By the Save Waterloo Dock Team

19 February, 2020

What are the opinions of others?

Historic England: Considers that the proposed infill of West Waterloo Dock “negatively impacts on the contribution West Waterloo Dock makes to the significance of the heritage assets . . . rendering the application contrary to national and local policies.” (19/12/2019).

SAVE Britain’s Heritage: (The amended proposals) “do not address our fundamental concern, which is the substantial harm that would occur from infilling West Waterloo Dock . . . (and infilling) sets a dangerous precedent for the survival of the historically significant maritime heritage in Liverpool.” (18/01/2020).

The Georgian Group: “The proposed works would have an adverse impact on the setting of the East Waterloo Corn Warehouse, the Tobacco Warehouse and Stanley Dock and a single view of the Royal Liver Building. (We) object to the proposed infill and to the scale and height of the proposed development.” (06/01/2020).

The Victorian Society: (We) “are not opposed in principle to development in Liverpool, but . . . the outstanding value of the city’s heritage merits new architectural work of the highest quality. (Our) primary reason for objecting to this scheme remains the very poor quality of the proposed architecture” (which is) “bland and forgettable”. (Early Feb/2020)

Europa Nostra UK: “The harm (to the location) is not relatively minor, as noted in the heritage assessment, but must be considered to be much higher and given much greater weight in the decision making process . . . the proposal is contrary to policy and guidance and should be refused. (February 2020).

Liverpool City Council Planning Department: “The proposed development does not conform to the parameters of the Liverpool Waters outline permission and differs from the recently approved Central Docks Neighbourhood Masterplan. (Letter to Peel Land and Property, dated 29/11/2019 - posted on LCC Planning Portal).

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS): (We) “do not consider the Environmental Statement (submitted by developer Arup) can be used as a basis for determination of the application. The current proposals . . . are of a type that does not necessarily require a dock-side location.”


And what happens if these strident expert voices are not complied with?

The 43rd Session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in Baku, Azerbaijan, in Summer 2019, took the highly unusual step of specifically referring to “developments…. by different developers in West Waterloo Dock” among its major concerns.

And it concludes that, although Liverpool remains on the “In Danger” list, UNESCO will “consider its deletion from the World Heritage List at its 44th Session in (summer) 2020”.

Expert Voices - Let's speak out together