Welcome to Liverpool Confidential
Reset Password
The Confidential websites will be undergoing routine updates. This may cause the sites to go offline. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience.

You are here: Liverpool ConfidentialNews & Comment.

Unesco tells city to think again over Liverpool Waters

World Heritage mission team will not support Peel skyscraper plan in current form

Written by . Published on January 25th 2012.


Unesco tells city to think again over Liverpool Waters

LIVERPOOL'S world famous Pier Head would end up playing second fiddle to Peel’s proposed £5.5bn Shanghai skyline project, city leaders have been warned.

A Unesco World Heritage mission team pulled no punches, saying it will NOT support Liverpool Waters in its current form. It is now challenging the city council, Peel Holdings and English Heritage to get around the table and work out an alternative Liverpool Waters scheme. 

The invitation is conciliatory in essence, but it is hard to see how a skyscraper development north of the Pier Head could in any way satisfy Unesco and the way it feels the WHS should be protected.

(Click here to add text)The current Liverpool Waters proposal from Peel

Although there is always room for manoeuvre, Peel has insisted it wants Liverpool Waters to proceed with its dramatic skyline.

At stake is north Liverpool’s need to regenerate - to boost the local economy and create thousands of new jobs, and at the same time protecting its maritime legacies.

The mission’s report says the historic north docklands (site of Liverpool Waters) complement those to the south, putting the Three Graces centre-stage in, more or less, a symmetrical profile. 

This has a historical reason as the Three Graces were at the heart of shipping and harbour operations during the height of its glory. Shifting this profile to the north by introducing a secondary cluster of high-rises, with towers three times the height of the Three Graces, would destroy this profile, relegating the Three Graces to playing second violin, and thereby losing an important visual and historical reference to the city’s glorious past,” say the team. 

At risk

The main conclusion and recommendation from the Unesco mission team states: We conclude if the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme, as outlined,  would be implemented, the World Heritage property would be irreversibly damaged, due to a serious deterioration of its architectural and town-planning coherence, a serious loss of historical authenticity, and an important loss of cultural significance.” 

The team headed to Liverpool after Peel’s scheme was raised at a Unesco meeting last year in Paris, alerted by cultural campaigner Wayne Colquhoun of the Liverpool Preservation Trust. 

At that meeting, the World Heritage Committee urged the UK Government to ensure that proposals (as they then stood) were not approved. The committee warned failure to reject the plans could lead to consideration of loss of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. Essentially, if that happened, World Heritage Status for Liverpool would be at risk and the city could lose the coveted title. 

While the mission is fully supportive of the regeneration efforts undertaken by the Liverpool City Council, putting heritage at the heart of the spatial development process, it will not support the Liverpool Waters scheme in its current outline, as it will be developed at the expense of the city’s heritage and its Outstanding Universal Value.” 

Peel's proposals are expected to be presented to the council in March. 

Although it is continually stated that the very act of granting planning permission will mean the city losing its World Heritage title, this is not necessarily so. 

'Encouraging'

In the past, on the rare occasions when a WHS has been stripped, it is when the deed has actually been done. In other words when work starts on a building or structure that threatens the integrity of the WHS. 

What could happen is the Liverpool WHS could be placed on an ‘at risk’ register. 

Joe AndersonJoe AndersonJoe Anderson, leader of Liverpool City Council said: “I welcome the findings of the World Heritage report and it’s really encouraging they are pressing for a compromise which would enable Liverpool Waters to go ahead. 

“I have always believed there is a way forward which will allow us to redevelop the North Liverpool Docks and secure the massive investment and badly-needed new jobs, and to also preserve our World Heritage status. Peel have already made significant alterations to their proposals since drawing up the original plans. 

“Peel’s £6 billion plans are vital for the future of what is one the poorest parts of the country and the investment is vital to our city’s future prosperity. However, we are mindful of the need to build a better future for our city in a careful and sensitive way. 

“Unesco's delegation found the conservation of our World Heritage site has improved since their last visit in 2006 with our new developments at the Pier Head, at Liverpool One and in the Ropewalks area. Our track record clearly demonstrates we can be trusted to combine the old with the new. 

 "I am pressing English Heritage, Peel and the city council to redouble their efforts to reach agreement on the best way forward for the Liverpool Waters plans.”  

The city's chief executive, Ged Fitzgerald, added: “A public consultation on the Liverpool Waters scheme is under way and we will continue discussions with both English Heritage and Peel, before a decision on the application is made by the Planning Committee in March. 

“We will work in collaboration with English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to respond to the Mission and its report.”

Unesco’s World Heritage Committee will consider the Liverpool mission’s report later this year. 

'Why do they want to build Milton Keynes-On-Sea?'

 

The view of Wayne Colquhoun, of the Liverpool Preservation Trust
Wayne ColquounWayne Colquhoun
I SEE this damning conclusion to the Unesco report as a major opportunity to withdraw the planning application and get Peel Holdings to go back to the drawing board and to give to the city what the people of Liverpool deserve: a regeneration scheme fit for the future that we can stand behind, which will create jobs.



If Peel Holdings are serious, and it's not a planning permission flip, why won't they give us something we can be proud of? Why do they want to build Milton Keynes-On-Sea, what is the point in that?

It is Amsterdam that we should be looking to for inspiration, and how they have developed an urban landscape that interacts with its historic waterways.

This report  is damning and it insists that Liverpools historic waterways should not be filled in, as that would ruin the Outstandung Universal Value.

Despite that, plans for Wellington Dock, plans that will mean no more tall ships for Liverpool, were recently passed just ahead of the deliverance of the report.
 


In 2006, Unesco told the UK Government that Liverpool had to draw up a supplementary planning document that protected it from future administrations and their links with developers.

This was ratified by the city council in 2009 and this gives us, as a city, all the planning protection we now need. Planning guidance PPG 15 lays down government policies for the historic environment.
This city council were about to breach every rule in the book.

We are, as a city, charged with managing the WHS not destroying it. 

Liverpool's Wellington Dock And The Tall ShipsWellington Dock No one wants the regeneration of the historic docks more than I. All my life I have waited for it, but the intelligence of those in charge is sadly lacking the class that befits the qualities required to be a World Heritage City in the 21st century. 

We will create more jobs for future generations if we respect that our history is our future.

My father was a docker and I ask "Why are Peel Holdings shipping jobs to Port Salford and who is going to fill the glass shoeboxes they want to put in its place?"

We need jobs but there is room for regeneration and the right job creation why not just turn Liverpool into a giant Tesco and be done with it.

What is alarming, in my view, is the "cosy" relationship between the developer and the city council. 

The people of Liverpool are being denied their right to exercise their views by a compliant council who are sponsoring Peel Holdings and have hijacked the planning procedure.
 
I recall the last Labour administration bulldozing Clayton Square, a historic listed Georgian quarter, in the name of progress.

Remember this is the town ,that knocked the Cavern Club down, then called itself Beatles City. And then gets a World Heritage Site status and then sets about ruining it.
  
World Heritage Site status is not merely a badge on the wall of the Town Hall, as Joe Anderson says it is. No it is much more than that, it is an honour to be bestowed and if managed will create jobs for our city.  

With such a title that puts us up there in the top tier of world class cities. Why risk it? Why chance the embarrasment? Why drop an architectural timebomb on the city? Trafford Park-On-Sea?

The city council, under Joe Anderson's leadership, now has to understand who they represent and curb the arrogance of Peel Holdings.

It needs to take note of all the damning recomendations and insist this current backdated planning application is withdrawn and is taken back to the drawing board.

What's another couple of months, before it costs the city a million pounds in public inquiry?

Like what you see? Enter your email to sign up for our newsletters which are chock-a-block with more great reviews, news, deals and savings.

AnonymousJanuary 25th 2012.

In Shanghai you have the bund, very much like the three graces and its surrounded by big modern buildings. Directly across the river are the Pearl TV building and two 21st century skyscrapers both among the tallest in the world.

Its true that the moden behemoths do take some attention from the Bund, but standing on that riverside the juxtposition of the two is exciting. Contemporary arcitecture alongside iconic peroid buildings really can work and can be at the heart of a forwardthinking modern city.

If liverpool is to keep thriving it must looking to its future and not risk dwelling on its past and if that means loosing world heritage status then so be it.

AD

1 Response: Reply To This...
Absinthe & TurksJanuary 28th 2012.

Shanghai is a huge economic centre. Lverpool isn't.

AnonymousJanuary 25th 2012.

For a city that already seems to have sold its soul Tesco I think it it very important that any development in the WHS should be every bit as magnificent as the original buildings were. Where are the architects with the vision to create something modern but which also incorporate the original buildings? - Liverpool has a fantastic asset here, why throw it away and become just like any other bland urban setting. Dont forget the Albert Dock was once considered for demolition and no one can doubt that it adds greatly to our city's uniqueness as well as saluting our magnificent past. By the way why hasnt anyone other than Wayne picked up on the fact that if the development goes ahead there will be no more tall ships docking on the Mersey.

Dingle View.January 28th 2012.

We have a mish mash of buildings that the planners have allowed to spoil the city, this development is an exstention of that bad planning. Do not allow Peel to rule the roost, have an open contest for the best design.

To post this comment, you need to login.Please complete your login information.
OR CREATE AN ACCOUNT HERE..
Or you can login using Facebook.

Latest Rants

Anonymous

I agree with the Councillor. His examples really don't go far enough, because of the complexities…

 Read more
Anonymous

Perhaps a "dolmus" system could be used in the city centre, they work quite well for tourists and…

 Read more
Fairminded

Not price related but sad to see that they are doing away with the Citylink bus. This runs around…

 Read more
Anonymous

Thank you Woo

 Read more

Explore The Site

© Mark Garner t/a Confidential Direct 2017

Privacy | Careers | Website by: Planet Code