Liverpool Waters has been kyboshed in its present form after Unesco told the UK State Party that if it went ahead and passed proposals for Shanghai-On-Mersey it would destroy the Overall Universal Value (OUV) of Liverpools World Heritage Site (WHS).
This is a major blow to Peel Holdings who will be very shocked indeed as they are used to getting their own way.
So lets spell out some of the facts for our stupid local press who are owned by Peel Holdings, so they don't go blaming me for stopping the scheme and it may stop the editor Mark Thomas from behaving like a buffoon making elementary mistakes. I may ask for a retraction for some of this weeks scurrilous work by him in the Daily Ghost's OPINION.
Here is the exact Unesco decision, note it refers to a English Heritage Independent report.
118. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom) (C 1150)
Decision: 35 COM 7B.118
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7B.Add,
2. Expresses its extreme concern at the proposed development of Liverpool Waters in terms of the potential impact of its dense, high and mid-rise buildings on the form and design of the historic docks and thus on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;
3. Notes that the independent Impact Assessment commissioned by English Heritage clearly sets out the significantly damaging negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;
Decisions report WHC-11/35.COM/20, p. 150
4. Also notes that the proposed development is not in compliance with the property Management Plan nor with the Liverpool Urban Development Plan;
5. Urges the State Party to ensure that these proposals are not approved, as failure to do so could lead to consideration of loss of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;
6. Requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission, as soon as possible, to assess planning procedures and the overall development strategies for the property;
7. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February2012, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above, examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.
It says that Liverpool is going against its own planning policy!!
So I broke it to the BBC and ITV ahead of the local chip paper and here is their reporting by the rather upset David Bartlett said he would have to put it on the Ghost website. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news//2011/07/12/unesco-warns-liverpool-will-lose-world-heritage-status-if-5-5bn-liverpool-waters-plan-goes-ahead-92534-29037287/
The BBC hit theirs in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-14124577
The next day the most deplorable bit of reporting from the Daily Ghost.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/07/13/liverpool-council-leader-joe-anderson-hopes-compromise-can-be-found-with-unesco-over-world-heritage-site-fears-92534-29042687/ wih a disgusting front page proclaiming if it was 1911 would we have built anything.
Well in 1911 we had good editors who helped to leave us a architectural legacy that give us a world heritage site, not this pathetic shower.
While Alastair Machray and Mark Thomas have been editors of the local press in 2011 just look what has happened to the WHS. How times change. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-liverpool-daily-post-and-echo-owned.html
They claim they need this awful scheme to create jobs while lording over the fact that Peel are barging our docks to Salford.
Machray who has just made another tranche of people redundant this time in Runcorn, should take a long hard look at himself and ask himself, did he become a journalist to sack people.
Combine with the fact that they recently shipped all the printing jobs down the MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL, OWNED BY PEEL HOLDINGS TO OLDHAM.
We want no lectures from these deviants.
I gave Bartlett a statement that printed, read Wayne Colquhoun, of Liverpool Preservation Trust, which reported the scheme to Unesco, said: “Maybe this will make Peel now look to alternatives such as Amsterdam for more humane sustainable development that works well around its historic waterways because if they don't we will lose the WHS status and suffer the complete embarrassment of doing so in the eyes of the world.” http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/07/13/peel-and-liverpool-council-hit-back-at-unesco-over-liverpool-waters-threat-to-world-heritage-site-status-92534-29042688/2/
They then wrote up a Daily Post Opinion.
HOW CAN THEY TURN THIS INTO
We want Liverpool to add to its vitality, and secure the investment and jobs that Liverpool Waters will bring. Liverpool Preservation Trust spokesman Wayne Colquhoun appears to be quite happy to let Peel develop their spectacular complex in Amsterdam, instead. We want no part of any such manoeuvre – we want to speak up for Liverpool instead. http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2011/07/13/should-our-heritage-put-jobs-at-risk-92534-29042493/
The next day a letter appeared in the letters page http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/letters-to-editor/2011/07/14/we-do-not-need-a-huge-vanity-project-92534-29049967/ very well written almost written by a journalist I would say.
I WAS astounded, on reading your editorial comment yesterday.
You reported that Wayne Colquhoun suggested that Peel transplant their Liverpool Water's scheme to Amsterdam: “. . . appears quite happy to let Peel develop their spectacular complex in Amsterdam, instead”.
What you seem not to have grasped is that he, clearly, meant that Liverpool should look to Amsterdam for a model of sustainable growth along its waterways. Amsterdam does not have skyscrapers, but has transformed and developed its canals and waterways very successfully.
You do not have to be a supporter of Mr Colquhoun to understand this is the point he was trying to make.
Whilst not, in general, agreeing with Mr Colquhoun on many of his views, he has got a point about sustainability. Sustainability suggests a model of development which is slower, more organic and responds to natural needs and demand. What Peel are proposing for the northern docklands is grandiose and speculative.
The docklands could be developed in a more gradual way and there does not need to be any skyscrapers, or, indeed, that much new-build. We do not need new apartments or shops or office blocks at this moment in time.
A huge vanity project which is large on ambition but low on practical realities will create a soulless environment.
There is nothing to stop Peel developing the docklands and renovating the warehouses, if they can secure uses for them. In fact, that would be most welcome.
ŠIf Peel wants to invest in Liverpool and is sensitive to the city's true needs then it could show willing by starting redevelopment of key areas now; starting with the Princes Dock – then working northwards. Speculative promises for the future are contributing to a disincentive to develop and improve now.
J Anderson, L19
Even, Reverse Ferret, Bill "Phsyco" Gleeson who Mark Thomas is keeping a particular eye on, said, "the aesthetic damage has already been done. Modernity has alraedy come to the waterfront in the form of the new museum and apartments at Mann island, the tall buildings at Princes Dock and the dreadful architecture of the Hilton Hotel and the One Park West. These buildings would be the reason to withdraw WHS status,"
So what a two faced little man you are Gleeson............I will remind you shortly about all the waxing lyrical you did in your trash column about how wonderful it was to have all this investment for all these monstrous schemes that have got us into this trouble. Its not my fault we have trashed the WHS.
YOU HAVE TO SAY THE RUBBISH REPORTING THAT HAS ENABLED THE WHS TO BE DESTROYED SHOULD BE COMMENDED.......for being consistent.
I have now decided to compile a report for Sly Bailey of Trinity Mirror, I wonder who is next to be made redundant, Mark.
Who speaks for the dead? Ivy Atkin and the unaccountable CQC - Originally posted on Alexander's Excavations: By Dr Minh Alexander NHS whistleblower and former consultant psychiatrist, 22 October 2017 The CQC has behave...