Carpenter tweaks 297-flat Kings Dock scheme on BSA
Design changes to the 14-storey Liverpool development are required before work can begin to ensure it meets fire safety standards.
Carpenter Investments is requesting permission from Liverpool City Council to make some non-material amendments to the design of the 297-flat One Kings Dock, located on the city’s former Wapping Station.
The city council approved an enlarged iteration of the plans earlier this year but that version of the project does not meet the latest fire safety requirements as set out in the Building Safety Act.
Following feedback from the building safety regulator, Carpenter has decided to make changes to the evacuation strategy, which have necessitated an increase in the height of the ground floor to accommodate lift access across all levels.
While in the grand scheme of things the changes are minor, failure to enact them would mean the project would not pass through the BSR’s Gateway 2, which would be a “catastrophic scenario”, according to a planning statement prepared by The Planning Studio.
To learn more, search for reference number 25NM/3347 on Liverpool City Council’s planning portal.
L7 Architects is leading on design.
Alastair Shepherd, who is leading the project at L7 Architects said: “Carpenter Investments are keen to start delivering on one of Liverpool city region’s biggest regeneration projects in 2026 and ensuring we have a best in class design is critical to that.”
This seems to have been so long in the making, it just needs to be built now.
By Anonymous
The people at Carpenter must have the patience of Job, given the trials and tribulations they’ve gone through to keep this scheme alive since 2022. Just to look through the original planning application and scroll down endlessly till you reach the start of it all is painful.They wanted 15 floors but of course the City Planning Chief doesn’t like to be dictated to like that so it was lowered to 13, in the end Carpenter had to plead to the Planning Committe to pass it even though it was almost unviable financially if they insisted on an affordable living element, since then it has been adjusted up to 14 floors. What a saga, and now they’ve the Building Safety Regulator to satisfy.
By Anonymous
Looks blocky
By Anonymous
This is an ugly scheme, and clearly poorly designed.
Talking about patience is silly, given how much time they’ve had on the job you thought they would be able to design something complaint.
This job is far beyond their ability to deliver.
By Dr Ian Buildings
This is taking years and years there, is obviously issues in LCC . You couldn’t make it up with Labour Liverpool
By Anonymous
Will be great to see this built, as it could kick-start the whole area behind. If they get the roof garden right, it could look cool driving down Wapping.
Regarding compliance, I just keep hearing from people in the industry that it’s still subjective – you’re at the mercy of whoever is judging these things. The Gateway 2 process is clearly a mess judging by stalled schemes up and down the country. Absolutely everyone wants safe buildings but it doesn’t seem right that planning applications and starts on site are at such a low level.
By Mike
Just make sure it has no parking facilities for cars but plenty of cycle sheds. It will sail through this circus of a planning department
By Ben
@Anon 12.05pm, you say the building looks blocky, but when you get a planning department that insists on height restrictions that will be the outcome. Someone on this council has a deep aversion to high-rise and this is affecting the growth of the city, it has even produced a ruling that in an area of low-rise any new proposal should not be more than 6 storeys higher than what’s there at present. What is so ridiculous is that the Council previously demolished high and mid-rise buildings and turned them into the low-rise neighbourhoods we see today.
By Anonymous
That looks fun when it’s windy… Swirling tornados of rubbish here we come
By Anonymous
@Ben, I’m gonna be honest I’d welcome the idea of more bikes and fewer cars on the road. I get that some people need cars and they’re the best tool for the job in *some* cases but I think the dependency on them definitely needs to be looked at, it just feels like there’s way too many of them around. Parked all over the pavement, locked in traffic jams etc. Also I feel like most people who live in this area are probably going to be the type to prefer walking or cycling anyway, or using public transport. I imagine it’s aimed at younger people without children who maybe work in the city centre, and frequent places based around either baltic area or city centre, where car ownership wouldn’t be practical.
By Anonymous
Re parking, if this scheme has no parking people will not consider it if they need their car, but those who use bikes, scooters, cabs, etc it will suit them.
However if Liverpool City Council continue to wage war on cars with their parking charges, road restrictions, etc people will shop elsewhere and go elsewhere for leisure, let’s face it Liverpool is famous for shooting ourselves in the foot.
By Anonymous