David Quinn | Freelance journalist and filmmaker based in Manchester

Towering confusion
Estates Gazette
18/06/2005

Developers of tall buildings in Liverpool believe the city’s approach to planning is inconsistent, and a recent spat at the top of the council has not encouraged potential investors, reports David Quinn

Potential developers of tall buildings inLiverpool have a right to feel a little confused about the city’s rules on planning. Many in the property industry argue that recent episodes illustrate a lack of consistency over what is and what is not acceptable.

At the start the year, planners turned down Beetham Organisation’s plans for the 40-storey West Tower on Old Hall Street, but this decision was reversed in March when Beetham threatened a legal challenge to the refusal.

Now Maro Developments, which wants to build a 50-storey, Ian Simpson-designed tower at Brunswick Quay on the Liverpool waterfront, appears to be considering a similar approach to lever approval for its own scheme. Planners turned down its initial proposal in January but, in April, the developer resubmitted slightly revised plans featuring fewer flats and more commercial space. Its appeal against the council’s original decision will be heard in July 2006.

Some in the city suggest the council’s unpredictability on planning issues could repel potential developers and investors. “It doesn’t give a good impression of the city. There’s a confused message,” says Steve Moule, managing director of Liverpool developer Albany Assets, which is itself planning a 44-storey tower in central Manchester.

Chris Ives, development director of Maro, agrees. “The message is quite confused,” he says. “We know of arguments used to support the Beetham scheme, as well as Kings Waterfront, which have been rejected when used by us.”

In order to allay the confusion, the council is drawing up a policy document for the development of tall buildings in the city. The consultation process is now complete, and a final report is likely to go before the council’s executive board next month.

According to the draft document, there are three areas where skyscrapers will be most suitable. One is the commercial district of central Liverpool, another the so-called “southern approach” around the junction of Sefton Street and Parliament Street, and the third around Lime Street.

Importantly, however, the council says the policy document will not provide an automatic planning green light for all tower developments proposed in these areas. Each scheme will be examined on its own merits within the city’s wider planning framework.

This means Rumford Investments’ Unity scheme, under construction but arguably outside all three zones, would not necessarily be turned down under the new regime. Nor would Maro’s proposed scheme at Brunswick Quay. Conversely, Chieftain Construction’s proposed 32-storey mixed-use tower at the junction of Skelhorne Street and Bolton Street, adjacent to Lime Street, would not automatically be approved.

Planning application

As Peter Millea, the council’s executive member with responsibility for regeneration, puts it: “Each planning application will be treated separately. Some applications for tall buildings in these areas may not be acceptable and, conversely, others outside these areas may be approved in exceptional circumstances.”

Given these disclaimers, critics might query what the purpose of the policy document actually is. Others, however, believe that it is only right that some attempt at zoning is carried out. “The Liverpool skyline is revered, and rightly so,” says Steve Unwin, head of the Liverpool office of architect AFL, which is designing the 26-storey Alexandra Tower for Millennium Estates and the 20-storey City Lofts tower, both on the waterfront.

He continues: “There’s a lot of regeneration money coming into Liverpool, and it’s a difficult task making sure quality prevails. To zone things is a good philosophy. Sporadic development would not be good for the city.”

Developers, however, are slightly less enthusiastic in their support. Moule warns: “A policy document is a good idea, but it needs involvement from everyone, including developers. There needs to be a consensus.”

Ives adds: “I agree some strategy needs to be proposed, but it’s dangerous if you draw a red line and say tall buildings are only acceptable in certain areas. Each application needs to be judged on its merits.”

An added difficulty for policy makers comes from heritage body UNESCO, which is believed to be considering a ban on tower development in world heritage sites. Much of the waterfront and commercial core of Liverpool attained this status last year.

Unsurprisingly, developers and agents believe development should be allowed to go hand in hand with preserving Liverpool’s heritage. Ian Tomlinson, head of residential at Jones Lang LaSalle’s Manchester office, which is advising several clients on tower development in central Liverpool, says: “The World Heritage Site shouldn’t prohibit development per se. But it does mean that architectural quality needs to be raised above the normal level.”

Ives agrees. “Look at Berlin and Madrid,” he says. “A blend of old and new buildings can be achieved within a world heritage site as long as it’s well done.”