Liverpool rejects 107 homes
City councillors followed recommendations to reject two separate applications that would have brought 93 flats and 14 townhouses to the city.
Great Mersey Street
Great Mersey Street Development’s plans to build three apartment blocks sandwiched between Great Mersey Street and Lancaster Street were emphatically rejected by councillors.
Local MP, Kim Johnson, also wrote in to object to the project. She said she shared concerns with residents, officers, and councillors that the scheme would not provide sufficient affordable housing, at least to meet the city council’s 20% requirement.
Issues around traffic, open space, and a negative impact on the nearby Rotunda terrace were also cited as reasons for rejection.
Great Mersey Street Development, a company that lists John, Paul, and Julian Flanagan as directors, had its plans for 66 flats on the plot rebuffed in 2023. Now, its proposal for a 56-flat scheme has suffered the same fate.
The project would have developed two three-storey blocks and a third five-storey block with a housing mix of 12 one- and 44 two-bedroom homes.
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 scheme was rejected due to its effect on open space. Credit: via planning documents
Parkview Road
The loss of open space was the central reason for the rejection of applicant Paul Courtney’s plan to build 51 homes in Gillmoss.
Officers stated the site ‘holds both a recreational function and visual amenity’.
Permission was sought to build two three-storey blocks containing 37 apartments and a further 14 three-bedroom houses.
Broadgrove Planning and Development was the planner, and Baldwin Design Consultancy designed the project.
To view the application, use the planning reference number 23F/1374 in Liverpool City Council’s planning portal.
Wow.
By Anonymous
Both applications with the same planner and architect? Not a great day for Broadgrove Planning and Baldwin Design…
By Anonymous
Kim Johnson MP must hold some kind of record as to the number of planning proposals she has objected to. Meanwhile both these refusals leave an element of doubt as to the reasons, eg, Parkview Rd was deemed to be a loss of open space, however there’s acre upon acre of open space there but this development would only use up a small portion of that.
By Anonymous
Not enough bungalows
By You know the score
Same MP and councillors will complain about lack of houses and homelesness. Liverpool politics is becoming even more of a joke.
By Jack
Kim Johnson proffesional objector.
By Anonymous
Nothing changes. Once again the council sending the wrong messages to developers. It is hardly surprising that Place North West reports so little development news from here in Liverpool and we read lots about endless developments in Manchester; a city with vision that does attract massive investment because that city means serious business. I doubt we will see any substantial investors for a long time to come. Still the messages from the council appear to signal this city is not open for business
By Stephen Davis.
Shocking , but what do you expect from Liverpool Labour run council
By Anonymous
Liverpool City Council have thousands of empty domestic properties that could be deemed affordable. Why are they not utilising that commodity rather than preventing developers creating jobs in the City. Honestly the LCC Councillors are a joke. However I don’t blame them for their ineptness. I blame the people of this City for voting them in, in the first place.
By Stephen Hart
@SteDavis – you think these developments get through in Manchester?
By Verum
Good decision by the Council. Developers need to meet the affordable housing requirement; this is not specific to Liverpool and developers are well aware of this.
By L9
@L9, if Liverpool was being inundated with applications for residential developments them imposing a 20% Affordable Housing requirement might have some success, but we aren’t.
Why do you think developers won’t invest in Liverpool, well one reason is the 20% requirement, of course there are others like the awkwardness of the Planning Department.
My guess is that these two planning applications were to get planning permission so the land could be sold on, and this is becoming a regular occurrence now in Liverpool.
By Anonymous
Well will councillors (and officers) in Liverpool realise that their economy is miles behind other cities so 20% affordable housing in Liverpool is not the same as 20% in Manchester. Wake up Liverpool! It’s pointless refusing schemes for a lack of affordable housing and instead having no development at all!
By Anonymous
Wish I could filter out all the tribal football lik and spinned comments from Manchester. Let them get on with building anything anywhere without any character or identity whatsoever.
By Anonymous
Agreed. Too many people using planning permission as leverage to inflate land values, with no intention of actually developing out on the land.
By Anonymous
@ Anon 4.41pm, Manchester accommodates developers and looks to make things work, while here in Liverpool the Council and an element of it’s citizens seek to block almost any development.
That’s why Manchester has jobs and investment but struggle to get most things done, and have tons of vacant,idle, land.
By Anonymous