Liverpool sends local plan to government
Enabling the delivery of 33,750 homes and 5.8m sq ft of employment floorspace by 2043, the latest strategic development framework from the city council is on its way for independent review by the Planning Inspectorate.
Liverpool City Council voted to approve its draft local plan for independent government inspection yesterday. Local authorities are required to have an up-to-date local plan as per central government rules.
“At a time when about two-thirds of councils don’t have a current or valid local plan, the fact that we’ve got one and we’re now renewing it – I think says everything about the professionalism about the way we’re delivering planning in this city,” said Leader Cllr Liam Robinson.
The plan includes the allocation of 145 sites for development, including 57 plots for purely residential building and 32 reserved for employment projects. The remainder are for mixed-use development, with two reserved for travellers.
Robinson praised the brownfield-first approach of the local plan.
“It has been completely clear that our green spaces in this city are protected for keeps,” he said to the city council yesterday.
Employment land is separated into three categories: 3.2m sq ft is for industrial, 2.1m sq ft for offices, and 542,500 sq ft for R&D floorspace. Allocations for these types of development include Littlewoods, Central Gillmoss Industrial Estate, Pall Mall, and Paddington South.
Pumpfield and Limekilns has the largest housing allocation of sites in the local plan, with 2,806 homes projected for it. Other large-scale housing allocations include Land at Festival Gardens (1,550 across two sites), King Dock Street (903 homes), and Regency House (609 homes).
You can review the site allocations starting on page 37 of the draft local plan.
In addition to site allocations, the local plan includes further restrictions on the location and concentration of HMOs. Further HMO rules are due to come forward in a revised and extended Article 4 motion in the next few months.
Under the local, plan, new takeaways and off licences outside of the city centre would also be unable to be open after 11pm.
Addressing his fellow councillors, Cllr Nick Small pointed out that the plan supports a 15% growth in the city’s population, which is set to reach more than 572,000 residents by 2043.
Regarding housing, 20% of the 33,750 homes are due to be designated affordable, with half of those set for social rent.
The local plan simply outlines where the city council would like development to occur – it does not mandate any actual building itself. That will be up to the private sector, but Small was optimistic that the city council was well-placed to help encourage development.
“Viability does remain an issue, as it does everywhere outside London and the South East, but we believe with interventions we’re doing with the wider city development agenda – things like the MDC in the North Docks, Imagine Liverpool, and working strategically with the city region and Homes England to optimise grant funding – that we can improve viability and market confidence over the next 15 years to deliver these targets,” he said.
To meet the city council’s 33,750-home target by 2043, there would need to be at least 1,875 homes built a year.
While the local plan won support from the Liberal Democrats, the party’s local leader Cllr Carl Cashman said he had hoped to see an inclusion for council-owned housing and a policy for dealing with empty properties.
“Don’t mistake our support for satisfaction,” Cashman said. “I don’t believe ethe plan is ambitious enough for Liverpool.”
Labour Party councillors noted that both of those ideas were outside the scope of a local plan, however they were supportive of council-owned housing and bringing empty properties back into use.
Stuffed full of viability-killing measures dreamt up by ideologues and puritanical planners with zero understanding of economics or markets.
File under ‘craneless skyline’.
By Anonymous
Good luck getting any of the 2,806 homes built in the “Pumfields area”. Once this plan is adopted the policies will make developers run a mile. Making these developments viable is tough enough as it is, then add the Gateway process. This looks like it’s been drafted by someone with zero knowledge of the private sector and how the development world works.
By Anonymous
More pipe dreams
By Anonymous
Councillor Small states viability is a issue for everywhere outside London. However Leeds has been declared the major construction hot-spot in the country outside of London and Manchesters skyline speaks for itself.
By Anonymous
Re anonymous 1.38pm we all know how developers work. Greenfield sites or we are not building, and if we don’t get our way off to the Inspector we will go. Note Liverpool doesn’t have any agricultural land to build on.
By Anon
2806 is not that many homes considering the size of the Pumpfields area. A city centre location such as this should be much denser with towers, mansion blocks and townhouses. For comparison Renakers Trinity Island development is 1016 homes in two towers on a very small plot. Liverpool needs to repopulate.
By GetItBuilt!
Liverpool has stood still since 2008 capital of culture the lack of cranes in the Sky compared to Manchester says it all
By Trevor
LCC may get a golden medal for “pretty plans” but nothing more than a wooden spoon for delivery.
Just looks like another waste of council payer’s money.
By Anonymous
Hi Anonymous. Just an fyi that each council is legally required to have a local plan by central government.
By Julia Hatmaker
Liverpool council, not only signing it’s own death warrant but formulating it too.
No vision, no risk taking, no ambition, we’ve turned what was once an exciting, vibrant port city into a miserable flat landscape created by nimbys.
Our public transport network had a great plan in the 1960s for a comprehensive urban rail network, we laid the foundation in the 1970s with the joined up electrification of the Wirral lines and the Northern Line but it’s all been dumbed down since then, not least in the hands of our Metro Mayor.
By Anonymous
These plans should be catalysts for development. Sadly LCC planning department lacks the necessary leadership to draft a plan that will actually deliver. The reason the comments section is always so negative on planning in Liverpool is because we can all see how the city is being artificially held back by unviable planning policy burdens and a lack of commercial understanding when it comes to regeneration and delivery. Are they too arrogant to listen to the industry, or do they genuinely believe that the lack of development coming forward is because of macro-economic issues (that don’t seem to be holding other cities back in this way!)?
By Anonymous
People are starting to realise that Labour has been a disaster for Liverpool. They have been brilliant for Manchester but they have ambitions leadership
By Phil
Hi Julia. Liverpool has a plan that it adopted in 2022 so has confirmed it already has an up to date plan. Would be interested to know if anyone thinks the existing policies are working?
By Anonymous
Here’s a polished version of your comment:
Although it’s encouraging to see that Liverpool City Council has improvement plans for the city, many previous plans have unfortunately never been fully delivered.
I agree with the view that the city should work with organisations that have a strong understanding of how the private sector delivers major projects. Too many schemes have stalled or become far more expensive because important issues were overlooked during the planning stage.
As a proud resident of Liverpool, I want to see the city thrive and reach its full potential. We have so much to offer, but in some areas—particularly public transport—we seem to be lagging behind. Liverpool should be looking to the future, not operating with systems that feel as though they belong to the 1950s or even 2008.
By Maryuri
People looking for housing density in central Liverpool similar to Manchester ignore the different size of economies now.
By Anonymous
More sites for Travellers is a good idea for this neighborhood. Travellers can shop in local shops and visit tourist sites and boost the local economy and things. Why not have more Camping sites in the City center.
By Anonymous
Nothing ever happened that the place is stagnant
By Anonymous
More boring nonsense down the M62
Nothing changes if NOTHING CHANGES
WHEN WILL THD PENNY DROP
By Anonymous
Doe’s this plan include any consideration for people who wish to build their own home under the “Right to build Act”
By Jack
Liverpool looks to be doing very nicely to me. The city just gets better and better. Great to see them putting a quailty plan in place.
By Anonymous
@Anon 4.25pm, you want camp sites in the city centre, but we already have in Church St, Lord St, Bold St , Hanover St ,where some tents appear to be permanent.
I asked a frustrated council street warden who told me rough sleepers and beggars have up to 5 days to move their belongings before they’re disposed of (unlike other cities). Then the Council has to foot the bill for any clearance while the stains and smelly mess are left behind.
By Anonymous
The picture used sums Liverpool up. Provincial.
By Anonymous
Councillor Small talks the talk but we’ve yet to see any plans for Chinatown, Moorfields, Pig and Whistle site, lower London Road, and so on. The Council don’t have any vision to entice developers and these locations have been empty eyesores for decades.
By Anonymous
Pity there isn’t a local transport plan with vision like there was in the late 60s. Oh well our pretend trams and cycle lanes will be world leaders
By Anonymous