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

No call-in for Liverpool Waters as Pickles approves £5.5bn scheme

  • 3 Comments

Chapman Taylor’s controversial £5.5 billion Liverpool Waters scheme has been rubberstamped by Communities and Local Government secretary Eric Pickles

Despite objections from heritage bodies, the Secretary of State decided not to hold a public inquiry into the huge high-rise project backed by developer Peel, effectively granting final planning permission for the contentious 50-year scheme.

Earlier today (4 March) Pickles approved Liverpool Council’s decision to approve the outline plans for 9,000 homes, offices, shops, a cruise terminal, cultural buildings and restaurants on disused parts of the docks north of the city’s famous Three Graces.

Initially approved by the local authority in March but later referred to government, the massive development came in for heavy criticism from English Heritage, who feared the scheme would have a damaging impact on Liverpool’s World Heritage site.

Development director of Peel Lindsey Ashworth said the decision marked ‘the end of six years of hard work’ by the developer which had, at one point, threatened to ‘walk away’ from the scheme if it had been called-in (AJ 27.02.2012).

Ashworth said:‘This is a well-deserved reward and justice for all those who never gave up supporting this scheme.

‘English Heritage together with the World Heritage Body UNESCO put up massive obstacles to prevent this development proposal getting permission.

‘Their studies and arguments have all collapsed and rightly so as it’s simply not right to expect derelict parts of cities with such a rich history to stand still and be fossilized.’

 

 

  • 3 Comments

Readers' comments (3)

  • No one has been suggesting, as Lindsey Ashworth claims, that Liverpool Docks should be fossilized, neither have the arguments of objectors collapsed. They have simply been ignored by politicians fixated on economic development at any cost.

    One has to question whether the Canary Wharf model will transform Liverpool's economy without sucking demand and investment out of other parts of the city, leading to empty streets and buildings.

    An alternative masterplan in scale with Liverpool's world famous dockside heritage and the city's social and economic potential was never given proper consideration by a developer star-struck by visits to Shanghai.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How depressing

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • These plans have slowly been dumbed down more and more until by the time they go ahead, we'll have little more than a few 5 sstory brown brick office blocks, accomodating local security firms or insurance companies.
    This is never going to attract global companies and regenerate the city's economy with thrird rate building.
    Why do UNESCO and EH keep trying to play this weak WHS card, to bully Liverpool into developing substandard buildings? The Graces are about a mile down the road, and it's not like anyone's suggesting the demolishing of Albert Dock.
    What they're trying to do is build a business center in teh North of the UK that can match the global powerhouses out there.
    This WHS brings nothing to the city (buzz words like 'status' and 'pride' are seen on the website, but nothing pratical) I hope the City Council & Peel tell UNESCO & EH to do one and unleash the potential of the barren run down deralic slum that is currently the Liverpool waterfront.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this 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.