Approval for Davos’ £64m Liverpool tower

Liverpool was once known as the New York of Europe because of it’s ambition and forward thinking leadership. The last decade has been depressing watching the other city go from strength to strength while we were run like a village. Fair play if this happens it will look incredible.

Great news, this will help kick off further development.
It’s a pity 3 local councillors objected to this on the planning committee, do we know who they are?

Great news. Can’t wait to see the masterplan.

Local billionaire wanting to help his city reach the next level should be applauded. You will get the usual suspects moaning about billionaires but most people want a succesful city not a sleepy backwater.

3 councillors voted agaisnt this 5 for , that is so scary that this got passed by a wisker . There is still inept councillors with village mentality ho would put the city economy in decline that is an uncomfortable truth that presents obstacles in the way for this unbelievable oportunity for the city fully funded there is no way inept dim wits should be allowed to destroy golden opportunities for the city anymore

Very good outcome but suppose now we have to wait for the green light from the Building Safety Regulator, which maybe some time, nevertheless this will look great on that section of the dock road.

Nick Small is part of the problem stopping big investment to gain votes

This is a very positive step- lets hope the next part is passed and within a quick time when presented to our awful planning team within this Labour run council.

can the councilors be named who objected

Good effort

So 3 local councillors objected, why? Is it they’re afraid of losing votes at the next election, while they knew this would get a majority vote anyway, but what kind of example is that, don’t they want to see a resurgent Liverpool or do they want to look out onto a landscape of dereliction and little hope.

Great news , important first step in this key development, what reasons did the councillors that objected give ?

Great news. Shame on the councillors who objected to this. It really is time to weed out these councillors who are holding the city back with their village mindsets.
I know councilor Nick Small has angered people in the past for objecting to big developments but he deserves a lot of praise and respect in his support for this whole King Edward Triangle development. I really hope we see the other towers planned coming out very soon. Hopefully this won’t be a case of one tower gets planning approval then we wait ages for the next one. No reason why we can’t see several towers getting approved and built within a quick time line. I just hope there’s a nice surprise for the tallest tower. I think the renders show the tallest building close to 70 storeys which would be amazing. I know 60 storeys is being mentioned as the tallest which would be great but the renders look incredible. Just build it as shown in the renders. Not to be greedy but it would be great if the people behind this amazing King Edward Triangle development could rescue the Infinity development that would the icing on the cake. That’s too good to lose and I hope we don’t see a scaled down version. A big thank you to councillor Nick Small and the other councillors for approving this. Please keep that ambition going forward.

My word, is it April 1st already. LCC planning department agreeing and passing a private initiative project. Well done Davos. Keep the momentum going. Be bold, brave and build big.

brilliant news all involved should be applauded especially Tom Morris and his local team
Looking forward to seeing this coming out of the ground

Good news but can’t help thinking this is a sticking plaster on Liverpool’s wider issues with planning and ambition. (That’s not the fault of the team here so nothing but congratulations to them.)
There seem to be very few other major schemes coming forward and the council seem to use this particular site as their poster child. I’m in project management but I hear from friends in the architecture profession that the council are more conservative than ever, not more ambitious and open as they claim to be. They complain that you can’t get meetings on major schemes with senior people and there is a lack of understanding about viability. I really fear the city is going backwards, despite this good news… although I’m still not convinced that canopy will keep anyone dry 😉

Brilliant news, lets Get It Built! very strange that three local councillors didn’t want the investment and job creation in their own backyard. Could this be the Liverpool giant starting to wake-up?

Good to see higher residential density in the city centre. Would be fantastic to see a new park near here too. The massive car park and CostCo next door do not need to be there. Instead, the bus rapid transit and improved cycle and walking space could open up the area.

3 councillors objecting to this development is outrageous, they clearly don’t have Liverpool’s interest at heart and should be removed. KE development could be the catalyst for this area and is probably equal to Liverpool One in importance. Why would anyone vote against this proposal other than to hold the city back? Get these councillors out of this city asap.

I have no problem with modern buildings in the right location but absolutely not next to the Liver Building to spoil the iconic waterfront of the three graces.

If I borrow one billion pounds I can call myself a billionaire too, just like Trump does. What we need are not billionaires but “Business Entrepreneurs”: Folk who do not “extract wealth” but “create wealth”; and that seems to be what is happing here.

Excellent news for an area whose value can only increase from here. A significant step in the Masterplan of Liverpool. Hopefully this will unlock further development for the City. As a resident, and working in the industry, I have long awaited signs that Liverpool can demonstrate its viability as a big-city contender.

It’s great news. Now help create local jobs in the design teams, construction teams and maintenance teams and it will be even better.

Be a bit embarrassing had this not been been passed, given that Davos had paid over a million and a half for a freehold from LCC.

Broke all the rules that have been put in place too, height being the biggest factor.

I would assume it will be the same councillors that object to absolutely everything that is put before them, and always find something to moan about………the city is barely progressing, and if these had there way, it would regress.

Think our residents need to question these people when they knock on your door, or hold a workshop as they are clearly not doing what’s best by the city.

We will always be in Manchester’s shadow until we wake up and realise what we have that they don’t, and stop living in the past.

If the council and people in general cared so much about heritage, why are there so many ‘listed’ building derelict and sat as an eyesore!

The news about this first part of the development getting through planning is just brilliant and I really just hope that LCC gives permission to the rest of the development too and does not put in any barriers to its progression. Hopefully what has happened in planning today will give hope to other developers and investors who are keen to develop and invest in our fine city. Big congrats to Davos, Beetham and the rest of the teams behind this development and massive good luck for the rest of it. It will be really great to see how the rest of it shapes up.

Well done Davos
I have no problem with this development apart from the design of the building just another square tower block designed without any imagination. Look at Dubai and other modern cities around the world magnificent stylish tower blocks .architecture shows no vision at all just gone for cheap design.

So it’s a good thing those 3 councillors were not around when the Liver building was planned isn’t it ?

Name and shame the 3 Councillors the don’t want to see progress in Liverpool

People need to give it a rest about Nick Small, he’s backed this scheme to the hilt. What needs questioning is the motives of the 3 councillors (2 of them Lib Dems) who tried to block this development.

Councilor Nick Small bangs on about how important heritage of this city and says he is a stalwart of the preservation of our industrial heritage. Yet he has kept quiet about the demolition of a well preserved former engineering works with its original cranes and decorative ironworks on this site..its on if the very few victorian buildings left in the area ,so much for his shallow words about preservation.

I don’t think it’s fair to paint the councillors who opposed this as “anti‑growth” or whatever. Some of them raised valid concerns — especially around the actual quality of the units. We’ve seen this before with certain big developments where glossy visuals promise the world, and then the end product is basically a concrete box with tiny rooms and very little liveability.
There’s also the question of affordability. How much are these flats going to cost, realistically? Will they be within reach for the average Liverpool resident, or is this another build aimed mainly at investors rather than people who actually live here?
And then there’s the issue of where the profit goes. A lot of these schemes end up generating huge returns, but the companies behind them often pay very little tax or are registered elsewhere — we’ve already seen examples of that with developments in Manchester. So asking whether the city actually benefits long‑term isn’t unreasonable.
It’s not “anti‑development” to want buildings that are good quality, genuinely affordable, and deliver clear value back to the city. It’s just being cautious and making sure we don’t repeat the same mistakes.

@February 18, 2026 at 10:30 am
By Anonymous

Bravo to this.

Also, there are some on here who think skyscrapers equals density. But some of the highest density places are in Paris (known for its mansion blocks instead of towers) or Kensington in London (mansion blocks and town houses).

@ Anonymous 10.30am, this developer has already shown they can build quality eg in the Baltic Triangle, you seem to be making a lot of excuses for this development not to proceed by sounding like Mr or Mrs Reasonable. This is an enormous investment from someone who could have built elsewhere but chose his home city which needs a boost. We need a city that will attract young people, maybe returnees who’ve gone to live elsewhere or others who want to live in our city , which needs freshening up with a more positive outlook.
One of Liverpool’s issues is we like to dumb down, and if you’ve got money that means you could live in relative luxury you get criticised, instead everyone has to flaunt your working-class credentials or you’re not one of us.

The sense of relief this is going ahead is palpable we are all desperate to see our city move forward this scheme is hopefully a big step in the right direction. Like many others here i despair seeing 3 votes against , these individuals should be named and shamed they are holding the city back. Bravo Davos

Some of Liverpool City councillors are pathetic & useless we have had enough of them. The plan looks very good. The area needs rapid modernisation. (Public Transport especially ASAP

This is fantastic news for the city. Liverpool City Centre is desperate for some new quality development. We need new Grade A commercial space to attract the property requirements that are not place specific. Liverpool is not on any shortlists because of lack of suitable accomodation. There is the issue of rents falling way short of justifying the development costs but the rental guarantee scheme proposed by LCC on Pall Mall should help break this problem. Hopefully next phases of this scheme will incorporate the commercial element in thew masterplan.

By the way all schemes do not need affordable units in them. There lots of space for other schemes that can do that.

We need significant investment from real developers with proper money. The team involved have a track record. Davos also have 2 key sites in Baltic so hopefully they will move forward shortly too.

The councillors who voted against the scheme were Pat Moloney (Liberal Democrat, for Childwall Ward) and Billy Lake (Deputy Leader of Liberal Party Group, Tuebrook Larkhill Ward). The objectors who spoke against the application include the Liberal Democrat Councillor for Much Woolton and Hunts Cross, Josie Mullen; and Kevin Robinson-Hale, a Liberal Democrat candidate for Everton. I didn’t catch the name of the third objector who was sat with them. Councillor Declan Henry (Labour, Fazakerley North) voted in favour of the amendment tabled by Pat Moloney to refuse planning permission, but when that failed, he voted along party lines and voted in favour of the resolution to grant planning permission.
In my view, the details of the scheme were irrelevant, it was purely a piece of political theatre between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. It’s sad, and quite scary, that such important decisions come down to this.

During my 40 years on this planet people have always seemed to prefer Liverpool to Manchester. Now all I hear is that Manchester is getting even worse as more and more cheap oppressive buildings are thrown up. Liverpool should not be following Manchester’s poor example.

Shocking that non are affordable but also not written in this “The developer’s Section 106 contribution was reduced to £100,000 from an initial requirement of £750,000.” so the community is losing out twice.
This city needs truly affordable homes, but the problem is the current land value and costs of construction dont allow for this

Great News! Shame it wasn’t a unanimous approval. The committee system needs to be scrapped!

Traffic is constantly gridlocked round there. COSTCO petrol @110p/L is bringing mayhem to the locale. Hope there is some sort of traffic plan for all this development.

Well done to the brave councillors who voted against this.

It’s just not right that billionaires build a tower while making out that affordable units are not viable. This development should have affordable units or a section 106 contribution.

@Anon 3.31pm, do you ever go to Manchester and witness what’s happening there, with the kind of investment that we in Liverpool can only imagine. Young people flocking there to work because it’s attracting jobs, both high-paid and not so high-paid. You say you hear it’s an awful place to live, if so where does that leave Liverpool with tons of wasteland to look at even in our city centre. We had visionaries and risk takers once in Liverpool who knew how to build a dynamic city, unlike the core of narrow minded councillors we’ve got now.

To the “we can be like Manchester” guys. You realise they did a lot more than give developers a free rein to build whatever they want contrary to policy. They actually had the fundamentals there like, you know actual industry, financial services and the like. Which were there already and not just drawn there by a below average provincial architect designed tower.

Lots of people on here don’t seem to understand that affordable houses are not affordable, that private business should not be expected to undertake the role of the state, or even what viability is. The viability assessment is online for anyone to read. Would you rather have the scheme built with no affordable units but 255 units that helps get people in the city housed, or nothing? The site is an eyesore, affordable units or not, this is good news.

Nick Small has been a big help in getting this off the ground and his change in approach to development is most welcome. The tower is a beautiful idea.

I’m guessing the people here moaning about viability assessments know more about them, and how they can be worked, than those who just accept what the purely profit motivated developer tells them.

Completely normal for a developer to seek to maximise their profit.

Completely weird for a local authority to let them do that when they have the tools to force them to prove affordable units.

What’s also weird is the people who honestly believe that this and other towers wouldn’t be built if the developer reduced their profit on it by 1%.

Nonny – I’m not sure how delivering 20% of the scheme at a loss to provide affordable housing would result in only a 1% profit reduction? As another commenter has mentioned – the financial viability appraisal is in the public domain for anyone to go and read!

Hey nonny no nonny……..in fact mostly no nonny. It may surprise you to learn that these developments need to be funded and that is done through borrowing . And those who provide the loans need to be confident that they are going to make a return on their money. So that profit level…….which is mainly marginal for towers is absolutely essential funnily enough and each percentage point means something!!! But don’t let the facts get in the way!!

I’d like to encourage everybody to read the viability assessment with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Here’s hoping the council reassess viability when, hey presto, it magically turns out to not be such a financial disaster for the developer to build this.

Brent72 – I forgot, Beetham/Davos are constructing this barely profitable tower as an act of philanthropy for the great city of Liverpool.

To those who oppose this scheme, you know what sometimes you have to encourage developers and get things moving, Andy Burnham certainly does in Manchester by making massive loans knowing the city will get it back as well as millions in council tax.
So just stop finding ways of criticising this project and look on the brightside ie our city profile will benefit, we get more in council tax, acres of derelict land will be put to good use, more developers will be encouraged to build here.

Oh do grow up anon 11.17 no one is suggesting that they aren’t making a profit and in a mixed economy like ours it shouldn’t be seen as a dirty word. What the process has to assess is whether the profit is reasonable for the risk involved. As others have said the assessment is on line and if you can tear it apart based on other similar appraisals and there will be many I Manchester. If it is full of BS you should call it out. Good luck!!

@nonny – Maybe they actually understand how the process works, maybe they understand that the viability is not just assessed by the developer, by the council. What tools do you think the council has to force people to pay something? Stopping the development from getting permission, is essentially the only option they have, and then no one wins.

The viability statement is available for everyone to read. This building is not making the developer money, they are building a high quality proposal as an indication of the potential of the wider KET masterplan, with the hope that they can attract outside development, and regenerate this area of the city.

@11:17 am By Anon. If you read the viability assessment you will see that it essentially is. They are not making money on this building, they are doing it to build confidence in the wider proposal, and in the city, so that the whole of the master plan can be realised.

Otherwise we just end up in a Liverpool Waters scenario where basically nothing has happened in more than a decade.

Sometimes it really feels like there are people who don’t want anything good to happen in the city.

Anonamouse – I’ve no doubt that line about profitability works on most councillors and the cabinet member, but not on those who actually know how the industry works.

I agree the developer is entitled to try to do everything to maximise its profit. It’s up to the inept local authority to try to extract something for its own benefit, using the tools granted to them by central government.

@nonny – Other than preventing the development from happening, which I assume you are not in favour of, what options do they have?

You seem to think that you know better than the viability assessors from both the project team and the council, why?

Let’s assume the apartments fall within Council Tax band C. That would mean this building alone will contribute £577,192.50 per annum in Council Tax. There’s a whole host of other benefits that were presented by the applicant’s agent at committee – so lets not pretend this is a one-sided permission that only benefits the developer.

For those people who have criticised me and two other people [who are not councillors] for objecting to the £64 million, 28 storey Davos tower in Liverpool – I would suggest reading the Planning doc. for the development…Or perhaps, you might have found the time to have actually come to the meeting. [By the way, we did not have voting rights at the meeting.
Anyway, allow me to explain some of the reasons why we objected:
[1] There are 255 flats – which equates to roughly 500 plus occupants. The council required 255 parking spaces……AND YET THE DEVELOPER WAS PERMITTED TO GET AWAY WITH JUST PUTING 21 PARKING SPACES IN THE DESIGN. This means that the 100s of other flat owners will just have to park in the surrounding residential streets….causing chaos.
[2]There are NO affordable flats……..ditto for every other recent development application in the area
[3] It stated that the developer would pay just over £250,000 towards increasing patient capacity in the local doctor’s surgery. The developer said they couldn’t afford it!!!…….so they don’t have to pay it!!
[4] The developer should be paying S 106 to enhance the local area – The developer said they couldn’t it – so LCC reduced it by more than £500,000… leaving the developer next to nothing to pay.
Of course the developer is going to make a big, big profit……..the whole thing was a farce [and what I have written here is just the tip of a very big iceberg
Which only goes to show that it is a good idea to know the facts before you start commenting on things you know nothing about

Anonamouse – again, that’s only if you accept the premise that the building wouldn’t go ahead if they were to provide just one affordable unit.

I reject that premise as does anyone who scrutinises the viability assessment. Those crazy guys stretching themselves so thin on a philanthropic skyscraper.

Come on now Nonny do keep up. The appraisal is publicly available……..that is it available to the public. So those who do understand appraisals, which you perhaps do not, will be able to drive a coach and horses through it if it doesn’t pass musty. You appear to be in conspiracy theory territory here and not the real world!

IMO, local authorities should provide affordable housing not private investors unless they are prepared to make a loss.
Luckily there might well be affordable housing with the new Pumpfields SPD. and the Central Docks developments providing these homes.
What is affordable for some is expensive for others so how low do you go?
There was a comment from a councillor objecting about about One bedroom apartments, don’t they know how many people live on their own in todays world.

As a neutral on this, Davos need to engage a PR firm. For better or for worse, there is a real public perception issue on this and other developments that current efforts haven’t tackled.

Nonny – You are yet to explain why you reject it. It has been verified by the councils own team, and they have agreed with the findings. It is a publicly available document so I don’t understand why you are not able to provide evidence.

I also think you could do with reading the NPPF which creates a framework to prevent contributions from being applied if it means that the proposal would not be viable. What is the point of forcing contributions onto developers if that makes the scheme non-viable, because those contributions would then never be paid.

You demonstrate a shocking lack of understanding that is normally reserved for planning committee members.

Anonamouse – I appreciate it is your role here to defend this project but please keep the allegations factual. I know the NPPF, and it appears you do not. The NPPF has since the coalition years provided an assumption that ALL schemes are viable, and that it is up to the applicant to prove they are not.

The current Liverpool Council takes a developer friendly approach to viability compared to other authorities, giving excessive weight and insufficient scrutiny to developers’ submissions on viability.

Council officers haven’t “agreed” with the viability assessment. They have farmed out scrutiny to a third party, and opted for the cop out of a claw back clause.

I have read the viability assessment. The overriding point is that the majority of the relevant info is redacted, thus hindering public scrutiny. This includes total costs, developer profit, residual land value, and financials generally. Operational costs also appear generous in favour of the developer, to say the least.

Nonny – Ok so you’re proof is ‘I know better than everyone else, trust me’. Got it.

It is a cop out for councils and government to fall back on private developers to incorporate social/affordable housing, this should be provided by the state and housing associations. The developers are in it to make money, and by reducing their profit or viability then they will simply not develop in the city, regardless if agree with that or not. With no private developers Liverpool will retain its rundown disused buildings and fly tipped vacant land with no new housing or job creation.

HI folks – we’ve had a lot of great conversation in the comments section, but at this point I believe all has been said re: viability and that no one will be changing their minds anytime soon. Let’s move the conversation on.

I have read with interest the many comment of people (mainly anonymous) who have condemned my colleagues and I who examined this proposal diligently. I would urge everyone with an opinion to read the planning officer’s report and my amendment proposal to refuse permission before condemning those of us who have the best interests of the city at heart.

Liverpool has a history of local planners holding the city back, it doesn’t surprise me that this just scrapped through. It’s all about party politics, nothing else. Nobody else is coming to this wasteland offering to build a billion pound development, but hey, gotta stay on that gravy train.

Our council is full of absolute fools. We need all the investment we can get.

This type of development should be moving along side some actual infrastructure for public transport right the way though here and down through central docks to Hill Dickinson, rather than pushing for mass parking anyway, which for people living in these areas we should be actively offering.

Why all this angst over a block of flats?

Build it and move on. I can assure you the sky won’t fall in. Seems like there’s too many people who have too much time on their hands.

We need the development. End of story. Beggars can’t be choosers. We’ve got swathes of rotting land. No investment, no jobs and you want to turn down huge investment because of ‘affordable housing’ which is not the job of a private business to provide (the market is the market).

The city has been left behind because of useless politicians with a village mentality of accompanying NIMBYISM.

Those cllrs are a disgrace voting against this development and investment. Not only are they rubbish at their job but they are actively doing the opposite and harming the city. I question their motives. Liverpool residents want these developments so to those anti development cllrs either get on board or go get a job in McDonalds!

Re the Councillor’s post at 10.05pm, affordability will never be without criticism because there’ll always be those who cannot afford a product however much a discount you apply. This councillor too has a history of delaying schemes by asking for more information or clarification when he probably knows that these delaying tactics puts a project in jeopardy, look at something like the Carpenter scheme at King’s Dock St been held up for so many years you wonder how they remain committed.

To the councillors and others arguing for affordability, if you were initially selling your house and someone came along and said you need to lower that asking price by 25% as I can’t afford it , I bet you wouldn’t.
In the long run you may have to but that would be down to market forces, on the other hand you have the option to take it off the market till things improve.

It is literal government policy, and local authority policy, to require developers to build a percentage of affordable housing.

Unlike these developers, if I was selling my house I wouldn’t go all crybaby if I wasn’t getting my 20% profit.

As the developers and planning agents posting here know, if a developer is getting 19% profit, that’s enough for them to get out of the affordable requirement. Must have the full 20%.

Pat Maloney has history of trying to scupper development in the name of party politics all the while swathes of the city center remain wasteland. I see a derelict building in northern docks area collapsed onto a car the other day.

The comments from the councillors in the comment section are either misleading or just plain wrong.

Josie Mullen Said:
1 – The council requires 255 parking spaces for 255 units. This is not council policy. Current policy ‘ensuring a Choice of Travel SPD’ suggests 0.7 spaces per unit. In the forthcoming Local Plan, this changes to a maximum parking numbers, with the city centre listed as low to no parking requirements at all.
2 – This is a viability issue, this is a city wide issue, this is why no other developments have them. This is also not a reason to reject and application. 255 units is better than 0 units.
3 – No it wasn’t. Anyone can put in a request for funds. It doesn’t make it legal or a requirement. I have never seen such a request, and I can imagine that developer and project team haven’t either.
4 – The S106 was reduced to 100k. This is again due to viability. The viability assessment is a public document and has been checked and approved by the council.

As an aside, people can’t just come to the planning committee, they have actual jobs. Who is able to make the 9:45am planning committee?

Pat Moloney Said:
And you’ll note that he didn’t give his reasoning in the comment, because it is indefeasible.

1- Aesthetics – This is a subjective point and not a reason to reject a scheme.
2 Mass and Scale larger than advised. The advice contained with the SPD is guidance, and therefor should be afforded less weight than planning policy. As such, this is also a subjective point and not a reason to reject.
3 – If you really want to argue that the only way this scheme can come forward is to build a 180 space multi storey. Go for it, but who wants to live in a city with just as many car parks as apartment blocks.
4 – Its a policy complaint mix.
5 – They are.
6 – Not a policy reason.
7 – Subjective.
8 – 80% pass rate is not a failure for city centre proposals.
9 – Viability. Not a reason to refuse
10 – There are as many trees as can fit on the site, where do you suggest they go?

Not that they are going to read this, but it does highlight how unsuitable the committee system is.

The comment by Anontonio is just misleading or wrong. No time to go through everything but the misdirection highlights:

– The viability assessment is not a public document, as all the important information is redacted so the public can’t see it. The council didn’t approve it, they farmed that out to a third party. I wonder if the councillors even were given the unredacted copy? We the public can’t scrutinise how effective that third party’s work was, but there are already glaring holes in it re the operating cost and yield estimates, which seem unrealistic for this showstopper development.
– Aesthetics is a reason to reject/require alterations to a scheme, as detailed in policy. Do you think developers should have a free rein to put up anything, no matter how ugly or out of step with the local environment it is?
– If you want a city with less car parks then get on to transport dept and build proper public transport. If the public transport doesn’t exist, you can’t just stick your fingers in your ears, ignore the need for parking in a new development, and pretend everything is ok. You will be dealing with the problems/complaints in the years to come.
– The local housing market analysis and need in the SHMNA are embedded in policy. Policy states that the mix of dwelling types and sizes stated in the SHMNA are to be reflected in planning proposals/approvals. As the councillor pointed out, this development doesn’t meet that policy requirement.

It seems to me there is a conscious effort to ignore planning policy with this and other developments. As Cllr Moloney said, read the officers report and read Moloney’s objections. The councillor has done his homework unlike many.

What the councillors have done over previous years is turn Liverpool into a low-rise city by demolishing blocks that were tall, and others that were mid-rise, many of the mid-rise were solid tenements. Now they try to claim that tall buildings do not fit in with the Liverpool landscape so buildings should be refused or otherwise topped, and their anti-tall propaganda is one of the reasons we are failing. We are not Venice, Vienna, or Rome, we can’t afford to be stifling development, ok we have a decent waterfront but that shouldn’t be a barrier to growth.

I don’t think you can conclude the councillors are inherently anti tall buildings. There is a tall buildings policy in Liverpool Council. Just that there are guidelines they must comply with that aren’t actually that difficult.

Something as complex as this isn’t going to be successfully debated in the comments section, but any decent town planner could drive a bus through the arguments being made by Nonny and the Lib Dem NIMBYS.

Alright folks, I’m shutting this comment section down. We’ve had an interesting debate but we are officially rehashing old arguments at this phase. Thanks for reading!