Inspector rejects Flanagans’ Liverpool appeal
A company headed up by John, Julian, and Paul Flanagan has had its appeal over Liverpool City Council’s rejection of plans for 54 flats between Great Mersey Street and Lancaster Street dismissed.
Great Mersey Street Developments saw its resi plans rejected last year due to a lack of on-site affordable housing or financial contributions towards affordable housing elsewhere in the city.
The appeal focused on determining whether the scheme – two three-storey blocks and a third five-storey block with a housing mix of 12 one- and 44 two-bedroom homes – would still stack up if a higher contribution towards off-site affordable housing was made.
GMSD said that it could not comply with Liverpool City Council’s 20% on-site affordable policy on viability grounds and that the £69,000 it had agreed to pay by way of a commuted sum was already stretching the appraisal.
In determining the appeal, the inspector agreed with the city council’s assertion that the gross development value of £8.3m GMSD had assigned to the scheme was too low and that it was more like £9.9m. Subsequently, the inspector concluded that a higher contribution towards affordable housing could be made.
“In this context, I have to be very confident that no additional financial contributions could be possible,” the inspector said.
“Even in the context of challenging national and global economic circumstances, for the reasons outlined above I do not have such confidence and have found that a not inconsequential additional level of financial contribution is most likely viable.”
The inspector concluded that the scheme would “conflict with the development plan as a whole” and dismissed the appeal
Baldwin Design Consultancy is behind the designs on this proposal, while Broadgrove Planning and Development applied to Liverpool City Council.
The application can be viewed with the reference number 23F/0694 on Liverpool City Council’s planning portal.
The Inspector has clearly found fault with the financial argument put forward by the developer here, but as regards the view that this development deviates from the local plans it’s not clear how. Does the Inspector not like the design, or maybe the height going up to 5 storeys. All I know is that at that end of Great Mersey St sits a section of what was a lovely, full, period terrace of 4 storeys, and is still in use and in good condition. For me this immediate location would benefit from some more housing similar to what was proposed in this scheme, so maybe the owners should come back with something more viable or sell on to a developer that will.
By Anonymous
Liverpool Rejects, Rejects, Rejects. Manchester Accepts, Accepts, Accepts. Seems to be the norm.
By Stephen Hart
If it was green belt the inspector would have allowed the appeal regardless
By Anonymous
Liverpool may well reject. But so many developers say they have a viability gap and need help….they don’t actually. Many just want to get out of doing affordable homes. When you see “abnormal costs” as swimming pools, vague provisional sums, all lost in ether which is impacting the bottom line…. if it were funny you would laugh. Developers need to stop worming out of fulfilling their affordable housing responsibilities. With lame excuses and smoke and mirrors. So many wont budge on their profit or development management fee.
By Bob Dawson
No wonder Liverpool is 30 years behind Manchester.
By Mark