Chadwick Street Nextdom Property p.Merrion Strategy

The development has decreased from 17 to 10 storeys at its highest point. Credit: via Merrion Strategy

Nextdom scales back Liverpool apartment project 

Discussions with city council planners have resulted in the developer significantly reducing the height of the £83m Pall Mall scheme and the number of apartments. 

Nextdom Property has submitted revised proposals for its Liverpool development, seeking permission for 435 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.  

The revised application comes after Nextdom lodged plans last spring for a larger development comprising 550 apartments across two blocks of 17 and 10 storeys. 

Liverpool City Council said the scheme was too tall and that there is “no need for a ‘district scale’ tall building in the location’, according to a planning statement prepared by Zerum. 

As a result, Nextdom – working with architect Falconer Chester Hall – has reworked the scheme, reducing its overall scale. 

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 adjustments to the application following a design review with Liverpool City Council strike a balance between what the developer and the authority envisaged for the area, according to Philip Didlick, director of Nextdom. 

“The city council understood the commercial imperatives and worked very hard with us to reach a position that suited its planning aspirations whilst meeting our own commercial needs,” Didlick said.  

Nextdom’s consultant team believes the development will play a key part in the regeneration of the Pumpfields area of Liverpool.

Nikki Sills, divisional director at Zerum, said: “This will be a genuinely transformative scheme connecting Pumpfields into the wider business district, whilst extending regeneration north towards the Ten Streets strategic development zone.”

“The apartments will contribute towards the mix of residential accommodation within a sustainable city centre location, enabling people to live and work in close proximity.”

Commenting on the scheme’s design, Quentin Keohane, director at Falconer Chester Hall, said: “The design intention is to reintroduce built form to the street edge and provide a complementary development to surrounding land uses and buildings in this area of transition. The building has been designed to maximise opportunities for activity on the ground floor and within the street scene.”

Chadwick Street Nextdom Property p.Merrion Strategy

Falconer Chester Hall is leading on design. Credit: via Merrion Strategy

Your Comments

Read our comments policy

This is another example of the LCC planning Office reducing great proposals from developers. This area cries out for development and the attitude of the planning officials is quite frankly very disappointing and as a very loyal supporter of Liverpool I would not disagree if developers had the opinion of saying “Why bother” Let us hope the new leader of LCC reviews this ridiculous situation?

By Liverpolitis

How can anyone confidently continue to invest in this city, which willfully rejects hundreds of millions of pounds of investment year after year? It’s my home town but could never move back to such a village council mentality. This looks like suburbia, not the city centre of a region of over 2 million people.

By Anon

LCC again ! What planet are these people on .

By Anonymous

Very disappointing balcony provision here. A window and barrier is not a balcony

By Balcony warrior

LCC planning dept should be embarrassed at this. Ruined what looked to be an impressive scheme at good scale.

By L17

What a joke, so a developer wants to invest and make this part of Liverpool better by providing jobs and homes and more tax receipts for LCC, any other council would be biting their hand off and encouraging them to go higher. How can the city ever move on with this backwards mentality?

By GetItBuilt!

The “broader surrounding scale” is one of dereliction.

By Anonymous

Local planning departments are exacerbating the housing crisis with stupid decisions like this. Appeasing existing residents whilst forcing many younger people into homelessness. We need to reform the planning system to weed out the NIMBYs and get delivering housing en-masse.

By Anonymous

The comments on this thread speak for themselves. Liverpool council has a major job to do to convince developers that it welcomes their investment and convince its residents and businesses that it understands it curatorial function for the city’s economy and built form. Very, very disappointing indeed.

By Anonymous

Here we go again. Our esteemed leaders pressing the self-destruct button. It would be funny if it wasn’t so depressing.

By Roy

High rise apartment living does not necessarily provide high growth, tax revenue to a city. Its about liveability, good housing, mixed developments, clean air places to live and prosper. Many high rises end up being owned by overseas investors with no money return to the local economy. See Vancouver and other cities that took this route. Liverpool is low land costs comparatively and should use this to it’s advantage by being innovative, it can still attain better investment returns for all stakeholders

By Jay

An appalling decision. This development is in the middle of a wasteland and does not compromise any other buildings of note, it is ripe for development.

By Anonymous

@ Jay, I acknowledge your concerns, but these apartments are for a different demographic group, who are younger, more flexible and mainly have no families yet. I presume you are talking about houses with gardens, all fine but in the right place. The City Centre is trying to grow and expand despite the controls imposed on it by LCC. So IMO we need the right housing stock in the right places. I have nothing against houses, in fact I live in one too!
If certain people had their way the whole City Centre would be covered in Bungalows, imagine that!
With regard to economic benefits the more construction that goes on and materials used the greater the economic benefits and this tends to create greater confidence in other potential investors. I don’t know about other people but I am for progress and welcome genuine developers and quality homes and offices being built. If the market demands it we should embrace it and not live in the 19thc.

By Liverpolitis

The incompetence at LCC is just staggering, there should be some avenue to challenge things like this

By Anonymous

“The building has been designed to maximise opportunities for activity on the ground floor and within the street scene”
G#Which is it? Reintroducing built form to the street edge or maximising opportunities for activity within the streetscene? The only “activity” illustrated in the CGIs is people on a narrow pavement next to a busy road. Grim.

Also, more ground level commercial in an area with countless empty units? How about identifying an immediate need with the flexibility to provide alternative uses in the future?

By Anonymous

How exactly does dragging developers through planning for years lopping off floors (and number of apartments) make a scheme more “sustainable” and inclusive”? Meaningless platitudes again from what I suspect are members of the planning team on the comments. Thankfully after messing around Romal for years that scheme went to appeal and won! Hopefully other developers in the future will do the same and the city’s swathes of derelict land can begin to regenerate.

By Derp

@Jay. Great points.

I feel what Liverpool needs is more high quality design. Town houses and mansion blocks are often better in housing lots of people in comfort, and with mixed age demographics too.


Once we led with architechture, now we have Smallville council.

By Anon

Unlike most posters here, I think LCC is right to adopt a height limit for developments in the city. It’s only a personal view, but I think the “human” scale makes the city more livable and attractive, and it plays to the its strengths. Liverpool isn’t Manchester, and it shouldn’t try to compete on the same terms. First and foremost it should attempt to enhance those things that make it special, such as its historic buildings, it’s traditional streetscape and its waterfront. It doesn’t need to turn itself into a fifth rate Manhattan in order to succeed.

By Jones Matthew

People trying to promote the city as a place to live, work and invest have one hand tied behind their backs. The incompetence and short sightedness of LCC knows no bounds. Staggering.

By Dave R

How can anyone call 17 storeys Manhattan, Liverpool Council has demonised high-rise to the point that it looks like 10 storeys might be too high in the future. This developer is local, and it should be noted that another main developer in the city is local,ie Legacie, otherwise you rarely see any high-profile or big institutions coming foward like in Manchester which is full of them, and why, because they find Liverpool very difficult to deal with.
While Manchester sits down and negotiates with developers, planning neighbourhoods with a flexible give and take approach , Liverpool appears hardline.
We have no great plans for neighbourhoods , except maybe on Grove Street, but generally Liverpool is not proactive.

By Anonymous

So where are these extra homes going to come from, LCC’s own figure of 35,000. There is not enough space for semi detached and gardens, terraces need roads and infrastructure. Apartments are great for people who like and need them.

By Just saying!

These should be town houses and extra care

By Anonymous

@anon, if Townhouses were built you would not get as many homes built in the land we have left. Also not everyone can live in a three storey house because of disability or health reasons.

By Build Higher

Cranes all over Manchester City centre. Very few here. The results of this planning application clearly show why investors are not building here and it is the council who are to blame. I don’t understand why the government inspectors are still giving them a free reign over planning decisions that are negatively affecting growth, investment and jobs. An appalling situation that goes on and on.

By Steve Davis.

Liverpool planners have already approved a 16 storey building just a few hundred yards away , planning ref 20F/2230 at 14 Waterloo Road, why didn`t Nextdom cite this example when they were getting messed about by the council. Of course it`s no coincidence that this shenanigans is not far from the Waterloo warehouse which houses many of those who were vehemently against the Romal scheme.

By Anonymous

Roughly £1/3m lost in council tax revenue? More profligacy than austerity

By LEighteen

Why can’t the commissioners take over the planning process

By Anonymous

How many times are PNW going to print this story?

By Sid

How many times Sid? Whenever it’s updated and there is something new to add I suppose. That’s the whole point of PNW isn’t it, to inform and update on developments in the North West. I wasn’t aware this story had been done before in its current form.

By Charles

Like most on this thread LCC’s attitude to talls is very disappointing. Not that this development was ever tall. I am not of the opinion that we should follow the scattergun approach of Manchester, but I do think we should be looking to build architecturally high quality tall buildings in the Commercial district cluster. Do Liverpool City Council really want West Tower which looks awful from the city to always, and not much better from the river, to be the tallest building in the city.

By Bradman

@ Sid, this story keeps on running as a lot of people see this decision as a tipping point , and are angry that a city`s own council is strangling investment here. It`s only 17 storeys yet is being refused for no really logical reason, in the same was the Romal scheme was wrongly treated. In Liverpool we have the tail wagging the dog as the vast bulk of the electorate never vote and let these poor quality councillors dictate the city`s fortunes, which at the moment are on a downwatd spiral. Anyone who invests is the enemy and treated with suspicion and the only people who can change that are the voters in Liverpool who allow these wreckers free rein.

By Anonymous

Liverpool will not build talls, not that kind of city. Leave it to London and Manchester.

By Anonymous

Liverpool has built talls, a number of them, but this has been stopped in it`s tracks by belligerent councillors, who don`t like developers, other cities like Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester , Bristol, and of course London are thriving because they are not small minded and have an open attitude towards profit.

By Anonymous

These comments speak for themselves. The people of Liverpool (minus the 70+) want development, want high-rises. LCC lacks any ambition and the City and its people are the ones who suffer. Walk around town, there are so many areas of abandoned, derelict buildings perfect for regeneration. This hatred towards tall buildings is not “The Liverpool Way”. If it was, we wouldn’t have either Cathedral, we wouldn’t have the Liver Buildings. In 2008 we had the best skyline outside of London, now we’re behind Manchester, Birmingham and even Leeds! I think it’s time we stopped complaining on here and skyscraper city and the Echo and go directly to LCC as their ambition does not match that of the peoples.

By Michael

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox


Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below