Liverpool set to refuse 107 homes
Two schemes of note have been put to the city council’s planning committee to discuss next week, with recommendations to reject both applications.
Great Mersey Street
Great Mersey Development’s rehashed 56-flat scheme has been recommended for refusal due to failing to meet the city council’s affordable housing requirement.
The developer hoped to bring forward two three-storey blocks and a third five-storey block to a plot sandwiched between Great Mersey Street and Lancaster Street in Vauxhall.
Under the plans lodged with the city council, each of the two three-storey blocks would have identical form and host six apartments on each level.
The third block to the site’s east would provide four two-bed flats on each floor, putting forward a housing mix of 12 one- and 44 two-bedroom apartments.
The applicant has previously tried to build on the land. 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.
Baldwin Design Consultancy is behind the designs on this proposal, while Broadgrove Planning and Development applied to Liverpool City Council.
To view the application, search 23F/0694 on Liverpool City Council’s planning portal.
The site lies at the border of Liverpool City Council and Knowsley Council. Credit: via planning documents
Parkview Road
Plans to build 51 homes off Parkview Road to the east of the city centre have been recommended for refusal.
The loss of open space is considered the central reason for refusal, with officers suggesting the site ‘holds both a recreational function and visual amenity’.
Applicant Paul Courtney is seeking permission to build two three-storey blocks containing 37 apartments and a further 14 three-bedroom houses.
Block A to the west of the 2.3-acre site would host 20 flats, while Block B would hold the remaining 17.
Plans indicate the development would supply 67 car parking spaces.
Broadgrove Planning and Development submitted the plans for Parkview Road to Liverpool City Council on behalf of the applicant.
Designs were also drawn up by Baldwin Design Consultancy.
To view the application, use the planning reference number 23F/1374 in Liverpool City Council’s planning portal.
Regarding the Parkview Rd scheme, if it was built then judging by the GGI there is still plenty of open space for recreation surrounding it. Be interesting to know who owns the site as it looks like the Council will never allow anything to be built there.
By Anonymous
Anon – it was originally a Council site but is currently owned by a Flanagan Group company
By Anon 2
People love rejecting plans no one this city is in the ruins no development= No employment…. Better off spending the development money in Manchester where by employment for the building game with thrive
By Anonymous
Both these applications are part of another depressing Planning Agenda with only 5 items listed and these 2 are due for rejection. Just what goes on in Liverpool Planning, there’s very little coming forward, and things which have been passed are not on site. Look at the number of working cranes in town, it’s 5 and all are Legacie, 2 cranes not working are the Tobacco Warehouse and Bastion Point.
By Anonymous
Affordable housing requirements once again reducing housing supply and making us poorer. They should be banned or strictly limited at a national level.
By AB
The Great Mersey Street application, based on the above image, doesn’t look like it works very well for the site. This would be better as townhouses (a modern version of the existing Georgian houses to the left). A square could be developed between Lancaster Street and Stanley Road with apartments at the other end facing Kirkdale Road. This would offer a good housing mix in a suitable density.
By GetItBuilt!
Regarding Gt Mersey Street – these are not homes, they are obviously intended to be AIRBNB. developing 1 & 2 bedroom ‘apartments’ in a community area surrounded by family homes it is blatantly obvious.
By Anonymous
Back to the downward spiral
By Anonymous
We need more houses to many people on the streets
By Anonymous
Let’s be honest. As soon as someone mentions parking LCC mention reject.
By Ben
Yet more marxist nonsense from L.C.C. . Happy now , are you , that zero homes are being built ?
By Anonymous
One the one hand people on here complain about LCC approving any old rubbish, when they actually refuse two terrible proposals they still moan.
By Anonymous