Everton Stadium East Stand
Conservation bodies have objected to what they describe as "harmful" proposals

Everton lodges fresh plans for £500m stadium

Dan Whelan

The football club has submitted an updated planning application after revealing amendments to the design of its proposed 52,000-capacity stadium at Liverpool’s Bramley-Moore Dock last week. 

Liverpool City Council will review and process the amended planning application before starting a formal 28-day consultation period.

The council will then make a decision on the proposals and the club hopes construction work could start early next year, subject to approval.

Under the tweaked plans, the height of the stadium has been decreased “in line with Liverpool’s World Heritage Site guidance”, but its capacity remains unchanged at 52,000 people.  

The multistorey car park attached to the West Stand has been scrapped in favour of a surface level car park at West Quay.   

In its place, a stepped plaza facing the River Mersey has been added to the West Stand, creating an area of public realm. 

This, along with a decision to relocate solar panels planned for West Quay to the roof of the stadium, aims to create more space for supporters on match days. 

Colin Chong, Everton stadium development director, said: “We have invested an enormous amount of resource and effort in creating a design that not only respects and looks at home in a dockland setting but will also restore and preserve the historic features of Bramley-Moore Dock.” 

Historic England has already called for the plans to be refused by the council due to the “substantial harm” it believes would be caused to the conservation area by infilling the listed dock. 

Additionally, conservation charity the Victorian Society has also voiced its disapproval, labelling the plans “unacceptable”. 

Tom Taylor, conservation advisor at the charity, said: “Considered purely on the basis of conservation policy and principles, the proposals are unacceptable.  

“The decision maker – whether the planning authority or Secretary of State – must be absolutely convinced that this is the only viable site for the stadium and that the predicted public benefits would outweigh the incontrovertible harm should consent be granted.” 

This week, Liverpool launched the North Shore framework, aimed at guiding development within the city’s World Heritage Site to facilitate economic growth while maintaining its Unesco World Heritage Status. 

The amendments made to the stadium’s design were made in conformity with the North Shore framework. 

Chong added: “This will be a transformational development for not just North Liverpool but for the Northern Powerhouse. If we are granted planning approval, this will be a world class football stadium in an iconic location and a key part of the city, city region, and the UK’s post-Covid-19 recovery plan.” 

The lead contractor is Laing O’Rourke and Pattern is the architect. Buro Happold and Planit-IE have been retained as engineering consultants.  

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

I know UNESCO and WHS will vomit the usual conspiracy theory nonsense but this is yet another example of a city being sabotaged.
We have to remain resilient. We need a council with a backbone. We are a world city, not a dormitory town.

By Michael McDonut

The fact that heritage bodies are contesting this shows utter contempt for the city of Liverpool. Liverpool’s waterfront should be allowed to flourish so that it can thrive rather than left to rot in the name of nostalgia.


The heritage madness continues to the point where these perpetual naysayers point out that they want the height of the stadium reduced, but ideally not want it built at all in order to protect their treasured wasteland.
I checked also on Liverpool`s planning website noting that in the Waterloo Road area the Ten Streets crowd have started imposing their influence in protecting their low-rise dereliction by having a hotel scheme amended at Porter Street and Waterloo Road because it was too high at 9 storeys , in addition to their very recent opposition to a 32 storey building proposed near the Costco site which has been lopped to 14 storeys.
The fantastic Chicago style Bibby building,sadly now demolished , would probably never have been built if this crowd had been around.

By sound

This is ridiculous, filling in a foul smelling derelict old dock? We can retain the walls, we do it frequently! Just look at the viewing hole outside John Lewis. Height decreased? For what?? It’s more derelict run down buildings right behind it. The higher the better!

By JB374690

I with they would clean up those skid-marks in the landscaping. Looks unsightly.

By Brian

Don’t listen to UNESCO, Liverpool needs this! This looks amazing and will be fantastic for the city, both financially and economically

By David

It seems quite a few Everton fans are quite happy for there local history to be destroyed as long as they get that shiny new stadium. At this point Liverpool may as well give up their UNESCO status as the locals don’t seem bothered about it.

By Jon P

Nobody visits Liverpool to see the ruins of the docks; not even Liverpudlian want to go and see the old docks. Liverpool is not Brugge, Gent, Amsterdam or Venice you know. People don’t go on guided-tours of the dock basins do they?

By James Yates

JB, the dock doesn’t smell. That’s the sewerage works just up the road.

Personally, I think The Toilet Seat looks fantastic. Although I doubt it will be built.

By Mike

People do go on guided tours of the docks, but not Bramley Moore. Why not work with UNESCO to amend the boundary of the World Heritage Site. Bramley Moore really is peripheral, and there’s the whole of the Georgian Quarter and two cathedrals that are outside the WHS, but still part of Liverpool’s ‘Universal Value’ to use UNESCO jargon. Why not remove Bramley Moore and add in Rodney Street, Hope Street, Canning Street and Falkner Street, as well as the largest cathedral in the UK designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott and listed Grade 1.

By Red Squirrel

A giant toilet seat for an an area that smells of sewage….sounds about as classy as a zipwire.

By liverpool romanc

This scheme upsets alot of people that don’t actually live in Liverpool, i wonder why?

By Anonymous

By the way the tower of mixed use in Waterloo road was originally 40 storeys but the enlightend planners at LCC objected to it even though it would include other business opportunities for employment

By Stand up Liverpool!

Beside the WHS argument, this is too close to the city centre. On match days there will be congestion and potential football violence making the city centre best avoided.

By Bixteth Boy

Eww not my cup of tea. Let us live in hope that it is delayed forever.

By Christopher

Jon P. You are right, WHS status has turned out to offer nothing but the worst of both worlds. It has not protected the city from the likes of Signature Living and their ugly roof top box ( in full view of a WHS), or any number of other ugly developments; and yet at the same time seeks to block truly worthwhile, quality developments.

I can’t get my head around the mentality that wants to retain a derelict site rather than have a world class stadium plus associated renovations of surrounding historic dock structures. Just bizarre. The absolute letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it.


Bixteth Boy…Do you realise city centres are precisely the place for busyness and crowds. That is the whole point of them. If you really want to live in a peaceful suburb or dormitory town then a city centre is not the place for you.


Liverpool is (relatively) losing in the UK. Manchester is by far the centre of the North and with a far higher metropolitan population that takes most of the Northwest with it through economic influence it wields. Why? It had the right leadership, ambition and protected heritage whilst allowing no restriction on heights and opportunity and development in other areas. Liverpool has a lid on it by these heritage bodies and it is killing Liverpool.

By Richard