Liverpool rejects Unite’s Arrad House plans
A bid to increase the number of bedspaces at one of eight buildings at Unite Student Village has been turned down after officers ruled the proposal would result in “substandard” student accommodation.
Arrad House in the city’s cultural quarter had been in line for a facelift and extension under plans lodged by the PBSA provider.
Unite Students wanted to add 36 cluster bedrooms – 20 on the first floor and eight on each of the second and third floors – taking the total number of student beds within the building from 74 to 110.
However, the plans did not pass muster with Liverpool City Council’s planning team.
In a decision notice confirming refusal of the plans, the scheme is criticised as “over intensive”.
“The proposed development would result in a poor quality and substandard form of purpose-built student accommodation… As such, the development would fail to deliver a high standard of accommodation and would not function well for future occupants,” the decision notice states.
Falconer Chester Hall advised on design and ROK Planning advised on planning matters.
To learn more, search for reference number 26F/0235 on Liverpool City Council’s planning portal.
There’s an experienced and fairly large architect practice on the scheme, so how can there be such a significant disconnect between what they consider an acceptable design and what the council considers an acceptable design? Is the council applying standards that are too rigid, or is the architect putting forward bad designs?
By Anonymous
Whatever the pros and cons of this application, it was initially submitted in January 2026 and refused in July 2026. That’s 6 months and it did not even go before the planning committee but to delegated authority, as if so that would probably take 12 months at least. There is something seriously not right in the planning department as they appear to pull out all the stops to refuse or delay schemes on issues like heights, designs, cladding , not in keeping with surroundings, etc.
There needs to be some rooting out from top to bottom as projects like the TJ Morris towers will be under threat. Look at the problems Romal had at Waterloo Dock, or the Carpenter scheme at King’s Dock St, the planning docs on both are not a great read.
By Anonymous
Two articles on here today from Liverpool, both refusing planning applications. Just saying…
By Anonymous
Anonymous 10.41
Perhaps the delay is caused by planners trying to work with the architect and developer to achieve an acceptable outcome but finding a level of intransigence where ultimately their only option is to refuse. It’s not always the planners fault.
By Miss Ann Thrope
@ July 23, 2026 at 5:29 pm By Anonymous
The more likely explanation is the architect does what the client requests.
By Anonymous