Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Sheppard Robson denies it left Chapel Wharf due to practice shortcomings

  • Comment
Sheppard Robson has hit back at claims it did not have the resources to carry out the Chapel Wharf scheme in Manchester, after being replaced on the controversial high-rise project.

Developer Dandara, which has turned to local firm Hodder Associates to take the huge skyscraper development forward, said the decision to change design teams was based on Sheppard Robson's lack of a 'strong core team' and 'resources' in the city.

However, Sheppard Robson has disputed the allegations, stating that, contrary to Dandara's claims, the practice actually walked away from the job because of 'issues' about the potential quality of the enormous 41-storey scheme next to the Lowry Hotel on the River Irwell (pictured).

A spokeswoman for the firm said: 'The split was amicable - but did not relate to our resourcing of the project or the strength of our team in Manchester - we've just moved to bigger offices.'

She added: 'There were other issues that influenced our decision to leave the project.

'We felt we couldn't achieve the quality of building appropriate to the site with the funding made available by Dandara.'

Despite winning planning permission last year, the scheme has not been well received by CABE, which has now examined the designs on three separate occasions.

The last time the scheme was reviewed, back in March 2006, the design watchdog said it still had fundamental concerns with the project despite revisions to the original proposals.

The report reads: 'We repeat that we think that the basic problem is one of overdevelopment; we have yet to see any evidence to suggest that the combination of this quantum of development, with the types of building forms chosen [tower and podium slab block], in this arrangement, can produce an acceptable solution.'

It goes on: 'We do not wish to comment on what we see as minor amendments to the scheme, as, as we have said previously, our concerns cannot be resolved by tinkering with the design; a fundamental rethink is required.'

by Richard Waite

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.