Liverpool to approve 435 Pall Mall apartments
Nextdom Property’s £83m city centre residential development is expected to secure planning consent next week after the proposals were significantly scaled back earlier this year.
Liverpool City Council has recommended the 435-apartment scheme, located off Lanyork Road, Pall Mall, and Chadwick Street, be approved.
As well as mix of one- and two-bedroom flats across two blocks of 10 and seven storeys, the proposals also include 12,400 sq ft of ground-floor commercial and retail space, with parking for 130 cars and a bike space for each apartment.
Nextdom had originally sought consent for a larger development comprising 550 apartments across two blocks of 17 and 10 storeys.
However, the developer scaled back the scheme after the city council said there is “no need for a ‘district scale’ tall building in the location”.
The city council’s Tall Building Supplementary Planning Document, published last year, defines a district-scale building as one that is “between three and five times the height of the broader surrounding context”.
The consultation on the revised plans produced a handful of objections from the public who claimed the scheme is not tall enough.
The comments, summarised in a planning report by the city council, include that the buildings are “too short and appear dumpy and disjointed” and that the revised scheme has “less architectural merit than the original”.
In summary, the city council said Nextdom’s development “would enable the regeneration of a derelict site that is important to the continued redevelopment of Pumpfields [and] contribute positively towards a diverse and complementary mix of uses in a highly accessible location, and therefore create a sustainable form of development.”
Falconer Chester Hall is the architect for the scheme.
Quentin Keohane, director at Falconer Chester Hall, said: “This has been a collaborative journey with the planners and the client and we’re pleased that the project has progressed with an officer’s recommendation to approve.
“We’re hoping the committee will see the merits of the design in terms of re-introducing built form of the right scale that will help set the precedent for the city centre’s northward expansion into this part of Vauxhall.”
This is another example of the planning department dictating to the market. Will LCC be able to achieve the number of new homes required, total about 40,000 by constantly downsizing developments. It reduces that naughty word “profit” (in the councils mind and their left wing cohorts) for the developer and thus limits future investment, while denying much needed homes. This must be one of the questions put to Cllr Robinson, if he ever agrees to be interviewed?
Also is the planning department a law unto itself, it seems to be?
By Liverpolitis
I preferred the original scheme. The Liverpool planning committee is too overbearing. I think the the best route for development is by zone (like Paddington Village) as developers etc know where they stand.
By Chris
Liverpolitis is correct LCC and particularly the planners are significantly holding the city back . The self appointed obsession against tall buildings should be ripped up immediately along with the people enforcing this ludicrous policy . BTW Cllr Robinson is a public elected figure who must make himself available to be questioned.
By Paul M
Stunted. The council and the planning department as well. Hey ho.
By Roy
Almost impossible for Developments to be viable in Liverpool. The planning department have no idea on what it takes to deliver a scheme. They will blame a downturn in the economy but the truth is much deeper and complex.
By Anonymous
Greening? Landscaping? A responsibility to the city’s public realm? Sorry to sound like a naysayer, but sadly underwhelming. Another opportunity lost.
By Dezine
If there was ever a better example of LCC’s miniscule ambition
By Anonymous
I agree that Cllr Robinson has a duty to the people of Liverpool to fully explain why the unelected employees of the Planning Dept have the power to repeatedly scale back developments and therefore by definition reduce investment in the City.
If he refuses an interview I would suggest PNW publish a detailed article on his refusal. We need to fully understand, is it the elected members of the council or the unelected employees of the planning dept who dictate the future development of Liverpool. This is too an important issue to be left unchallenged.
By David
Hi folks, we have put in for an interview with Cllr Robinson. In talking with him at a series of events in person he has expressed willingness to do an interview, so I’m confident this will get sorted. If you have a specific question you’d like ask, please email julia@placenorthwest.co.uk. Let’s try and keep the comments on this story to comments about the scheme itself. Thanks. – J
By Julia Hatmaker
“no need for a ‘district scale’ tall building in the location” – wow, says it all, a disused wasteland city centre location, with great transport links, ideal for high, dense, well designed homes to bring back life and money to the area and what does LCC do? cut it down, meanwhile Manchester and now Birmingham are welcoming development which is regenerating and replacing wasteland will dense housing with shops, restaurants and office space.
By GetItBuilt!
Dear PNW Team , when interviewing Cllr Robinson please use the below comments as typical of the sheer frustration the city residents feel towards his planning department they are beyond words .
By Paul
Do Liverpool City Council’s planners and politicians ever see the comments on here? Are they actually alive to any of the issues facing people genuinely trying to invest in the city to make it a better place for all? This is so short sighted. These dumpy buildings will be being knocked down in 20 years as the pressure to build on Green Belt grows and we suddenly find ourselves short of land. They so know the NPPF promotes efficient use of sustainable, brownfield land, right?
By Anonymous
Frustrating that everything gets scaled down the city will never reach its full potential with this council. As a Scouser I’m jealous of Manchesters leaders.
By Lee
I like short dumpy buildings.
By SK
We want offices
By Mary Mullarkey
@David: Development Plans and supplementary guidance, along with other material considerations, dictate what is to be viewed favourably or unfavourably. It is not some secretive group making decisions not privy to any form of oversight, but one making judgements against publicly available documents.
It’s not done on a whim, and if LCC have guidance advising it is outside of an area that would accept a larger increase over the prevailing from then unless there are sufficient benefits that would outweigh this harm then it’s the correct decision.
Just because you or I may not like the decision doesn’t mean it’s some underhand ploy by “unelected” officers (the elected part of which is an odd thing to take umbrage at).
If you didn’t comment on any consultation for the Tall Building SPD then that would appear to have been an oversight on your part. If you did and your comments were acknowledged but not agreed with, then I apologise.
By JohnMac
Absolutely fabulous idea Liverpool deserves it brilliant city great place
By Kevin green
Was hoping after the Success of Eurovision and the new council leader we would see Liverpool push on and start acting like a major city. Unfortunately it’s not looking good the city is just too inward looking and parochial compared to Manchester.
By Anonymous
Liverpool Labour has done nothing for this city apart from stagnate. Liberal Democrats were the ones who regenerated the City.
By Robert77
The height restriction policy is only something Liverpool will do Manchester is Labour but it is thriving.
We desperately need a PNW interview with the leadership to tell us what the “New Liverpool” will look like because the Liverpool Echo won’t bother.
By Mr Stevens
We have Mr Small who led the campaign against new offices in the business district now tasked with city economy and growth as a member of the cabinet. That’s the kind of backwards administration we have to deal with in Liverpool.
By Anonymous
Yes, these commentators are dead right about Liverpool Council or any Council. Democracy is a stupid idea. Land should be privately owned for owners to earn money from it. End of story. To hell with communities or society. Maggie Still Rules, OK!
By Anonymous
Tall buildings for the sake of tall buildings? I don’t agree. Cities like Paris and Rome don’t have high rise buildings near their city centre , they try to protect the overall look of their traditional architecture. Liverpool should do the same.
By Betty Cummings
@ Betty, Paris has the Eiffel Tower and Montparnasse Tower in central locations, otherwise La Defense is the Canary Wharf of Paris. Rome is not really the financial centre of Italy, it’s Milan, which has high-rise.
Liverpool is neither Rome or Paris, it has acres of derelict wasteland and delapidation, and it desperately needs investment from the private sector, in order to get investment you work with developers and investors and not against them.
By Anonymous
Except of course Betty that Paris and Rome haven’t trashed already trashed their architectural heritage. Liverpool is basically starting from near 0 compared with the cities you mention having demolished everything but a select few.
By JB
Shocked another own goal , what is seriously going on in Liverpool? LCC are incompetent to say the least .
By Anonymous