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.
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)