Falconer Chester Hall Architects designed the scheme. Credit: via planning documents

Lawless appeals refusal of Liverpool flats

The rejected planning application had proposed building 105 apartments and 63 student homes at 180 Falkner Street, the site of the former Liverpool Community Probation Centre.

Now, Elliot Group’s Falkner Street Developments has filed an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to reverse Liverpool City Council’s decision. Final statements from Falkner Street Developments and the council are due 14 March.

Elliot Group was founded by Elliot Lawless, a developer that Merseyside Police questioned during Operation Aloft, an ongoing investigation into corruption related to land deals within Liverpool City Council. Lawless has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged.

Lawless’s involvement in the 180 Falkner Street project resulted in protesters converging at the council’s planning committee meeting in April last year.

It was at that meeting that the council opted to reject the application against the recommendation of planning officers. Councillors objected to the proposals because of a lack of car parking and the impact on residential amenity that co-locating student and non-student housing would have.

The councillors also voiced opposition to Lawless. They were not swayed by arguments that the project was to be sold to the non-Lawless-affiliated Legacie Developments for delivery after planning permission was secured.

The city council confirmed its decision in May 2022.

At the time, Lawless said he had been advised that he had “a very strong case” for an appeal.

Zerum is the planner for the 180 Falkner Street development. Falcon Chester Hall is the architect. The project team also includes Clancy Consulting, Hydrock, DEP Landscape Architecture, and Wardell Armstrong.

The application’s reference number with Liverpool City Council is 19F/2515. The reference number for the appeal at the Planning Inspectorate is APP/Z4310/W/22/3309678.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Once the politics and emotion are stripped out, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a different outcome to this.

By Anonymous

It is to be hoped that this application`s refusal is overturned on appeal ,as it is a positive scheme which is a good use of vacant land. Typically the planning officers approved the scheme but the councillors rejected this, and why , because the usual group group of vociferous locals, known as L8 Matters , descended en masse at the council meeting .
One of their grounds for objection was they don`t want gentrification in the area, in other words they don`t want diversity or people who may not fit in with them.
In this case I say good luck to Elliot Lawless, as these types of protestors are those holding Liverpool back.

By Anonymous

“In this case I say good luck to Elliot Lawless, as these types of protestors are those holding Liverpool back”….. but not the developers that have caused considerable harm to the reputation of the city when not adequately delivering developments.

By Anonymous

LCC are a shambles

By Anonymous

Quite right to refuse. Where are the balconies?

By Balcony warrior

Diversity? Its quite a diverse area. As for holding Liverpool back, well there’s nothing wrong with people trying to ‘hold back’ on making mistakes. Think again my anonymous chum.

By Verum

If we’re being really pedantic here, This has nothing to do with L8 Matters on account of it being in L7.

By Anonymous

The Nimbys and professional agitators must have been delighted to quote the involvement of that well known folk-devil, Elliot Lawless, as one of their reasons for opposing this application. This could be added to other grounds from their regular drop-down menu of complaints ie parking and that other scourge of society , students.
Students are people, why shouldn`t they live near local neighbours and vice versa, as regards parking ,just down the road on the former Hondo site a student apartment
block is about to start , and there`s no parking on that.
Anyway reports are that Elliot wants to sell the site, and this would be more attractive with planning permission.

By Anonymous

It’s a shame L8 matters or L5 matters who could have prevented the decision on the old TJ Hughes building – a travesty! No car parking – only bikes – round there is bad enough.
London Road needs an anchor retail offering!

By Bob Dawson

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox


Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below