TUESDAY 28TH FEBRUARY IS THE LAST DAY for direct responses to Manchester City Council on the planning application for the two huge, overbearing towers. If you haven't been able to do it already, here’s the link to register your objection and to leave your comments - bit.ly/2kOCp8u. Our comments have to refer to 'planning’ issues, such as: - inappropriate location for these buildings - the buildings are of poor design and appearance, right from street level and upwards - failure to comply with the Council’s Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework - substantial harm would be caused to the setting and significance of important heritage assets of more than local importance, including our nationally valued Town Hall and civic buildings - the proposals not sustainable due to their impact on the historic environment. Thank you! Over 3,750 of us have signed this petition now, and hopefully we’ll all have objected directly to the Council too, along with family, friends and colleagues. Then we have to hope that the Council will refuse the application. However, there are severe doubts as to whether the Council can actually be impartial and objective, because: - they have a big financial stake in the plans being approved - the developer says that the designs are what the Council has asked for - it is clear that, at senior level, the Council strongly supports these proposals, and that alternative views are unwelcome - for example, the Leader of the Council said (in the press) that objectors are "silly", and "just don’t like tall buildings". The comments in this petition make it clear that that's not the case - but that these particular tall buildings are in the wrong place. The Council is legally required to make the decision objectively and impartially based on Planning Law, but the worry is that planning approval will be given because the Council wants the investment from the Far East for these buildings, and for other buildings to follow, as well as the money it will get from owning most of the land. While it's understood that every council in the country is struggling financially and desperate for £££s, that is not a good enough reason to break the law and is too high a price for permanent and irreparable harm to our unique city centre. The Council says it often has to decide on its own applications - for school extensions, for example - so it does, from time to time, take planning decisions on other ventures in which the authority has an interest. But this is far bigger than a school extension, as is the massive, negative impact on Manchester. WHAT THE MEDIA SAYS: National and local press as well as TV and radio have commented on the planning application and the harm it would do to Manchester's heritage assets, and some have said their view is that the Council is unlikely to listen to objectors. It’s been everywhere from The Star and the Sun to The Times, on the BBC and Granada, and even in the USA news. Here’s a few: The Times, 17 February: bit.ly/2mbbBfY "Manchester’s leaders should resist this attack of tower-mania." That "the Council leader has made his allegiances clear and that if Manchester's councillors won’t look after the city’s interests, then Sajid Javid should step in." (i.e. the Secretary of State - see below.) Manchester Evening News, 20 February: bit.ly/2m1P48s The Council is compromised by the cash deal for the site, undermining "…the ability to take a clear-eyed decision on something...worth so much to the city purse". The Guardian, 20 February: bit.ly/2kRaaSa "Don’t trash Manchester’s history to make way for skyscrapers." The Guardian, 23 February: bit.ly/2luVKe3 "Wanton vandalism." +The architect says that the Council pushed re the design. Manchester Confidential, 21 February: bit.ly/2kUumCk People are angry about the planning system. "The current planning regime plays at engagement. It appears to care little for public consultations or written responses. It seems to regard both as visits from troublesome and undesirable relatives, a duty rather than a virtue." THERE WILL BE DAMAGE TO OUR CITY: THE DEVELOPER SAYS SO: In their own planning application, the developer says: "The proposed development will also result in major adverse impacts on the setting of the Grade I Town Hall, Grade II* Town Hall Extension, Grade II* Central Library and Grade I St Ann’s Square and consequently also the character and appearance of the Albert Square, St Peter’s Square and St Ann’s Square Conservation Areas. The Heritage Statement therefore concludes that "the proposed development will result in substantial harm to the identified heritage assets."  That is what Historic England said last July - that these plans "would cause a high level of harm" to our city centre - but they were waved off by the developer. The same developer is now admitting in his own planning application that Historic England were right. The comments in this petition can be read on-line (click on "join the conversation" below) and show that thousands of us agree with Historic England that there would be unacceptable, irreversible and permanent damage to our city centre. If you haven't already, please act NOW to tell the Council you OBJECT to the planning application and WHY. Here's the link again: bit.ly/2kOCp8u  SHOULD CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BE ASKED TO STEP IN? The probability seems to be that fourteen Manchester City councillors will decide, probably in April, to approve a planning application that will cause permanent, irreversible and substantial harm to nationally significant heritage assets. This is sufficient reason to ask Central Government to step in, and for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to consider preventing the Council from making the planning decision, and appointing an independent Planning Inspector to do it instead. Investment in our city is welcome. Enthusiasm and wanting to make things happen is welcome. But they have to be the right things - and these are not the right things. These overbearing towers are in the wrong place. They will impact adversely, permanently and irreversibly on a substantial and important part of Manchester’s heritage assets and character. The developers want the Council to decide that the 'benefits’ of building the towers would outweigh the permanent and irreversible harm done to our city - but the 'benefits' are insufficient - too limited, too narrow, and in some cases not even real or relevant. The 'benefits' listed include some limited 'public open space', some initial building jobs and later on, jobs in a hotel, offices, a few shops and lots of drinking and eating places - and the synagogue congregation get a brand new building. However, the public space isn’t a benefit - it’s not public, is largely a cul de sac for commercial sales and is mostly in permanent shade. And obviously jobs and new business activity would still be provided with a different, better and more appropriate design that doesn’t scar our city centre for ever. If you want Government to step in and to "call-in" this planning application for INDEPENDENT decision, you can email the Department of Communities and Local Government at this address: npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk Please give the application reference no: 14664/FO/2016 and mark it for the North Team. Government will only consider a "call-in" for applications that are of more than local interest. This site is of national importance and the plans in this application would do substantial harm to heritage assets of national importance. You may want to say that, as well as set out the 5 planning reasons above, and to ask that the application should be called-in by the Secretary of State. WE MAY ONLY HAVE 5 WEEKS. This can only be done before the Council makes the planning decision, so there is only a matter of weeks to ask Government to step in. Planning committee meets on 9th and 27th April. Here’s the email address again: npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk Thank you, Lesley