Unanimous rejection for Liverpool’s former Wapping Station regeneration

Of course they did. It’s Liverpool.

Liverpool will end up left with massive pots of wasteland
Beatles forever and soon there will be no ferry across the Mersey when eventually that gets decommissioned

The Council and Metro Mayor have spent the last two weeks talking up the city in their standard forums and old pals talking shops.

This goes to show, the City is still anti-development, anti-growth and anti inward investment.

At least the same old individuals can enjoy their annual jollies to Mipim, UK REIF and the other public sector talking shops, banging on about how Liverpool has changed.

As shown above, it hasnt.

Firstly a needless height reduction and then full on rejection, all the signs of LCC being open for business and pro regeneration to create homes and jobs. Utter disgrace.

There will never be a building boom in this city. No investment, no vision, no ideas. You couldn’t make this up.

A quick look at Rightmove shows dozens of properties available to buy in Liverpool for less than £70k, but yeah: we need more ‘affordable’ homes.

No doubt about it, most backwards thinking council in the country. All that talking from Robinson and Rotherham and this happens. Couldn’t make it up.

This is why Manchester is decades ahead. What are the Liverpool politicians going to do when the Tories lose and they can’t blame them for everything.

Whereas Manchester is building 71 storey buildings with no affordable commitment developers can’t get a nice looking 13 storey development out of the ground. No wonder we have been left in their shadow !!

Rotheram and Cllr Robinson will complain that Manchester gets everything soon and that the Tories hate the city…

First it was the height so they lowered it, it has the parking so they couldn`t refuse it on that, it`s not for students so that excuse was out, it`s got balconies so not that one ,it`s got a mix of bedroom sizes so not that , but don`t despair we`ll find something to not allow it and low and behold we have section 106 and affordability to fall back on, and we`ve cracked it another development refused. Liverpool you`re a joke, your councillors are toxic and small-minded, your leaders can tell everyone things have changed but the evidence is clear , you haven`t.
Hopefully Carpenter will appeal the eventual refusal and succeed, and expose once again the shambles that is the Liverpool City Council planning committee.

Well done Liverpool Village Parish knocking back more private investment 👏 Keep the city down where it belongs.

Oh well at least we are getting a giant bog brush and a “happiness center”

This actually looks nice

This scheme was the only meaningful and remotely impressive item out of the 6 on the planning committee agenda for Dec 5 and it was, or will be, thrown out. The next committee provisionally meets on Dec 19, so what is that for? to break open the mince pies and sherry so they can toast the number of refusals they`ve clocked up this year or shortened the agendas by completely putting off proper developers from submitting anything in the first place.

@December 06, 2023 at 10:27 am
By Anonymous

Problem is, I can hardly call this a nice looking scheme.

Bring on the design code.

Manchester builds up Liverpool says what’s the smallest tower we can have

Good decision by Liverpool. There’s a desperate need for affordable housing and developers need to do what is right. Manchester should take note.

So many people on here have no clue what they are talking about, or they just want to get cross about everything.

Either they are cross that everything looks rubbish and we should be more selective about what gets built, or they complain that we don’t approve anything and everything that comes across the councils desk!

The problem in Liverpool is greedy land owners, they will try and sell the land to micky mouse developers because they are willing to pay more than reputable developers who know that actual value.

By refusing these schemes it puts downwards pressure on land values and will attract better developers and will result in better schemes for the city.

The council rejecting this frankly unimaginative scheme does not, as some people are suggesting, show that we are not open to businesses, but shows the exact opposite.

@Rye and eggs, the building looks more attractive when you see other views than the one shown. As regards a design code don’t you know we already have an unofficial one which includes lots if red brick plus no breaching a height of 15 storeys. Design is something that most of our low-grade city councillors cannot fathom as they come from a background of low aspiration or low expectation, and anything out of the norm, like something flamboyant or showy is looked on with disdain and must be stopped in it’s tracks.

They, LCC will let Liverpool rot because of the personal idioms of the councillors and certain officials. It really upsets me because of my past efforts to encourage investment in the City. Oh for a normal council one which has foresight and courage to advance the City. This will be another stalled site now and going against the grain of the recent report by the special committee
Come on Liam let’s see some action?

Councillors disregarding the advice of their own viability consultant (paid for at the applicants expense). Questions the whole purpose of undertaking a viability assessment in the first place.

Build to rent needs to be stopped, these blocks full of transients will become slums of the future.

This is ridiculous, maybe if they hadn’t been forced to chop floors off they could manage some affordable provision? Although why should prime waterfront real estate be “affordable” in any case?

Wow. It just beggars belief.

Officers are doing their best, but ultimately same bunch of toxic councillors making for a very closed-minded planning committee

Is there precedent for the commissioners to take control of planning away from local politicians? Need a few big approvals to show the city now means business – this could have been one of them

I am amazed at the number of cheap glass and steel apartment towers being built around the city. Most have many apartments left empty. A headcount of the actual requirement for new apartments should be made, and unless there can be a guarantee of 90% occupancy, investors should not be allowed to build these cheap and cheerless towers. Build more homes for families in and around the city please.

So, a bunch of untrained Cllrs consider that they understand viability assessments better than Officers and the professional consultant who would have independently audited it? Can’t wait for them to attempt to try and defend that at appeal. Completely and utterly ridiculous.

I think my jaw actually dropped to the floor! All that recent promotional c@ap about how Liverpool has changed. Sack the planning committee and bring in people who actually care about the lives of people in Liverpool by growing the economy!

It doesn’t particularly send out a good image to potential investors, but an earlier commenter has it right.

Speculators have hoovered up what were very cheap, generally ex-light industrial sites around the city centre, and are now after returns sensible developers won’t/can’t pay. Leaves the field to unknowns with little or no local track record, many of whom are building really very poor quality stuff.
Case law supports LPAs saying that paying over the odds for a site isn’t a way of getting round the viability assessment, even if some places are reluctant to enforce and officers lack the means to challenge viability assessments.

There’s also the question of how well existing BTRs in Liverpool are managed, actually meet local housing need, and aren’t just turning into large numbers of Airbnbs.

Absolutely disgusting decision. What a terrible council… dragging the city backwards. This was a perfectly fine development given the area is currently brownfield wasteland.

Something is really off here, I see many ugly buildings put up in Liverpool covered in cheap cladding, this looks a decent brick clad building. Affordable housing I get, but on Liverpool’s waterfront is this really the restriction to put on developments like this, especially considering the level of unemployment.

How can the council leader, Liam Robinson, watch from the sidelines and allow decisions like this, he is being undermined by rogue elements within his own party. The planning officers are giving this scheme their approval , meanwhile the council’s development officers are encouraging investors, but all are being stabbed in the back by a small hardcore.

Liverpool is being dragged down by its own leadership not the Government .

You could not make it up and people calling for social housing within a city centre how on Earth will this city ever recover from the 80s where is has been frozen in time .

Development in the city is crucial I agree but architects really do need to up the quality of their designs.

I hope Carpenter appeal in the way Romal did The council cannot keep turning decent proposals, especially when officers have recommended for approval.

@Stephen Blenkinsop, you are amazed at the number of towers being built around the city, how can you say that when we only have about 3 and 1 under construction. You want family accommodation but this scheme included 3 bed units, plus basement parking, as well as commercial provision on the ground floor. You wrote to PNW and objected to this scheme on Nov 2, 2022 , claiming parking provision was needed and family housing. If the city centre was run by you it would be full of council houses and bungalows.

Open for business.

This could be fatal for Liam Robinson. He’s worked hard at convincing the development community that positive change is afoot, and at the first hurdle his planning committee sell him out.

Too tall sorry but we need affordable bungalows

People in the comments here are going on like this is a ridiculous proposal by an unknown. Carpenter are a decent outfit with a track record of delivery…

A really difficult local authority to work with! Yes it’s not the most coherent looking building but this should have been resolved during what I’m assuming was a long planning process where they moaned about the usual stuff: Height, dual aspect, deck access (yawns).

Liverpool City Council – Where planning applications go to die!

Manchester is leaving us behind! We want tall buildings and a local plan to reflect our aspirations!

40 years ago every letter sent from Liverpool was postmarked ‘Liverpool City of change and challenge’ and had images of tall buildings and St John’s beacon’ in it as well. The people that ran the city then were not afraid to move forward and get things built and done. What a contrast to now where little is getting built and the people that run our great city are afraid of any kind of change. It is just so sad.

The site should be given over to a station or rail track to access the docks. Wapping is a historic site. The World’s first goods terminal. Obliterating the site to build anytown flats is madness. But heritage Liverpool does not go for.

Given that the whole committee rejected this proposal appears to me like a wholesale mutiny against Liam Robinson, his Development Team, and his planning officers. The philistine element amongst the councillors clearly don’t like the message that was sent out a few weeks ago that Liverpool was open for business and welcomes investment.

as per the comment by anon below – ‘By refusing these schemes it puts downwards pressure on land values and will attract better developers and will result in better schemes for the city.

The council rejecting this frankly unimaginative scheme does not, as some people are suggesting, show that we are not open to businesses, but shows the exact opposite.’

rejection for something better is part of the planning process – just because land is cheap in Lpool does not mean the dev should be. If anything there is more scope to create higher value and be innovative

Re: Anonymous ‘8.25’. I totally agree. At times I think the council would rather our great city go back before the year 1200 when it was nothing more than a small fishing harbour on the banks of the River Mersey. Attitudes need to change and change fast for the greater good of this brilliant city and its brilliant people.

Can Liam Robinson exert an influence over the selection of Labour party members on the planning committee? The process behind the committee’s composition remains unclear to me; perhaps it involves a vote amongst councillors.

The unanimous nature of this regrettable decision is quite conspicuous. What were the committee members aiming to accomplish with such a choice? Whilst I hesitate to absolve the Liverpool Labour party of its well-known negative impact on the city’s prospects in recent years the fact that all committee members, including those from the opposition Liberal party and Lib Dems, voted against the proposal is noteworthy. Liverpool has endured significant disappointment from its local politicians for a long time now. One can only hope that Liam’s promise of a fresh start is not an empty one.

Liverpool is an very conservative city and has been for a few decades now, it’s a city obsessed with the past.

Monstrosity. Not needed.

I am sad they rejected this 🙁

Looks much nicer than some of the rubbish thrown up around town. No cheap cladding and every flat has a balcony.

This would look good in Manchester not Liverpool

Like to see the objective demand figures to back up the viability assessments for all these transient led develooments across these so called high demand areas

Poor poor performance once again from LCC. There seems no end to it. The city of broken dreams.

I do not think this rejection can be laid at the feet of the council and metro mayor as the planning committee is separate to them. The council could helps things along by specifying a minimum height, plus specifically allowing exemptions for car parking, social housing %s in certain zones.

We can see a theme here amongst the naysayers on this topic, they are starting to call these developments as catering for “Transients”, these may include people studying, maybe working here for a few years,or who just prefer to rent for the time being. Whatever it is a condescending term and denigrating, and the naysayers imply that in Liverpool you only get housed if you are on the council waiting list. What kind of controlling mentality is that?

We all love the past, it had some great old buildings. Problem is we can’t afford to live there. There has to be a future though but I’d settle for a present. if I have to live somewhere it would be now but with more nice buildings if you’ll pardon the mixed relativistic dimensions.

sure yeah throw some 2 bed council terrace houses on there well done liverpool city council again outstanding vision :’) couldn’t write it

if anyone else is sick to death of seeing the same old story, please respond to this council @’ing me. I think it is time the people stood together and got rid of this degenerative system LCC continues to adopt.

I have just come back from Singapore Duba,Malaysia, Liverpool led the world in so many things around the world can’t Liverpool and Manchester become the London of the North, we can keep our graduates in instead of a brain drain down south, the city will flourish with investment around the world we need more People in the council looking ahead are not behind.

@MB I think that’s a great idea.

Lol.. Manchester would’ve approved this, and would’ve demanded it be another 45 floors tall. They can see the benefits of building big and tall, and attracting people and mainly young people to the city, expanding it’s population and retaining it’s graduates. All that amounts to more inward investment from global multinationals. It creates wealth and increases the city’s status globally.

Manchester is a forward looking city and are now Salboy are talking of building a 76 floor building for viadux 2b, eclipsing the recent by Renaker of their 71 floor proposal.

Manchattan is coming along nicely whilst Liverpool remains it’s poor neighbour and a desolate fishing village.

Liverpool is covered in cheap affordable homes. The idea it’s not affordable is a joke to anyone that grew up in the south. What are they on about. It’s not the council’s money either. Id think the developer could be trusted to design a property that will be sold/ rented. It’s kinda their business.

Anyone spending money buying land or drawing up plans in Liverpool is taking a massive risk. Better to just go somewhere else.