got the new Application this week and therefore no report back yet.
Angela knew road access was issue and highways were looking at it including Regency's half of Venice Street. Brazil St would be major in and out to the site. I raised issue of lots more traffic to premium hotel and bollards etc to access turning circle may cause traffic chaos on Brazil Street / Venice St especially as 338 underground spaces to serve + Regency and 42-44 car access and Amazon House. She did not seem to be aware of the existing residents' car parking access !
Privacy. I specifically mentioned roof lights on 42-44 - plus extra impact of overlooking that increased height would bring to all living close to the hotel.
Many objections received already mention extra shadowing on Canal Street. Analysis shows there will be more - but not much more. However what I saw showed large impact of shadowing on Sackville Park later in the day. So I raised this. I think the Aids monument will be increasingly impacted. I argued there was already too much shadowing from 13 storey hotel (Angela did not know originally only 11 storeys in original plans of Summer 06).
A lack of verified images were already on Angela's list to raise with Simpson. Any news images would be added on line. The ones in the new app show the tip of the hotel peeking above the office and Apt block. I said they were a waste of paper and repeated the issue that the Applications would be much less offensive if West and Simpson etc were honest about the impact. Also statements about how bad the area currently is are how this development will 'regenerate' are just untrue and deeply offensive to residents who have created a vibrant community and regenerated long before Simpson and West came along trying far too hard to justify their plans.
I asked to speak at the Planning Committee and also requested a site visit from the Committee. Suggested the key viewing point would now be from Canal Street. The Tower cranes on site also now show the height impact more readily - compared to the site visit in Feb 07 from within the site.
In summary I felt Angela was sympathetic to the concerns of residents and I got the impression this New Application is not a done deal as it stands or robust enough for Planning to Approval as is. So maybe we can all help make a real difference this time around........
Regards
Chris Speck
Meeting with Planning dept.
Application update
West Properties jointly with an intended hotel operator for the Origin
site have recently applied to add 12.7 metres (4 extra floors) to the
hotel building - making it a colossal 17 storeys - and thereby the
highest building planned for Origin
It is seriously concerning that ANY increase to the heights of any of
the buildings due to be built on the Origin site should be considered
justifiable in any circumstances. And in this instance the impact of
this towering building n on Canal Street and the area in general will be
considerable.
The levels of planning objections raised in 2006 against this scheme
were unprecedented. Local residents and the public were appalled that
their mass opposition only achieved a miniscule reduction in height of
one of the buildings before the scheme was waived through by Planners
and Approved.
This rebuff against the local communities left a bitter after taste -
but it is now heartening that this rebuff from the Council will not stop
many who objected last time from raising their objections again now.
So please raise your concerns and objections NOW and hopefully the
collective voice will force the Developer and the Council to reconsider.
See previous post for details how to do this.
Its suggested to spell out to the Council that the increased height and
the dilution of the benefits the original scheme (the public gardens -
now to be a car turning circle) undermine the previous Approval so
considerably and therefore should not be considered justifiable in any
circumstances.
And where will this end? What is to stop further Applications until the
Approved scheme is dwarfed by a series of extra additions? Enough is
most definitely enough !
site have recently applied to add 12.7 metres (4 extra floors) to the
hotel building - making it a colossal 17 storeys - and thereby the
highest building planned for Origin
It is seriously concerning that ANY increase to the heights of any of
the buildings due to be built on the Origin site should be considered
justifiable in any circumstances. And in this instance the impact of
this towering building n on Canal Street and the area in general will be
considerable.
The levels of planning objections raised in 2006 against this scheme
were unprecedented. Local residents and the public were appalled that
their mass opposition only achieved a miniscule reduction in height of
one of the buildings before the scheme was waived through by Planners
and Approved.
This rebuff against the local communities left a bitter after taste -
but it is now heartening that this rebuff from the Council will not stop
many who objected last time from raising their objections again now.
So please raise your concerns and objections NOW and hopefully the
collective voice will force the Developer and the Council to reconsider.
See previous post for details how to do this.
Its suggested to spell out to the Council that the increased height and
the dilution of the benefits the original scheme (the public gardens -
now to be a car turning circle) undermine the previous Approval so
considerably and therefore should not be considered justifiable in any
circumstances.
And where will this end? What is to stop further Applications until the
Approved scheme is dwarfed by a series of extra additions? Enough is
most definitely enough !
Chris Speck
How to make a represntation.
The official MCC site for information about the planning application can be accessed by clicking here. In case of any problems, the main search page is here, enter application reference 87671. Once in the application see the associated documents, the list of which is in pages of 20 at a time by default.
Closing date for representations is officially 17th October 2008, but all comments received by the case officer prior to the planning committee meeting will be considered.
Chris
Latest proposals
Hi,
I am posting to update everyone what our latest understanding is of the new plans. The application is very hard to understand as a lot of the documents submitted are out of date, and I am still not sure all documents have been uploaded to the planning website.
The hotel is to be operated by a group called Starwood who have a lot of very upmarket hotels around the world under various brands. This hotel will belong to the 'W hotels' brand. Membership to their Preferred Guest scheme is free with an American Express platinum card.
The reason for the changes to the plans for the site is listed as "The approved building was developed for a three star/mid-range hotel operator. Design adjustments to the hotel building are now required to accommodate the requirements of the Starwood Hotel Group particularly as they relate to the W hotel, a five star plus brand."
Talking about other W hotel properties, of which this will be the first in the UK "From the range of potential hotel development locations across Manchester City Centre, the Origin scheme at the heart of the Village community was the hotel's preferred location. The vibrant character of the Village, its diversity, its nightlife and the quality of its built environment are all major factors. The site has parallels with a number of successful existing W Hotels which have located in 'off pitch' locations, often integrating with older buildings or neighbourhoods, and which have in a number of occasions successfully integrated with existing gay and lesbian communities.". Their latest Pride event list is found here.
The main proposed changes are:
- An extra 4 storeys, or 12.7m in height for the hotel building.
- Changing the central area to permit drop-off at the hotel entrance.
I will update here with more details of the changes as I can confirm them.
Chris
Another planning application made.
This post is to inform everyone it has come to my attention that West have submitted an application to Manchester City Council planning department regarding changes to the Petros Car Park development, or Origin as it is now called.
Official details of what has been requested are not yet available, but it only affects the hotel part.
I note that the appplicaiton is by West and 'Starwood' hotels, for the erection of a 17 storey hotel.
The planning reference number for MCC website is 087671. No documents are available as yet.
Chris
Official details of what has been requested are not yet available, but it only affects the hotel part.
I note that the appplicaiton is by West and 'Starwood' hotels, for the erection of a 17 storey hotel.
The planning reference number for MCC website is 087671. No documents are available as yet.
Chris
Final decision reached by council.
I can announce that on 27th March 2007, the council officially approved the latest plans for the development of the Petros car park.
On 15th February the planning committee were 'minded to approve' subject to further negotiaitons. West did modify the plans to reduce the impact on the facade that borders Regency House by a token 3 metres (yes that is not a typo, three metres) on the corner joining Whitworth Street, resulting in the height of the tallest part of the building increasing.
Work has begun today clearing trees, and the car park will close for ever at the end of the week.
Regards,
Chris G
(Update 31st March: trees are down, but closing the car park has been delayed)
On 15th February the planning committee were 'minded to approve' subject to further negotiaitons. West did modify the plans to reduce the impact on the facade that borders Regency House by a token 3 metres (yes that is not a typo, three metres) on the corner joining Whitworth Street, resulting in the height of the tallest part of the building increasing.
Work has begun today clearing trees, and the car park will close for ever at the end of the week.
Regards,
Chris G
(Update 31st March: trees are down, but closing the car park has been delayed)
Negotiations Update.
In February the committee agreed the head of planning would conduct further negotiations with West about the plans for the Petros site.
His report to the March planning committee meeting stated:
2.3 The design of the scheme is at an advanced stage and there is a considerable amount of information available on design, construction, structure, cost and value and as such they have been able to examine all potential options thoroughly. This process has made it clear that it would not be possible to remove a complete storey from the residential block and leave the scheme economically and commercially viable. It should be noted that the scale and height of the scheme was reduced considerably as a result of the consultation process with the community and English Heritage.
2.4 The applicant does, however, believe that it is possible to re-engineer and re-profile the residential block on the Venice Street frontage. This would result in a loss of floorspace in excess of 100 m sq and would require a re-design of internal layouts. The impact of this would be a 3m reduction in the height of the building on Venice Street at its junction with Whitworth Street, reducing to 1.5m at the junction of Venice Street and Brazil Street. The effect of this on Venice Street and therefore the residents of Regency House would be beneficial as it would further improve views of the sky and improve access to daylight and sunlight.
3.1 The Head of Planning believes that the scheme has been negotiated in accordance with the Committee decision and is satisfied that these changes will result in improvements for residents in Regency House. Subject to receiving a full set of amended drawings he therefore intends to consult the Chair with a view to exercising his delegated authority to approve the applications. Those who commented on the applications will be notified of the decision accordingly.
So the negotiations have chopped 3m off the height at the most affected corner.
Chris G.
His report to the March planning committee meeting stated:
2.3 The design of the scheme is at an advanced stage and there is a considerable amount of information available on design, construction, structure, cost and value and as such they have been able to examine all potential options thoroughly. This process has made it clear that it would not be possible to remove a complete storey from the residential block and leave the scheme economically and commercially viable. It should be noted that the scale and height of the scheme was reduced considerably as a result of the consultation process with the community and English Heritage.
2.4 The applicant does, however, believe that it is possible to re-engineer and re-profile the residential block on the Venice Street frontage. This would result in a loss of floorspace in excess of 100 m sq and would require a re-design of internal layouts. The impact of this would be a 3m reduction in the height of the building on Venice Street at its junction with Whitworth Street, reducing to 1.5m at the junction of Venice Street and Brazil Street. The effect of this on Venice Street and therefore the residents of Regency House would be beneficial as it would further improve views of the sky and improve access to daylight and sunlight.
3.1 The Head of Planning believes that the scheme has been negotiated in accordance with the Committee decision and is satisfied that these changes will result in improvements for residents in Regency House. Subject to receiving a full set of amended drawings he therefore intends to consult the Chair with a view to exercising his delegated authority to approve the applications. Those who commented on the applications will be notified of the decision accordingly.
So the negotiations have chopped 3m off the height at the most affected corner.
Chris G.
Planning Committee Minutes
I have just received the formal minutes from the planning committee meeting on 15th February 2007.
With regard to the Petros site, they state:
More news will be posted as we have it....
Chris G
With regard to the Petros site, they state:
Decision
To be minded to approve applications 081209 and 081371 for Conservation Area Consent subject to further negotiations between the Head of Planning and the applicant to look at the impact of the height of the Venice Street elevation.
(Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Committee authorised to make a final decision on the applications).
More news will be posted as we have it....
Chris G
Statement from Labour's Candidate for City Centre Council
From: Kathy Crotty
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:58 PM
Subject: statement from Kathy Crotty
Well done to all the Save Our Village campaigners for achieving the best possible outcome - the developers now have to sit down with the planning committee chair to take heed of the concerns raised by residents about the height of the proposed development. I have been working with Labour Councillors Paul Fairweather (Council Lead on Gay issues), Mary Murphy (Council Lead on Lesbian issues), & Pat Karney (City Centre Spokesperson) to ensure that the residents veiws were represented. We vigorously opposed this development arguing amongst many things that it is inappropriate for this area. I feel this is was only outcome possible given the support for the development from the business community and certain community organisations. The developer has not got what was wanted, the campaigners have achieved a small victory. We will continue to lobby the council and remind them of the residents objections. The campaign has succeeded in opening a debate within the Labour Party about the planning process which has not been reformed since the last Tory government!
Kathy Crotty
City Centre Residents Labour Party
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:58 PM
Subject: statement from Kathy Crotty
Well done to all the Save Our Village campaigners for achieving the best possible outcome - the developers now have to sit down with the planning committee chair to take heed of the concerns raised by residents about the height of the proposed development. I have been working with Labour Councillors Paul Fairweather (Council Lead on Gay issues), Mary Murphy (Council Lead on Lesbian issues), & Pat Karney (City Centre Spokesperson) to ensure that the residents veiws were represented. We vigorously opposed this development arguing amongst many things that it is inappropriate for this area. I feel this is was only outcome possible given the support for the development from the business community and certain community organisations. The developer has not got what was wanted, the campaigners have achieved a small victory. We will continue to lobby the council and remind them of the residents objections. The campaign has succeeded in opening a debate within the Labour Party about the planning process which has not been reformed since the last Tory government!
Kathy Crotty
City Centre Residents Labour Party
Statement from City Centre Councillor
From: Councillor Marc Ramsbottom
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Planning Decision
STATEMENT
I am very disappointed that the Planning and Highways Committee approved this application. At the Committee, I spoke out in support of residents objection, stating that the plans represented overdevelopment of the site and that the design of the scheme was out of keeping with the Conservation Area and especially out of character with the Victorian and Edwardian buildings that surround the site.
It seems that commercial and financial interests out weigh the concerns of the local community, and the City Council has failed yet again to listen to the needs and interest of people.
At the Committee meeting opposition members of the Committee were refused permission to speak out against the application, and as a result the decision to approve it was railroaded by Labour members who dominate the Committee. I have sent a formal complaint to the City Solicitor about this, and also a letter of complaint to Manchester Pride who had no right to speak in support of the application without the backing of the local lesbian and gay community.
Marc
Cllr Marc Ramsbottom
Liberal Democrat Councillor - City Centre Ward
Tel: (0161) 202 6603 Home(07976) 352 513 Mobile(0161) 234 3002 Town Hall(0161) 234 3296 FAX
www.marcramsbottom.org.uk
You can meet up with your Liberal Democrat councillors to discuss any issues of concern on the first and third Saturdays of the month between 11am and 12 noon at the main cafe bar in the City Art Gallery. The next few dates are: Saturday 17 February and Saturday 3 March 2007.
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Planning Decision
STATEMENT
I am very disappointed that the Planning and Highways Committee approved this application. At the Committee, I spoke out in support of residents objection, stating that the plans represented overdevelopment of the site and that the design of the scheme was out of keeping with the Conservation Area and especially out of character with the Victorian and Edwardian buildings that surround the site.
It seems that commercial and financial interests out weigh the concerns of the local community, and the City Council has failed yet again to listen to the needs and interest of people.
At the Committee meeting opposition members of the Committee were refused permission to speak out against the application, and as a result the decision to approve it was railroaded by Labour members who dominate the Committee. I have sent a formal complaint to the City Solicitor about this, and also a letter of complaint to Manchester Pride who had no right to speak in support of the application without the backing of the local lesbian and gay community.
Marc
Cllr Marc Ramsbottom
Liberal Democrat Councillor - City Centre Ward
Tel: (0161) 202 6603 Home(07976) 352 513 Mobile(0161) 234 3002 Town Hall(0161) 234 3296 FAX
www.marcramsbottom.org.uk
You can meet up with your Liberal Democrat councillors to discuss any issues of concern on the first and third Saturdays of the month between 11am and 12 noon at the main cafe bar in the City Art Gallery. The next few dates are: Saturday 17 February and Saturday 3 March 2007.
Planning committee ask for changes
Today is the day the site visit was conducted. About 50 people attended. The event was filmed by the BBC, and interviews were conducted with numerous local residents. This will be shown on the Regional News tonight at 6:30 PM.
The planning committee have NOT APPROVED the plans as they stand.
Full details of their decision will be posted here once it is available to us in writing.
Thanks to all for your continued support.
Chris G
The planning committee have NOT APPROVED the plans as they stand.
Full details of their decision will be posted here once it is available to us in writing.
Thanks to all for your continued support.
Chris G
Next stage of campaign
Thanks to all for the massive support at the last planning meeting.
We are pleased with the successful decision at that meeting by the planners to visit the site before they make the final decision.
This visit will take place on 15th February at 10:30AM. If you aren't too hung over from Valentines day please try to attend and show your opposition to the development. Save Our Village will have banners etc. Keep checking here for any updates.
Please keep up the brilliant support we have received to date!!
Chris G
We are pleased with the successful decision at that meeting by the planners to visit the site before they make the final decision.
This visit will take place on 15th February at 10:30AM. If you aren't too hung over from Valentines day please try to attend and show your opposition to the development. Save Our Village will have banners etc. Keep checking here for any updates.
Please keep up the brilliant support we have received to date!!
Chris G
Planning Decision Deferred
For those who were not at the Town Hall yesterday – or missed NW tonight we got a deferral of the Application – but not before the Committee heard all the arguments for and against.
Peter Copping spoke against the plans on behalf of Regency House and I followed for SoV.
Phil Burke from VBA spoke in favour and so did Francis Hilton as Applicant.
Councillor Ramsbottom raised objections as ward Councillor and Cllr Paul Fairweather and Cllr Mary Murphy as lead councillors for gay and lesbian issues.
So a small victory – but the big date for the diary is 15TH February – 10.30am the Planning Committee will be visiting the site – and we need to mobilise to ensure lots of residents are there and we get maximum publicity.
Then the Committee will sit at 2pm in the Council Chamber – so please put the date in your diary if you may be able to attend and let me know if you would like to get more involved in the final leg of Campaigning.
Regards
Chris Speck
Save Our Village
Peter Copping spoke against the plans on behalf of Regency House and I followed for SoV.
Phil Burke from VBA spoke in favour and so did Francis Hilton as Applicant.
Councillor Ramsbottom raised objections as ward Councillor and Cllr Paul Fairweather and Cllr Mary Murphy as lead councillors for gay and lesbian issues.
So a small victory – but the big date for the diary is 15TH February – 10.30am the Planning Committee will be visiting the site – and we need to mobilise to ensure lots of residents are there and we get maximum publicity.
Then the Committee will sit at 2pm in the Council Chamber – so please put the date in your diary if you may be able to attend and let me know if you would like to get more involved in the final leg of Campaigning.
Regards
Chris Speck
Save Our Village
Update to plans
Following negotiations with English Heritage, the plans for the Whitworth Street facada of the residential building (to my knowledge) will now consist of 55% real sandstone panels. Originally they were going to be all glass with coloured backing to mimic the colour of the brick on surrounding buildings.
Two revised plans are available on the council website or on our website here.
Two revised plans are available on the council website or on our website here.
Planning Hearing Date Announced.
Hi all,
The date for these applications to be considered by the planning committee of Manchester City Council has been announced.
Date: Thursday 18th January 2007
Time: 2PM
Venue: Manchester Town Hall
Room: Council Chamber, Level 3, Town Hall Extension
The meeting is open to the public to attend but there will very limited opportunity for the public to speak. A small number of representatives will be given a couple of minutes.
Chris Speck will speak for Save Our Village and Peter Copping wishes to speak for Regency House – but we won’t have any further opportunity as residents (and I’m told only a few minutes maximum per speaker).
Apparently some changes have been made to the plans as required by English Heritage. This does not change the size of the buildings, but will improve the appearance. I will post more information as soon as I have it.
Chris G
The date for these applications to be considered by the planning committee of Manchester City Council has been announced.
Date: Thursday 18th January 2007
Time: 2PM
Venue: Manchester Town Hall
Room: Council Chamber, Level 3, Town Hall Extension
The meeting is open to the public to attend but there will very limited opportunity for the public to speak. A small number of representatives will be given a couple of minutes.
Chris Speck will speak for Save Our Village and Peter Copping wishes to speak for Regency House – but we won’t have any further opportunity as residents (and I’m told only a few minutes maximum per speaker).
Apparently some changes have been made to the plans as required by English Heritage. This does not change the size of the buildings, but will improve the appearance. I will post more information as soon as I have it.
Chris G
English Heritage Oppose Scheme
English Heritage has confirmed that they are unhappy with the scheme as submitted and are seeking amendments to it.
"Negotiations about amendments are continuing at the moment with the architect and developer, and the intention is to provide advice to the City on an amended scheme in time for the Planning Committee meeting later this month.
Once we give our advice it will be in the public domain and we will be able to let you have a copy."
Tony Lloyd MP is also involved and is requesting the application be 'called in' for consideration by Central Government as it is such a large development on an important World Heritage site.
"Negotiations about amendments are continuing at the moment with the architect and developer, and the intention is to provide advice to the City on an amended scheme in time for the Planning Committee meeting later this month.
Once we give our advice it will be in the public domain and we will be able to let you have a copy."
Tony Lloyd MP is also involved and is requesting the application be 'called in' for consideration by Central Government as it is such a large development on an important World Heritage site.
Outcome of Community Design Exercise 6th October 2006
Community Design Generates Consensus
As part of the investigtion process by residents of the Village Area a community led design event was held by residents. At this they modelled their plans and aspirations on scale models of the Princess Street car park site. This led to a genuine consensus on appropriate designs, and provided examples of alternatives to those proposed by the developer.
The event was facilitated by the local office of URBED – an architectural cooperative based in the Northern Quarter of Manchester who have helped other groups in Manchester, notably in Hulme.
The above image shows photographs of the conference at work.
Apparently Manchester needs more skyscrapers.
Well at least according to the man who earns a living designing them!
I am posting this in response to an article in the Manchester Evening News on 1st December, Beetham Architect wants more skyscrapers.
In the article, Ian Simpson is addressing the critics of his run-of-the-mill glass tower blocks that are appearing on numerous sites in the city centre. He is quoted saying "Manchester must shake-off its Victorian heritage and embrace the skyscraper" and "critics are too concerned about maintaining the city's Victorian appearance at the expense of distinctive architecture".
At least the views and opinions of most visitors and residents have been acknowledged! One comment, the 'Victorian appearance' is distinctive architecture!
My main issue with this article is there seems to be a deliberate blur between "distinctive architechture" and "skyscrapers".
There can be hideous skyscrapers and there can be skyscrapers that are distinctive works of architechture. To state the obvious, there can be distinctive architecture without being tall with many stories. To use the Beetham Tower as an example, I can appreciate the enormous challenge that was met in building it. We've all been there, done that with our Lego as kids. Then we dismantled it and put it away because our Mum wasn't prepared to live with it permanently. Please somebody tell him to take it down now he has completed the challenge. It is a huge, square, all-glass and completely featureless tower. Am I alone in thinking to be distinctive, architecture needs some appreciable unique features?
Simpson seems to be arguing that the only way to achieve modern distinctive architecture is in the form of skyscrapers. Why? The only justification behind this is that property developers are more motivated to invest if they can create more units on a given area of land.
Is that a good reason to embark on a fundamental redesign of the city's appearance as Simpson is arguing?
Maybe if Simpson cut his rates the buildings wouldn't need to be skyscrapers to make the developer a profit!
Chris G
Readers: Please click comments below and leave your feedback on any of these articles.
I am posting this in response to an article in the Manchester Evening News on 1st December, Beetham Architect wants more skyscrapers.
In the article, Ian Simpson is addressing the critics of his run-of-the-mill glass tower blocks that are appearing on numerous sites in the city centre. He is quoted saying "Manchester must shake-off its Victorian heritage and embrace the skyscraper" and "critics are too concerned about maintaining the city's Victorian appearance at the expense of distinctive architecture".
At least the views and opinions of most visitors and residents have been acknowledged! One comment, the 'Victorian appearance' is distinctive architecture!
My main issue with this article is there seems to be a deliberate blur between "distinctive architechture" and "skyscrapers".
There can be hideous skyscrapers and there can be skyscrapers that are distinctive works of architechture. To state the obvious, there can be distinctive architecture without being tall with many stories. To use the Beetham Tower as an example, I can appreciate the enormous challenge that was met in building it. We've all been there, done that with our Lego as kids. Then we dismantled it and put it away because our Mum wasn't prepared to live with it permanently. Please somebody tell him to take it down now he has completed the challenge. It is a huge, square, all-glass and completely featureless tower. Am I alone in thinking to be distinctive, architecture needs some appreciable unique features?
Simpson seems to be arguing that the only way to achieve modern distinctive architecture is in the form of skyscrapers. Why? The only justification behind this is that property developers are more motivated to invest if they can create more units on a given area of land.
Is that a good reason to embark on a fundamental redesign of the city's appearance as Simpson is arguing?
Maybe if Simpson cut his rates the buildings wouldn't need to be skyscrapers to make the developer a profit!
Chris G
Readers: Please click comments below and leave your feedback on any of these articles.
Web site and BLOG about Plans for the Car Park - object by 11th December
A website has been set up to make it easier to access the relevant details of the proposal off the Planning website, how to raise objections and some images you may find of interest.
See: www.petros.ourflat.co.uk or www.princess-street.ourflat.co.uk (Both the same site)
Objections can still be raised up until 11th December - so please lodge your objections and encourage ‘Anyone who knows the site to write’ – friends, relatives, colleagues. We need to show the Council the strength of feeling against the plans:
Direct link to comment and raise objections is:
I know some people have had problems getting the Council’s planning portal to accept Objections. Keep persevering or send details of your objection to the case officer Jay Patel (email: j.patel@manchester.gov.uk ) copy me in and ask for an acknowledgement that the email will be lodged as an objection for this application.
A blog has also been set up for Save Our Village – http://saveourvillage.blogspot.com/ I hope people will air their views.
Thanks to Chris G for all his hard work on the websites and Blog
Regards
Chris Speck
Save Our Village Campaign
email: info@saveourvillagemanchester.co.uk
NB. If you no longer wish to receive emails about the Save Our Village Campaign please email us to be removed from the distribution.
Get your objections in by 11th December-
Objections are flowing into the Council offices. I've been copied in on many of those submitted - good for you. However others don't be complacent - everyone - local residents, residents from further afield, users of canal street or those anti Ian Simpson's dominance over the Manchester skyline should submit their objections by 11th December to show the Council and the developer their scheme is entirely inappropriate for the area. Without a real volume of objections our pleas for moderation or throwing the plans out entirely could be ignored.
The direct link for objections on the Council site is:
http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=J81UQXBCW1000
This planning website has been unreliable to say the least so please be patient. If you are struggling to submit or do not receive email confirmation your objection has been logged please let me know and complain to Jay Patel in planning. email: j.patel@manchester.gov.uk
Regards
Chris
Save Our Village
email: info@saveourvillagemanchester.co.uk
The direct link for objections on the Council site is:
http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=J81UQXBCW1000
This planning website has been unreliable to say the least so please be patient. If you are struggling to submit or do not receive email confirmation your objection has been logged please let me know and complain to Jay Patel in planning. email: j.patel@manchester.gov.uk
Regards
Chris
Save Our Village
email: info@saveourvillagemanchester.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)