Local Action Plan City of

April 2011

2

THE CITY OF LIVERPOOL

LIVERPOOL HAS APPROXIMATELY 436,000 INHBITANTS, OF WHICH ABOUT 19,000 LIVE IN THE CITY CENTRE. LIVERPOOL WAS INSCRIBED ON TO UNESCO’S WORLD HERITAGE LIST IN 2004 AS THE SUPREME EXAMPLE OF A COMMERCIAL PORT OF THE 18TH, 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURIES.

Liverpool is one of the two principal cities in the North West of , along with which is ap- proximately 30 miles (48 km) to the east. It lies on the east bank of the , almost where it meets the Irish Sea. It is a sub-regional centre for and North Wales. The population of the City of Liv- erpool has declined from 855,500 in 1931 to about 436,000 in 2008. During that same period, the population of the Merseyside sub-region has also fallen, but by a much smaller percentage from 1,508,725 to 1,347,800. The municipal district of Liverpool measures approximately 112sq km. The historic urban area of the World Heritage Site covers 1.36 sq km and has a growing population of inhabitants which was 1,850. in 2008 when Liverpool was European of Culture.

Liverpool was founded by King John in 1207 but tury, a continuous line of docks had been built grew very slowly for the first 500 years and only along 11 kilometres of the east bank of the river, the medieval street plan survives above ground supported by a transport infrastructure and com- from that period. Liverpool’s rapid expansion be- mercial buildings, warehouses and cultural build- gan with the opening of its first enclosed dock (the ings in the city centre. world’s first commercial enclosed wet dock) in 1715. Liverpool’s oldest surviving building is the Despite damage caused in the mid-late 20th by former Bluecoat School and Hospital of 1718. war-time bombing, industrial obsolescence and some inappropriate redevelopment, the historic By the end of the 18th century, Liverpool had built port and city are well preserved and retain a high a further 5 docks but by the end of the 19th cen- degree of authenticity and integrity. They bear

witness to Liverpool’s historic significance and ƒ The Albert Dock Warehouses: opened in were inscribed on to UNESCO’s World Heritage 1846 as a complete system of fireproof List in 2004. The assessor from ICOMOS said warehouses that Liverpool has the biggest and most complete ƒ The Albert Dock Traffic Office: a contem- 3 system of historic docks in the world. porary part of the Albert Dock system, with a huge cast iron Five conservation areas have been designated to ƒ The – opened in protect the port and city centre and a further 29 1911, the 2nd of the three principal build- conservation area have been designated else- ings at the facing the river. The where in the city. Over 250 individual buildings in tallest building in England when built and the World Heritage Site have been identified as one of the first reinforced concrete being of special architectural or historic interest frames. and included on UK’s statutory list. A total of over ƒ , School Lane – 2,500 buildings throughout the city are listed build- Opened 1717/8 as a charity school and ings. hospital. The oldest surviving building in the city centre The most highly graded protected buildings in the ƒ – Opened in 1864 with an World Heritage Site are: innovative cast iron frame and a fully glazed curtain wall ƒ – originally designed ƒ Former Bank of England, Castle Street – 1749-54. An excellent example of a mid- Opened 1848. A monumental composition 18th century classical civic building of Greek and Roman Doric architecture. ƒ St George’s Hall – opened 1855, with the unusual combination of uses of courts For further information: and a concert hall. An exemplar of neo- www.liverpoolworldheritage.com classical architecture

Oriel Chambers 1864 Albert Dock Traffic Office 1848

Local Challenges and Actions

A Fractured Economy, Society and Urban Landscape

4 From the zenith of its trading powers in the early spirit of place. In short, the city recalled its past 20th century, Liverpool entered a long period of glory to inform and create a brighter future. economic decline as it entered the post industrial era. The level of industrial output in the hinterland From the depths of the 1980s, Liverpool has of the port declined dramatically during the 20th transformed its city centre, waterfront and image century, reducing the demand for the services of utilizing its cultural heritage in a complex and sus- the port. Liverpool suffered substantial war-time tained programme of initiatives, which are not yet destruction and saw massive changes and decline complete and so are still on-going. The Mersey- in its port activities. Its historic docks around the side Development Corporation (MDC) was estab- city centre were closed and subsequent social lished by the UK government in 1981 with the problems followed. mission to secure self-sustaining regeneration on Merseyside. It was given full statutory powers for It became a shrinking city as its population of Liv- large areas of former docks, and was given sub- erpool’s fell from 855,000 in 1930 to 435,000 in stantial funds to achieve its mission, in partnership 2008, as its residents migrated outwards in search with other public sector bodies and the private of better homes and jobs. sector.The MDC facilitated and partially funded the implementation of a wide range of regenera- Mass unemployment and poor conditions for tion projects, which utilised Liverpool’s cultural those remaining led to civil riots on the streets of maritime heritage, including: Liverpool in 1981. Some said that Liverpool’s his- • Creating a Business Park in transit sheds toric port was nothing more than a mausoleum, as • Creating a marina and the first of the people and national companies deserted the sink- new waterfront housing ing ship. Liverpool had become a city in crisis and • Building a Water Sports Centre in the docks in desperate need of urban regeneration. • Building the Customs and Excise (Tax)

Building over a dock • Significantly, converting the monumental dockside warehouses at and Waterloo Dock into up-market apartments • Delivering the flagship project of the re- generation and restoration of the Albert Dock.

Despite some losses, much of Liverpool’s historic waterfront had survived. Although much of it was Albert Dock

in poor condition due to under-use and under- After the closure of the MDC, Liverpool Vision was maintenance, the public authorities recognised established in 1999 as the Urban Regeneration that its unique cultural heritage and historic water- agency for the city centre. front sets it apart from other cities in England. has worked closely with Liverpool Vision and They took the decision in the 1980’s to use its other partners to deliver further regeneration pro- cultural heritage and especially that along the his- jects which have been guided by a Strategic Re- toric waterfront, as a basis for the city’s urban re- generation Framework, including: generation, using protective legislation, acquisition • A new Cruise Liner Facility where necessary, and persuasion, as well as ur- • A new canal link • A revitalised Pier Head ban planning, to enhance and celebrate its unique • A new ferry terminal

• A new arena and conference centre • New commercial office space • A new retail-led development which links the city centre to the water-front

5 The conservation of Liverpool’s cultural heritage is therefore set in the context of long-term strategies and actions to deliver urban regeneration, through partnership working and maximisation of public funding.

Revitalised Pier Head The Arena, Conference Centre and Anglican Cathedral

Liverpool’s waterfront

LOCAL ACTION PLAN - LIVERPOOL 6 IN THE HERO NETWORK, THE LOCAL ACTION PLAN (LAP) IS DEFINED AS A CONCEPT PAPER THAT DESCRIBES HOW THE PARTNER CITY PLANS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN INTEGRATED CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CHIMP) FOR THEIR HISTORIC AREA. FOR LIVERPOOL, THE HISTORIC AREA TO WHICH THE LAP RELATES IS, IN MOST CASES, THE LIVERPOOL WORLD HERITAGE SITE AND ITS BUFFER ZONE. HOWEVER, MANY POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF LIVERPOOL’S CULTURAL HERITAGE ARE APPLICABLE ACROSS THE CITY, BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WHS.

WORK PLAN FOR THE The Liverpool WHS Management Plan is available DEVELOPMENT AND at http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/managingthe IMPLEMENTATION OF AN whs/management/managementplan/index.asp INTEGRATED CULTURAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR Liverpool’s experiences in producing the Manage- LIVERPOOL WORLD HERITAGE ment Plan were used for reference during the HerO SITE (CHIMP) Project. However, it was stated in the Management Plan that it would need to be reviewed and updated after 6 years and so the principal intention of Liver- Name of the Organisation and Country pool in joining the HerO Project was to undertake Planning Service, Regeneration Portfolio, Liverpool that review. City Council. United Kingdom Whilst some steps have been undertaken towards Background to the Liverpool the review of the Liverpool WHS Management Plan, the process has not been completed during the World Heritage Site (WHS) Man- HerO Project. The priority for utilisation of the limited agement Plan resources available for the management of the Liverpool’s inscription onto UNESCO’s World Heri- WHS, have been concentrated on implementing the tage List in 2004 was pre-dated by the production of existing Management Plan and developing other a Management Plan (approved December 2003) for sustainable management strategies. notably: the nominated WHS. The Liverpool WHS Manage- ment Plan provided a consensual framework for the conservation and management of the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site. In effect, the Liverpool WHS Management Plan (2003) was a Cultural Heritage Integrated Management Plan for the WHS. Its production was overseen by a World Heritage Site Steering Group (or Local Support Group). It sought to achieve an appropriate and eq- uitable balance between the needs of conservation and sustainable development. It also had an inte- grated approach. In Management of World Heritage

Sites (2008), Thomas Karpati says “The Liverpool Restored Bascule Bridge management plan belongs to the most comprehen- sive documents for World Heritage Sites and it ad- dresses many relevant issues.”

and water-spaces, where the original use is Objectives of the CHIMP no longer viable In simple terms, The Objectives of the CHIMP are • Developing and maintaining a high-quality public realm to: • Ensuring sustainable access to the Site for 7 1. Achieve a responsible management of cul- all • Continuing Liverpool’s distinctive cultural life tural heritage and changes that affect it and identity 2. Raise standards of urban design in its wid- • Fostering national and local partnerships and facilitating social inclusion est sense • Promoting knowledge of the site and its sig- 3. Increase appreciation and improve under- nificances to a local and global audience.

standing of the special qualities of the site As a result, Liverpool’s next generation will be en- NB. It does not seek to prevent change. dowed with a heritage legacy of global significance, woven into the heart of a vibrant city. Liverpool will be universally recognised as a city of international The Liverpool WHS Management Plan has a “Vision standing for both its unique contribution to world for the Future” in text format and diagramatic format, history and the outstanding quality of life it affords 49 objectives across 13 inter-connected issues and residents and visitors.” 174 actions. The Implementation of the actions as- sists in meeting the objectives and, in turn the deliv- Diagramatic Vision for the Future ery of the vision.

The text of “Vision for the Future” in the CHIMP is:

“The Liverpool - Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site will be managed as an exemplary demonstration of sustainable development and heri- tage-led regeneration which aims to:

• Forge an identity for Liverpool as a thriving, historic city of international significance • Make the a more at- tractive place for people to live, work, shop and visit • Foster pride, awareness and understanding of Liverpool’s cultural distinctiveness and diversity • Promote Liverpool’s heritage as a driver for sustainable development • Engage the residents of Liverpool in helping to sustain its significances • Integrate world heritage matters into educa- tional programmes within Liverpool

Delivering this Vision will involve drawing together all the key players involved in Liverpool’s World Heritage Site to allow them to work in partnership to unlock the heritage potential of the Site and main- tain a high-quality historic environment. The mecha- nism for delivering this Vision will be the Management Plan, which is based on the principles of: • Defining, conserving and protecting the Site’s outstanding universal value and sig- nificances • Protecting, conserving and enhancing Liv- erpool’s historic buildings and townscape • Encouraging the continued use of historic buildings for their original purpose, where possible • Promoting sustainable new development and re-use of Liverpool’s historic buildings

Progress in Reviewing the the purpose and remit of the Steering Group, it was agreed in 2009 that the group should have formally CHIMP approved Terms of Reference. Draft Terms of Ref- 1. Reviewing the membership of the WHS Steering erence were produced for consideration at a meet- 8 Group (LSG) ing of the Steering Group in January 2010. Follow- ing a discussion at the meeting, revised Terms of The Liverpool WHS Steering Group has been in ex- Reference were agreed at the meeting in April 2010. istence since 2001, when Liverpool Began its nomi- The terms of Reference are now available on nation process to become a WHS. The Steering www.liverpoolworldheritage.com Group has met every three months since 2001. It was responsible initially for steering the nomination 3. Annual Action Plan for the WHS Steering Group of Liverpool through the production of its nomination (LSG) document in January 2003 and the Management Plan in December 2003. Following Liverpool’s suc- The Liverpool WHS Management Plan includes 174 cessful inscription on to UNESCO’s WH list in July actions which should be implemented. Although the 2004, the Steering Group continued to meet to steer Management Plan included a Target for Implemen- the on-going conservation and management of the tation, the actions were not prioritised and it was left WHS. for all stakeholders to deliver the actions as and when possible. This was identified as a weakness in Shortly after joining the HerO Project, the member- the implementation of the management Plan and so ship of the Steering Group was reviewed. Firstly, all at the end of 2009, the Steering Group agreed that members re-affirmed their commitment to support- an Annual Action Plan should be prepared and be- ing the management and conservation of the WHS come the basis for action. and their willingness to participate in the Steering Group. A draft WHS Action Plan was considered at the meeting of the Steering Group in January 2010. Fol- Secondly, a review of the suitability of the members lowing a discussion at the meeting, revised WHS was undertaken by City Council officers. As recom- Action Plan was agreed at the meeting in April 2010 mended in the URBACT Local Support Group Tool- and became basis for the work of the stakeholders, kit, the stakeholders were analysed, ranking them especially the World Heritage Officer, during 2010. for their level of interest and their level of influence. The success in implementing the WHS Action Plan The objective was to avoid the inclusion of passive 2010 was assessed at the meeting of the Steering or negative stakeholders and to achieve a group of Group in January 2011 and a draft WHS Action Plan primary stakeholder who have a positive interest 2011 was considered. A revised version is due for and significant influence. It was concluded that all of consideration at the next meeting. the current members were in fact primary stake- holders and so no-one was asked to leave the 4. Review of Liverpool WHS Management Plan Steering Group. However, it was recognised that some key voices were missing, notably a represen- As the Liverpool WHS Management Plan was ap- tative of heritage education/interpretation and a rep- proved in December 2003 and it included a com- resentative of , the organisation mitment that it would be reviewed after 6 years, this which controls approximately 50% of the dock wa- review is now overdue. It was identified as a priority ter-spaces. After investigations, a representative in the WHS Action Plan 2010 and again in the draft from the City Council’s Children’s Services accepted WHS Action Plan 2011. an invitation to join the Steering Group and a repre- sentative of British Waterways accepted an invita- At the meeting of the WHS Steering Group in Janu- tion to join the Marketing and Interpretation Group. ary 2010 it was agreed that:

The Steering Group currently has 19 active mem- • any new management plan should be realis- bers, although not all members attend every meet- tic about what it can deliver although there ing. is no harm in having high expectations. • The revised MP should be short, sharp and 2. Terms of Reference of the WHS Steering Group focused (LSG) • The MP should be mostly written by the Steering Group, rather than by consultants.

• A sub-group should be established to look The Steering Group had operated since 2001 as an at best practice from around the UK and the informal group of interested stakeholders without a rest of the world and to start to identify spe- constitution or terms of reference. In order to clarify cific tasks that need to be done.

A preliminary stage in the review of the Liver- 2. Prepare WHS Interpretation and Educa- pool WHS Management Plan should be to as- tion Strategy sess the format and applicability of other re- cent UK Management Plans. Some members 3. Consultation on Current Key Issues of the Steering Group subsequently met and 9 assessed the Edinburgh WHS Management Plan, the Stonehenge Management Plan and 4. Preparation of Draft Revised Manage- the Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan. The ment Plan and incorporate updated ac- draft WHS Action Plan 2011, includes “Action tions from Visitor Management Plan Area 1.1 Commence review and implement WHS Management Plan” and the following 5. Public consultation Draft of Revised Man- list of actions to be completed by February agement Plan, including Vision, Objec- 2012: tives and Actions 1. Undertake Baseline Study of progress in meeting objectives and delivering actions 6. Final Revised Management Plan Final in 2003 Management Plan. Key achieve- Revised Management Plan ments and failures in: 7. Ongoing implementation and monitoring • Protection of heritage assets • Conservation of heritage assets • Presentation of heritage assets

SOME FURTHER SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN IN LIVERPOOL FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE HERO NETWORK ACTIVITIES IN 2008 UNTIL APRIL 2011

Liverpool has produced several policies and man- agement strategies to safeguard the cultural heri- tage values and the sustainable development of its historic urban landscape. The most important, which are addressed in more detail below are:

1. Liverpool Buildings At Risk Initiative

2. Liverpool- The Paradise Project

3. Liverpool WHS Supplementary Planning Document (2009)

4. Liverpool Heritage Investment Framework (2006 and 2010)

5. The Townscape Heritage Initiative For Buildings At Risk In The WHS And Buffer Zone

6. A Methodology for Undertaking Heritage Impact Assessments

7. Securing the Return of the Gates from the Liverpool Sailors’ Home

1. Liverpool: Buildings at Risk Key steps and activities Initiative – A Good Practice Example from Step 1 Quantify the problem by means of a detailed con- Liverpool in the HerO Good Practice Compila- 10 dition survey of all the designated heritage assets tion 2009 as an Instrument for the proper re- within the defined area. This included unprotected habilitation of private historic buildings individual buildings within the World Heritage Sites and its buffer zone. Condition and occu- pancy was gauged against a fixed, well defined set of criteria (as established by English Heritage) Brief description of Initiative in order to yield a known quantum or 'risk grade' A detailed condition survey of all heritage assets for the purpose of formulating priorities for action. in Liverpool was carried out as part of a single comprehensive exercise. Those assets found to Step 2 be vacant, derelict or vulnerable to deterioration Develop a plan of action for each property/ asset became subject to continued monitoring and, if identified as being at risk, beginning with those necessary, the use of statutory powers (legal ac- most at risk due to the time-sensitive nature of the tion) in an attempt to hasten their repair, introduce problem. This may involved a “Stop The Rot” fo- new uses or bring about a change in ownership in rum where property owners and the local press order to achieve these ends as appropriate. were invited to discuss the difficulties and oppor- tunities. A principal objective of this exercise was As there were more than 50 assets on the “at risk” to generate a minimum level of consensus. register, the initiative required a full time dedicated project officer in post and a commensurate budget Step 3 in order to facilitate the repair and re-use of his- Establish a method of addressing the various toric floorspace. When the project was launched types of problem depending on category of own- in Liverpool in 2001 there were over 300 such ership (i.e. charitable, private, public, statutory, buildings under threat, or At Risk. Crown etc.) and wherever possible have recourse to statutory powers where these powers are fit for purpose. Objectives of the Initiative • To alleviate the problem of vacant and derelict Step 4 historic property within the City boundary of Establish a budget to assist in implementing the Liverpool; plan of action, e.g. where this involves engaging professional consultants, undertaking urgent • To find new or alternative uses which are sym- works in default of building owners/ absentee pathetic to the history and character of build- landlords or under-writing the often cumbersome ings at risk and legal processes involved in compulsory acquisi- • To further the heritage and economic regenera- tion. tion of the wider urban area of Liverpool. Step 5 The Buildings at Risk Initiative helped to meet the Develop an exit strategy in order to: following objectives of the World Heritage Site • ensure that buildings successfully repaired and Management Plan: re-used or mothballed are maintained into the future and Objective 3.1 Identify and secure sustainable and • demonstrate the case for a contingency budget appropriate uses for the built heritage resource of for the purpose of monitoring, quantifying and the Site that support the regeneration of the City. addressing future heritage at risk problems. Objective 3.2 Ensure that sympathetic materials, This was done primarily by means of a periodic or styles and techniques are utilised by all conserva- 'rolling' buildings at risk survey programme. tion projects within the Site and its environs Objective 3.4 Continue to monitor the built heri- Results and impacts tage resource to ensure that buildings at risk are In assessing why has Liverpool done well recently identified and conserved and implement a pro- in dealing with buildings at risk, the seriousness of gramme of regular inspection and maintenance the problem in 1991-2001 needs to be under- for all historic buildings and monuments. stood. The problem was sufficiently severe to help focus minds on the issue. A Stop the Rot Cam- Objective 3.5 Ensure that historic buildings and paign emerged in the local press in April 2001 to monuments are adequately maintained and re- champion the plight of the City’s heritage at risk paired, through existing and future grant-funding and this eventually ran alongside the City Coun- initiatives and the application of statutory powers cil’s own strategy. There was a coalescence of where necessary objectives and a consensus formed around the idea of saving 20 key landmark buildings which

were under threat. The campaign received full It is also possible that the economic buoyancy of support from English Heritage who co-funded a the 10 years up to 2008 also helped to give confi- full time Building At Risk (BAR) officer with the dence to private investors and improve the per- City Council from November 2001. formance figures. However, Liverpool City Council A strengthening of the case for investment in deal- and NWDA have invested over £1.8 million in the 11 ing with the buildings at risk problem was given BAR programme between 2001 and 2008. by: ƒ English Heritage’s Historic Environment Lesson learned and recommendations of Liverpool Project (HELP) which was launched in March 2002. The Liverpool Building at Risk Project has been a ƒ The awarding in 2004 of Capital of Cul- groundbreaking initiative within the UK on account ture status for 2008 to Liverpool of its scale and the level of consensus which ƒ The World Heritage Site inscription in made it possible from inception. A clear under- 2004 standing and appreciation of the importance of ƒ A massive private sector scheme of re- Liverpool’s heritage has been crucial throughout generation within the city’s retail quarter, and lead to firm support all round for the project’s now known as Liverpool 1 aims and objectives. Initially, the popularity of the ’s Stop the Rot Campaign, as pro- This lead to 130-150 buildings at risk being ad- moted by English Heritage and championed by dressed directly by the City Council since 2001, the local press, helped to develop a highly con- largely because it had become a strategic matter structive partnership between leaders of the City for the elected members. Initially the North West Council, English Heritage, Liverpool Vision and Development Agency (NWDA) committed £1M to the NWDA towards the end of 2001. The BAR a city-wide programme of statutory action to com- Project was one of the principal ‘first fruits’ to plement the City Council’s contribution of emerge from this consensus and has proved to be £400,000 during 2002-03. The use of urgent a flagship enterprise within the heritage regenera- works notices (to arrest decline in condition), tion sector. It is a notable instance of partnership some 15 of which were served 2003-2008, have working in the management of the historic envi- proved to be very effective in dealing with specific ronment in the UK. cases and sending out a clear message to prob- lem owners of BARs. The use of Compulsory Pur- The principal lesson to have been drawn from this chases has proved more challenging. Building exercise has in the first instance been to underline Preservation Trusts have thus far not been very the need for significant funding to render statutory active in Liverpool. powers effective beyond the mere threat of action. It clearly illustrated that any remotely ambitious building at risk program, i.e. one which seeks to implement more than 2 urgent works notices at any one time, requires a reliable source of public funds to underwrite it. The quantities involved are relatively small in comparison to the level of pri- vate money levered into the process and are therefore arguably all the more justifiable. The level of private funding expended on buildings within the programme during the lifetime of the NWDA funded part of the project (2004-2007) has been in the region of approximately £4.5m. This reflects a public/ private ratio of almost 1:5 Casartelli Building – At Risk (NWDA contributed £968k) and should be viewed as a healthy out-come from the point of view of procuring a reasonable ‘Heritage Dividend’.

The resulting benefits have far outweighed the relatively small cost of delivering this type of pro- ject. It is important to point out from the outset that any buildings at risk programme can never consti- tute a ‘quick fix’ solution to the plight of historic buildings in a city such as Liverpool, given the scale of the ‘problem’. Nonetheless, the benefit of having a significant budget (nearly £1m) available for this purpose has been clearly born out and proved invaluable as a catalyst towards repair and re-use of historic assets throughout the City. Casartelli Building – Restored Another crucial lesson to be taken from the project as a whole (i.e. since November 2001) is that like

the buildings themselves, the typical responses to Contact details the problems encountered must be sustained. Christopher Griffiths They require careful consideration in conjunction Buildings at Risk Officer, Liverpool City Council with the attrition of regular and pro-active dialogue [email protected] as well as repeated survey inspections firmly www.liverpool.gov.uk 12 backed up by the continued threat of enforcement action in order to procure solutions. NB. Liverpool’s Buildings At Risk Initiative has been the subject of a more detailed analytical A further lesson has been to show that the imple- case study by URBACT in October 2010. It is mentation of urgent works frequently unearths available at greater unseen difficulties, or occasionally results http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/general_library/Liverpool in the hastening of a building’s inevitable loss, such as at 183-185 Duke Street or 101-103 Shaw _casestudy.pdf Street, Liverpool.

2. Liverpool: The Paradise Pro- ject - A Good Practice Example from Liv- erpool in the HerO Good Practice Compila- tion 2009 for supporting and attracting economic and cultural activities

Brief description 2008 will be remembered as a key date in the renaissance of the City of Liverpool. Not only did the city have the honour of being the European Capital of Culture with the opportunity to welcome a huge influx of visitors to experience the breadth Palm House - At Risk of its culture, the year also saw the completion of the largest retail led regeneration project in Europe. is the name given to the new £1billion mixed-use development that occu- pies 42 acres (16.8ha) at the heart of Liverpool’s city centre. The development, which opened in October 2008, comprises over 30 individually de- signed buildings, in 5 distinct districts, built around the historic streets of the city. Each district has a different character, offer and design.

The overall scheme has transformed an area of derelict and underused land at the heart of the city centre and restored Liverpool’s role as a regional shopping centre. The development has become widely recognised as an exemplar of collaborative working between the City Council and a private Sefton Park Palm House - Restored developer, Grosvenor. It has delivered massive benefits for the community of Liverpool that will It is also clear that unless close monitoring of the endure for a long time into the future. This public projects included within any buildings at risk pro- private partnership has provided the platform for gramme continues indefinitely, much of the effort the transformation of the City of Liverpool. expended in the previous years may in vain. The early signs of the trends set in motion since Liver- pool's Buildings at Risk Initiative began are ex- tremely promising as evidenced by the fate of a significant proportion of the buildings on the origi- nal 'hit-list'. However, as previously emphasised, the goals of this type of project are long term and in order to realise them each public authority has to remain both vigilant and cautious in its assess- ment of the project as a whole and its approach towards the manage-ment of the situation ‘post- project’.

Paradise Street – Integrated into the city

The masterplan was based on a series of guiding Objectives of the Project principles. One of which was the recognition that Liverpool’s cultural heritage is a positive asset, Originally known as the Paradise Project, this which should be used as a principal consideration planning-led regeneration initiative started life in in the detailed design of the development. the late 1990s when the city commissioned retail

13 consultants to assess the city’s retail function and In accordance with the requirements of the Town market potential. After the turmoil of the 1980s, and Country Planning (Environmental Impact As- the city suffered from a lack of investment, was sessment) (England and Wales) Regulations under performing, and had dropped from 3rd to 1999, an Environmental Statement was provided 17th in the UK’s retail rankings. It had only one with the planning application for the masterplan major department store in a constricted prime re- and examined the likely environmental effects of tail area. the development, including the impact on cultural

heritage, and proposed measures to mitigate its The consultants were asked to advise what was impact. needed and where. Their study identified the need

for around 1 Million square feet (100,000 square The statement included a Design and Access As- metres) of additional retail floor space to deliver sessment which considered the overall impact of the step change and critical mass needed for the the development on archaeology, on the character re-establishment of the city’s regional role. The and appearance of Conservation Areas, on Listed Bluecoat Triangle, later to become known as the Buildings present within and adjacent to the site Paradise Street Development Area (PSDA), was and on the World Heritage Site. identified as the most appropriate location given

it’s proximity to the existing main retail area and The masterplan incorporated the demands of pre- other key areas such as the Ropewalks regenera- serving and protecting the cultural heritage of the tion area, Albert Dock and the waterfront, and it’s site by: derelict condition. • Retaining and strengthening the historic street

pattern in and around the site Between 1999 and 2002 the City Council em- • Providing improved connections between the barked on a process of developing planning policy city and the river to facilitate the development, selecting a devel- opment partner and devising a master plan for the • Creating framed views of major historic land- scheme. In 2000 Grosvenor were chosen from marks across the city by the careful sit-ting of over 30 competitors as the city’s preferred devel- new buildings and orientation of new streets oper, not least because the company clearly un- • Retaining and conserving the historic buildings derstood and shared the city’s vision to build on within the site and bringing them back into sus- and complement the existing streets to cater for tainable into new use the widest possible range of people and types of • Undertaking a major archaeological evaluation shopping. As a result, a master plan for the of the whole site scheme was developed jointly by the City Council • Excavating, conserving and providing views and and Grosvenor which reflected the conscious de- access to the north east corner of the original cision to reject the orthodox inward-looking mall- retaining wall of (1715), which is situ- based solution, and to create a series of new ated underneath the development. places connected by open streets with individually designed buildings that are completely integrated • Provides some interpretation of the heritage as- into the surrounding city. sets in the public realm

The Buildings at Risk Initiative helped to meet the following objectives of the World Heritage Site Management Plan:

Objective 2.1 Promote the Site's heritage assets and distinc- tive high-quality historic environment as key drivers in the sustainable regeneration of the City and as a force for secur- ing investment and enabling sustainable regeneration.

Objective 2.2 Implement regeneration schemes that con- serve and enhance the significance of the WHS

Objective 2.3 Develop and maintain a synergy between the conservation and socio-economic needs.

Objective 4.1 Ensure that the unique character, distinctive- ness and aesthetic quality of the site's townscape is recog- Paradise Street’s urban morphology nised, conserved and enhanced.

Objective 4.4 Identify and protect key visual relationships, As a retail led scheme (which has a market focus- panoramas and vistas into, out of and across the Site sed on establishing maximum footfall within a de- fined shopping circuit), the main structure of Liv- Objective 5.1 Continue to ensure that all new developments erpool One is a triangular shop-ping route with an within the Site and its Buffer Zone are of high design and anchor store at each point:- John Lewis, Deben- 14 construction quality. hams and the existing Marks and Spencers. There are subsidiary circuits in and around the Objective 5.2 Ensure that new development respects the basic figure and all routes are permanently open significance of the Site and is appropriate to its historic, spa- and link direct to the surrounding streets. tial and townscape context. There are, however, two other layers of develop- ment. Below the shopping level is the large un- Key steps and activities derground structure, comprising servicing to the shops and businesses, as well as the four level Key to the success of the project has been the 2000 space car park stretching underneath the desire to meet the needs of all stakeholders in- new Chavasse Park. Above the shop-ping is a cluding, in particular, the local community. From multi layer of other activities including residential the outset the City Council and Grosvenor appre- developments of various forms, hotels, restau- ciated the value of extensive consultation during rants, bars, offices and a 14-screen cinema com- the evolution of the scheme to inform the plans so plex. that ultimately a wide ownership would be gained of the scheme. Through a series of workshops the In addition the wider scheme includes a hair- master plan was developed leading to the grant of dressing school, crèche, new BBC broadcasting outline planning permission. Interests were ac- studio, Friends Meeting House, two further multi quired by the City Council as enabling authority storey car parks and a new bus inter-change. The following a successful CPO Inquiry and in July new Chavasse Park is, not surprisingly, proving 2004 development commenced. one of the most popular elements of the scheme. A five acre open green space it links the devel- The outline planning permission and the master opment to the Albert Dock and the waterfront and plan provided strong background and the over- offers the chance for a peaceful break. It also cre- arching principles, which allowed various archi- ates the framework for the series of building that tects the freedom to develop the designs of the enclose the park including the restaurants that line individual buildings within the common goals. A the west facing leisure terrace looking over the series of regular planning meetings and design open space to the river Mersey. workshops involving different stakeholders as ap- propriate ensured the scheme was carefully co- ordinated and decisions were made within the necessary timescales.

The fact that the scheme has been delivered to such a high standard of construction and on pro- gramme is a particular tribute to Grosvenor’s level of investment and quality control, and the fact that the company has the experience of managing its estate over such a long period which allows it to take such a long term view on the value of its re- turns.

It is also a credit to the systems that were devised jointly between the company and the council A framed view of a historic landmark which have ensured a consistently high quality of development. This was achieved through regular Since Phase 1 of the scheme first opened on 29th dialogue, careful co-ordination during the planning May 2008, the public reaction has been over- and construction phases, and the close working whelmingly positive. The community of Liverpool relationships and mutual respect that has devel- had to cope with the disruption during the period oped out of this process. of the Big Dig, but the popular view is that the scheme has repaid this aggravation countless Results and impacts times over. Everyone in the city is very proud of In essence the development has aimed to re- what has been achieved and see the development establish the city centre as a vibrant location as evidence that the city is now moving forward. where the separate retail business, leisure and cultural areas merge to create a city centre living For Grosvenor the success has been the comple- and evening economy which is open and alive tion of the development on programme and the 24hrs a day. leasing of over 90% of the retail space with the remainder of the stores progressing to-wards

completion and fit out. As an asset, the company the city is now in a far better shape to rise to the has gained a 250 year lease on a significant por- challenges the future will bring. tion of high quality prime retail estate. It has re- ceived strong support from city in its steps to cre- Lesson learned and recommendations ate the development and will continue to benefit • Clear Vision, maintain commitment and don’t from the sound relations that have developed 15 dilute principles through the delivery of the scheme. • Important to establish clear land use policy For the community of Liverpool and the wider city framework in order to paves way for delivering region, the benefits have been striking: 4000 con- scheme struction jobs were created during the building • Strong Masterplan (although allow flexibility and phase, and over 5000 permanent jobs will result even encourage architects to challenge frame- from the new retail, leisure and office floor space work if helps improve quality of design) that has been created. This represents a tremen- • Pro-active consultation wins popular support & dous new addition to the city that compliments ownership of scheme and strengthens an offer that now rivals any other • Crucial to have close relationship between City outside the capital. Council and Developer Already there is evidence that all expectations • Dedicated delivery team with clear co- The 10 million visitors that came to the city during ordination/design review process helps facili- 2008 have seen what the city can offer. A seven- tate development fold increase has been recorded in footfall in • Streamlined decision making process with non- Church Street, the principle shopping street out- party political support and delegated approval side Liverpool One. Visitor numbers have in- essential to keep project on programme creased 40% at the Albert Dock which no longer • High construction standards and quality control seems so detached from the city now it has been vital to the longevity of the scheme reconnected by the revitalised streets within Liv- erpool One. Less measurable, but of huge impor- • Investment in public realm pays dividends tance, is the confidence the project has brought to • Genuine mixed use helps create seamless addi- the city and those investors who are seeing its tion to city and provides for long term sustain- potential for further growth. ability of development

The successful completion of Liverpool is a true Contact details example of what can be achieved by a city work- Peter Jones ing in close partnership with a private developer. [email protected] To conceive and then deliver on programme such an extensive and complex development in such a

short spell is, in the city’s view, an outstanding achievement. Liverpool One is a large and com- NB. The Liverpool One Development has received plex development, which has sought to create an numerous awards for the quality of its urban de- organic and sustainable addition to the estab- sign, including: reaching the short-list of 6 in the lished city centre. It represents decisive step for- Royal Institute of British Architecture’s Stirling ward in urban design with an in-built adaptability Prize (for best new building) in 2009 and; the and capacity to change and develop in future. award for Regeneration, Renewal and Re- invention from the European Council of Spatial With the Capital of Culture proving to have been the best ever so far there is now a very real sense Planners in 2010 with the opening of Liverpool One that the city has been re-born. With difficult economic times ahead

Old Dock preserved in situ

3. Liverpool WHS Supplemen- b) adhere to the townscape characteristics, tary Planning Document wider values (building density, urban pat- terns and materials) and sense of place.” (2009) 16 3 Timescale and Means of Production 1. Introduction 3.1 The process of producing the SPD started in The Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for October 2006. A draft SPD was approved for in- Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage terim development control purposes and public consultation in December 2008. Public consulta- Site (WHS) provides detailed planning guidance for tion on the draft SPD was undertaken in March conservation and regeneration in the Liverpool WHS and April 2009. An amended SPD was adopted and its Buffer Zone. It addresses the relevant local by Liverpool City Council in October 2009. planning issues, meets national statutory require- ments and is consistent with international advice on 3.2 The process of production and content of the good management of cultural heritage assets within SPD was overseen by a Steering Group of offi- dynamic cities. cers from Liverpool City Council, Liverpool Vi- sion, English Heritage, Government Office NW, 2. The Need for the SPD the Northwest Development Agency and CABE. 2.1 The Management Plan for the WHS (2003) has the overall vision that the WHS will be: 3.3 Atkins Heritage was appointed to prepare the …managed as an exemplary demonstra- SPD and was responsible for producing the tion of sustainable development and heri- Evidential Report, the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Sustainability Appraisal and tage-led regeneration. the initial drafts of the SPD.

In order to ensure that good planning would be at 3.4 Liverpool City Council’s Planning Service co- the heart of that management, the Management ordinated the production of the SPD, made the Plan included: final adjustments to the Public Consultation draft Action 1.3.2 - Prepare Supplementary Plan- of the SPD, undertook extensive public consul- ning Guidance for the Site based on the tation and made further amendments to it to re- Management Plan. spond to representations that had been made.

2.2 Proposals for the and the 3.5 Funding for the production of the SPD was se- Development adjacent to Liver- cured from the Northwest Development Agency pool’s Pier Head were referred to UNESCO’s and English Heritage WH Committee in 2006 and instigated a reac- tive monitoring mission by UNESCO and 4 Planning in WHSs ICOMOS to Liverpool in October 2006. The 4.1 The very highest standards of planning, building mission concluded that: conservation, design and public realm are fun- • the planning system in Liverpool is damental expectations for a city which is on transparent, democratic and compre- UNESCO’s World Heritage list. ICOMOS, hensive UNESCO, English Heritage and CABE issue • the state of conservation of the WHS is declarations, memoranda and guidance at an generally good international and national level to advise how • the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) these superlative standards can and should be of the Site was not under threat from achieved. And yet at the local level, the tools for those developments. setting and delivering these standards are often absent: quality assurance is left to chance as Even so, the mission suggested that stricter planners and designers have to rely upon ge- planning guidance should be prepared to pre- neric advice and planning policies and political vent future damage to the historic urban land- decision-makers have no suitable local policy scape by development. Liverpool City Council framework to guide their decisions. gave a commitment to the mission in October 2006 that it would prepare such guidance, in the 4.2 ICOMOS’s Xi’an Declaration (2005) clarified form of a Supplementary Planning Document. that in order to conserve the setting of heritage structures, bespoke planning tools are required 2.3 At its meeting in 2007, the WH Committee for each heritage area to ensure that the local context of that heritage asset is managed and requested that: conserved, and that those planning tools must “…stricter planning guidance should be pre- be developed on the basis of a full understand- pared to: ing of that asset and its setting. a) clearly establish and respect prescribed heights

4.3 UNESCO’s complementary Declaration on the However, following representations during the Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape public consultation, one notable exception to (2005) stressed the need to properly contextual- this general presumption was established. An ise contemporary architecture in the historic ur- opportunity for mid-rise buildings is identified in ban landscape and encouraged elaboration of 17 management plans with detailed relevant local the northern docks, where the redundant and policies. vacant quaysides are not conventional streets and there is no predetermined building form. 4.4 The advice in the two above declarations is es- Significantly, the SPD also identifies three areas pecially relevant to cultural WHSs, such as the in the Buffer Zone where opportunities exist for Liverpool WHS, which encompass large urban tall buildings, subject to an extensive list of con- areas and which are undergoing change and in- siderations and criteria. tervention in their historic urban landscape.

5.4 On the perennial issue of design philosophy for 4.5 The latter stages of producing the SPD have been monitored by the HerO (Heritage as Op- new buildings in a historic context, the SPD is portunity) Project. The project is exploring strongly influenced by UNESCO’s Vienna methodologies of integrated management of Memorandum (2005). It provides the clear guid- cultural heritage and aims to develop best prac- ance that: tice in “sustainable management strategies for The architectural quality of a proposal within the vital historic urban landscapes”. WHS and Buffer Zone must be of the highest quality of contemporary design but respect, re- 5 The Content of Liverpool’s WHS SPD spond to and enhance its highly sensitive and 5.1 The over-arching aim of the SPD is: important historic context. To provide a framework for protecting and en- hancing the outstanding universal value of Liv- Following concerns expressed during the public erpool – Maritime Mercantile City World Heri- consultation, the additional guidance was tage Site, whilst encouraging investment and added: development which secures a healthy economy In cases where a component of a designed ar- and supports regeneration. chitectural set-piece is being re-instated, a more historicist approach to design can be accept- 5.2 The guidance is in three sections: able, especially if documentary evidence is S.4 General Guidance for the World Heri- available to ensure accurate reconstruction (an- tage Site and its Buffer Zone : astylosis). 1. Design Guidance for buildings and

public realm 2. Views 5.5 In addition to providing design and conservation 3. Riverside Development guidance, the SPD also positively identifies re- 4. Tall Buildings generation opportunities throughout the Site and 5. Dock Water-spaces. its Buffer Zone, in the form of a) vacant sites with development potential, b) historic buildings S.5 Guidance Specific to WHS: at risk which require sustainable new uses and 1. Building Heights in the WHS c) existing buildings which make a negative con- 2. Replacement of Existing Buildings tribution to the townscape, detract from the OUV 3. Re-use of Historic Buildings of the site and where demolition or re-modelling 4. Heritage at Risk will be encouraged. 5. Roof-scapes and Attic Extensions 6. Archaeology

6 The Legacy S.6 Guidance Specific to 5 of the 6 Char- The legacy of the overall process is: acter Areas within the WHS (Lower Duke 1. fulfilment of the relevant action required by Street is part of the Ropewalks area which the WHS’s Management Plan and compli- already has its own SPD) ance with the WH Committee’s request 2. an SPD which provides detailed guidance 5.3 On the topical issue of Tall Buildings, the SPD on the current planning, conservation and establishes the fundamental guidance that: regeneration issues that face the WHS. This There will be a strong presumption against provides clarity for developers, designers, bringing forward high-rise developments planners and politicians 3. an Evidential Report, which provides a within the World Heritage Site, as they are baseline study of the WHS’s townscape, considered to be out of context with its pre- setting and character analysis; vailing character.

4. a Sustainability Appraisal, which ensures that broader environmental concerns have been incorporated 5. a reinforced partnership between the agen- cies that provided professional expertise 18 into to the content of the SPD (Liverpool City Council, English Heritage, Liverpool Vi- sion, the North West Development Agency, Government Office NW and CABE) 6. greater public confidence that the WHS is not an impediment to change but that the ul- timate heritage status is a means to improve standards of development and to assist the city’s regeneration 7. a big step forward in the careful manage- ment of change in the WHS

7 Conclusion 7.1 It would be a rare planning document that achieves full consensus on the widely disparate opinions on the future development of Liverpool but The Liverpool Daily Post began its editorial on 5th October 2009, with the statement: In the often overheated debate over the shape of Liverpool in the next few decades, the City Council’s SPD (for the WHS) is a triumph for common sense. !!

7.2 The SPD for the Liverpool WHS is believed to be the most detailed planning document of its kind for any WHS in the UK.

7.3 The aspiration is that the common sense and holistic approach of the SPD will enable it to play a significant role in protecting Liverpool’s unique Spirit of Place but will also allow its tradi- tion of change, its creativity and its evolution as a dynamic city to continue.

The full SPD can be found at www.liverpoolworldheritage.com and www.liverpool.gov.uk

NB. The Liverpool WHS SPD won awards for the best planning document from the Royal Town Plan- ning Institute NW and the best conservation achievement from the Institute of Historic Building Conservation in 2010.

The Council is involved in heritage in a number of 4. Liverpool Heritage Invest- different ways: as a custodian and deliverer of public ment Framework (2006 and heritage services and attractions, for example librar- 19 ies, archives, parks, community history projects; 2010) ƒ through initiating and implementing new heritage projects; With a massive and diverse cultural heritage, but ƒ as a landowner with a substantial portfolio only limited funds available, Liverpool City Council of historic sites and buildings; recognised the need to develop a heritage invest- ƒ as a strategic lead body for regeneration; as a planning authority, including ensuring ment strategy to establish priorities for action and statutory protection of the historic environ- expenditure. The City Council therefore produced ment; Moving the Past Forward a heritage investment ƒ as a promoter of heritage and tourism; framework in 2006, which aimed to assemble and ƒ as an advisory body providing technical or understand the array of potential heritage-related funding advice to community heritage or- projects which were in development across the city ganisations; with a view to prioritisation through delivery, phas- ƒ as a funder, providing grant-aid to heritage ing, strategic influence and quantum. projects; ƒ and as a partner in heritage projects led by

other organisations. As some projects were implemented, others had

been abandoned and circumstances had changed, The benefits of promoting a strategic approach to the heritage investment framework was re-assessed investment in heritage include greater resource and updated as Recall the Past to Inform the Future efficiency, improved project sustainability, more in October 2010. Its Executive summary is: relevant and diverse projects, increased effective-

ness and better quality control. The framework takes Liverpool is rightly proud of its heritage assets and a holistic view, by considering the full range of Liv- recognises its erpool’s heritage assets: buildings and streetscape; responsibility to exercise guardianship of them, be parks and gardens; statues and monuments; and they built environment, archives and collections. Within each category the significant collections or treasured traditions. priority areas for action are identified. There are Liverpool’s iconic waterfront is arguably its greatest three cross-cutting themes: sustainable regenera- asset. This fabulous river frontage is designated as tion; community participation; and learning and skills a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, recognising that development. the city is ‘the supreme example of a commercial

port at the time of Britain’s greatest global influence’. The framework highlights opportunities for invest- The wider city has a wealth of historic interest. For ment. One such opportunity is the city’s historic example, the childhood homes of and commercial centre, which is within the World Heri- Paul McCartney are looked after by the National tage Site. This area around Castle Street, Dale Trust, and the recently restored Stanley Park links Street and Victoria Street contains a fabulous as- the stadiums of the two great football clubs, Everton semblage of predominantly 19th century buildings, and Liverpool. There are also the valuable artefacts built as banks, offices and exchanges to service the held in trust and the people from many backgrounds needs of Liverpool as well as to impress its clients that have helped make Liverpool a diverse city. and competitors. The mix of styles, the ambitious

designs and the exuberant decoration are a celebra- Liverpool is both passionate about its history and tion of the city’s wealth and trading links. Today, ambitious for its future. Its unique blend of old and these streets are crucial to the way the city centre new is part of what makes it different. Successful works, linking the new retail area Liverpool ONE projects such as the have with the city’s business district, and the cultural shown how we can create a distinctive and exciting quarter with the waterfront. A mix of new leisure urban landscape by combining the best of new de- uses here can create a destination for residents, sign with the most significant historic buildings. tourists, shoppers and workers alike, while breathing

new life into some of the city’s most important his- Liverpool City Council is producing a Heritage In- toric buildings.” vestment Framework for the period 2011-2015. The

framework aims to showcase the distinctiveness of the city; highlight our recent successes in heritage- led regeneration; consider our future priorities; and target future funding and investment.

Conservation Area; it has been named as the Liv- erpool World Heritage Site THI because much of the THI Area lies within the WHS.

20 How much money is available and where does it come from? The total THI budget (Common Fund) is made up of:

Single Regeneration Budget £500,000 North West Development Agency £1,500,000 Heritage Lottery Fund £1,800,000

English Heritage £150,000 Heritage Investment Framework 2006 Liverpool City Council £600,000

£4,550,000

Who can apply for a grant? Applicants for THI grant may be either leaseholders or freeholders. Leaseholders must have an unex- pired term of 10 years at the date of the application. Leases with a 'break' clause are not acceptable.

Eligible projects To be eligible for grant aid, a property must be within the defined boundaries of the areas forming the THI. Properties outside these areas are not eli- Heritage Investment Framework 2010 gible for THI grant. Almost 180 individual properties are being targeted within this scheme and the ex- pectation is that a quarter of these will be the sub- 5. The Townscape Heritage Ini- ject of grant offers leading to completion of success- tiative for Buildings at Risk ful schemes. in the WHS and Buffer Zone Eligible properties that have not been targeted at the outset will be considered if the circumstances are Introduction appropriate. For example, some buildings in Bold A Townscape Heritage Initiative Grant Scheme was Street with known proposals for refurbishment with- set up in 2006 to provide financial assistance to out grant may be recommended for grant aid for owners of historic properties to help protect and en- improving access to upper floors (for example to hance the architectural heritage of two important allow office or residential use above ground floor part of the World Heritage Site and is still opera- retail uses), or improving the quality and design of tional. shop fronts.

The Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) is a grant Critical projects scheme to fund areas of towns and cities where his- Some buildings have been identified as being of toric buildings are under threat or where there is a particularly high priority for the scheme. These build- need to bring historic floor space back into use. ings include two clusters of buildings on the west

side of Berry Street. These are buildings that the Grants are discretionary and dependant on Heritage Lottery Fund has identified as being at par- schemes being prepared that are to the satisfaction ticular risk and some of the grant is ring fenced for of the City Council and its partners. Appropriate pro- these. fessional advice should be secured to assist in

making an application for grant assistance. Only What can a grant be spent on? areas of high architectural quality and historic sig- Eligible works fall into the following categories: nificance are awarded THI grants. A conservation • Building Repair area is a designated area of a town that has special • Bringing vacant Historic Floorspace into use architectural or historic interest. In planning terms it The grants are discretionary not mandatory; they carries an obligation to preserve and enhance its will be awarded at the entire discretion of the fund- character or appearance. ing partners who have the duty to apply the funds in

a manner that is expected to achieve the agreed The initiative relates to areas within the Castle aims of the Initiative at reasonable cost. Street Conservation Area and the Duke Street

The grant cannot be spent on Since April 2008: 1. Fixtures and fittings 2. Internal decoration • 22 detailed surveys have been completed comprising all 19 THI priority buildings plus 3 3. Routine maintenance. 21 additional buildings at risk - 41 individual ad- This money will only be available for a limited period dresses in total. and will be in great demand. All THI schemes need to be completed by March 2010 while money has • 22 urgent works notices and 2 Repairs Notices been reserved for Critical Projects (see above) until have been prepared. March 2008. • 2 urgent works notices have been imple- Amount of grant mented in respect to 3 no. target properties; Grant offers will be based on funding the gap where the cost of repairing the building exceeds its end • A grant has been offered / accepted in respect to 6 of the 19 THI Priority buildings. value. The grant is generally the amount needed to

fill the deficit in the costs of repairing eligible build- • Repairs or other visual improvement works ings and bringing them back into economic use. have been carried out in respect to a further 8 Grant will normally be calculated on the basis of re- of the target properties by the building owners sidual valuations and the lowest of at least three without recourse to grant aid. Of the 6 target bona fide competitive tenders obtained from con- properties where grant offers have been made tractors having a demonstrable acceptable track full repairs have been completed in respect to record of working on Listed Buildings or on buildings 2 of them The remaining 4 priority buildings within a Conservation Area. Some tenders will be where grant is being considered are due to be completed within the final year of the THI subjected scheme (2011-12). to assessment by independent Chartered Quantity

Surveyors. • External condition surveys of 43 additional properties have been completed. The surveys The work has to be done to a high conservation have been used to support a programme of standard. Applicants are strongly advised to obtain visual improvement works through the use of appropriate professional advice. Visual Amenity Notices.

Summary • Enforcement action under s215 has been ini- The WHS THI is currently expected to grant-assist 14 tiated in respect to 35 of the 43 properties projects which account for 27 addresses. In total, the surveyed. Improvement works have been carried out at 19 of the properties with positive £4.5m of grant aid will be offered and this is conserva- discussions taking place in respect to the re- tively estimated to lever £20m of private sector invest- mainder. ment. Case Studies Accompanying the “carrot” of the grant scheme, has 1. 47 Seel Street been a programme of the “stick”, using statutory This property in Seel Street was a THI scheme. notices (Urgent Works Notices and Section 215 No- It cost approximately £700,000 to refurbish the tice). These have been served on the owners of property and bring it back into economic use. buildings to stimulate immdeiate repairs and en- Unfortunately, the end value of the property af- courage applications for grants. Where there has ter refurbishment was £500,000. The THI filled been no response the City Council has stepped in, the shortfall and a grant of approximately carried out the works itself and taken legal action £200,000 was offered and accepted. However, against the owner to recoup the cost of the works. shortly before the grant was sought, the prop- The resulting income is then directed at further such erty was sold in its derelict condition for action, helping to support a virtuous circle of grant £250,000. As the purchase price was not grant aid and enforcement. aidable, the owner lost £250,000 on the project. Without the grant the owner would have lost Enforcement action has been initiated in respect to £450,000. This was a common pattern in a number of breaches of planning and / or listed Ropewalks and selling on to other speculators building controls involving 10 properties. These became a preferable option to refurbishing breaches, some longstanding, are proving difficult to properties. resolve but a policy of open dialogue against a background of timetabled enforcement action, even handedly applied, is beginning to yield results.

22

47 Seel Street.

94-98 Seel Street

6. A Methodology for under- Maritime Mercantile World Heritage Site (WHS) was taking Heritage Impact As- required.

sessments, for Liverpool A methodology for undertaking the assessment was Waters agreed between the developers, the City Council and English Heritage during early 2010 and it was agreed that it should be undertaken by all three par- Background ties so that the results could be compared. Peel Holdings have been in discussion with Liver- pool City Council and other stakeholders regarding The assessment was required to consider: the sig- their Master Plan for the regenera- nificance of the attributes and assets of the WHS tion of 65 hectares of redundant docklands, wholly and their contribution to OUV; the magnitude of any in the World Heritage Site and its Buffer Zone. Be- direct and indirect impacts caused by the proposals; cause of the scale and potential impact of the de- the significance of the effects of those impacts on velopment, a comprehensive and rigorous assess- the cultural heritage and on the OUV of the property; ment of the impact of the development on the Out- an assessment of the cumulative effects on the standing Universal Value (OUV) of the Liverpool WHS and will also make recommendations for

minimising any potential adverse impacts by drafting 6. Cumulative impact assessment on OUV a mitigation strategy. The impact assessed the impact into the following The Liverpool Waters Master Plan is now subject to categories: 23 a live planning application which was submitted in ƒ Positive Impact High October 2010 ƒ Positive Impact Low ƒ Neutral Impact ƒ Negative Impact Low The submitted Liverpool Waters Master Plan is ƒ Negative Impact High largely unprecedented in UK planning terms. It cov-

ers a site of 60ha immediately to the north of Pier In total, 116 individual assessments were made on Head and the current outline planning application the cultural heritage assets of the WHS. brings forward proposals for 9,152 residential units,

305,499 sq m of commercial business space (Class English Heritage deferred undertaking its HIA of the B1), 69,735 sq m of hotel and conference space proposal but chose to refine the methodology and in (Class C1) as well as retail, leisure and community December 2010 commissioned consultants to un- facilities. The Master Plan incorporates a series of dertake the HIA on its behalf, with a requirement to public spaces, a cruise ship terminal and several assess neighbourhood centres. The scheme proposes a

high density of development and incorporates two i) the direct and indirect impacts of the master clusters of tall buildings, with towers up to 55 metres plan on a schedule of WHS assets in height. The master plan also incorporates a series

of 45metre high medium rise blocks along the river ii) key views to, and setting of, strategic heri- frontage. The scheme is to be developed over a 30+ tage assets within the WHS and BZ year period.

iii) key views of Central Docks identified dur- The master plan, therefore, has huge development ing pre-application consultations and regeneration potential, close to disadvantaged

communities in north Liverpool, with the ability to iv) the six WHS character areas, using a transform an enormous vacant and derelict site specified methodology close to the City Centre and renowned waterfront

which currently boasts Pier Head, Albert Dock, the v) the cumulative impact of the proposals on new Museum, Mann Island and Echo Arena. How- the OUV of the WHS, based on specified is- ever, it is also located within an historic environment sues of international importance that reinforces the dis-

tinctiveness of Liverpool, allowing the city to be in- The HIA commissioned by English Heritage, and the stantly recognisable, legible and rooted in its highly full methodology is expected to be made public in influential history. April 2011.

In Liverpool the historic environment is a consis- The application is still under consideration and sub- tently high profile planning issue. The potential to ject o on-going discussions. increase access to the dock estate and to interpret

the Central Docks would be beneficial to the WHS ICOMOS Methodology objective of ‘transmitting’ its OUV. Equally, an ex- The draft of a similar methodology for undertaking tremely adverse reaction is likely, locally as well as heritage impact assessments of developments in internationally, if the WHS inscription was put at risk and around WHSs was issued by ICOMOS in May by an unsympathetic development proposal. 2010. This was approved by ICOMOS in January

2011 and is now available on www.icomos.org The Methodology

The methodology for the HIA which was undertaken by the developers and the City Council in the sum- mer of 2010 assessed the following impacts: 1. Intervention into historic fabric 2. Impact on Views and setting of Landmark Build- ings 3. Impact on Townscape Characteristics and setting of the 6 Character Areas of the WHS 4. Compliance with guidance in WHS SPD 5. Impact on Key Views

him, limb by limb; while the land-rats and mice constantly nibble at his purse…..”

To meet the demand for safe and secure lodgings for visiting sailors, the Liverpool Sailors’ Home was 24 constructed to the designs of the architect John Cunningham in 1850.

The purpose of the building was:

“…to provide for seamen frequenting the port of Liv- erpool, board, lodging and medical attendance, at a moderate charge; to protect them from imposition and extortion, and to encourage them to husband their hard-earned wages; to promote their moral, intellectual, and professional improvement; and to

The Liverpool Waters Site afford them the opportunity of receiving religious instruction.”

Regrettably, the building was demolished in 1974.

The Liverpool Waters Proposal January 2011

Liverpool Sailors’ Home

7. Securing the Return of the The Sailors’ Home Gates Gates from the Liverpool The centre piece Liverpool Sailors’ Home was the Sailors’ Home to Liverpool gateway, made in Liverpool by Henry Pooley & Son’s The lower sections were installed in the build- Liverpool Sailors’ Home ing in 1852 and the over-throw was installed shortly By the middle of the 19th century, Liverpool had be- afterwards to prevent sailors climbing into the Home come one of the world’s busiest seaports. Thou- after curfew. sands of sailors passed through the city each year and often required lodgings between voyages. In the The gateway was removed from the Sailors’ Home absence of properly regulated accommodation, in 1951, in advance of the repairs of bomb damage much of the accommodation that was available was sub-standard and did not foster the well-being of the to the building caused during World War II. It was sailors. given to W & T Avery (a company which had taken over Pooleys), dismantled and taken to its Soho The author Herman Melville arrived in Liverpool in Foundry near , where they stood until 1839 and subsequently wrote in his autobiographi- 2010. cal novel Redburn: These gateway is part of Liverpool’s maritime heri- “…..of all the sea-ports in the world, Liver- tage and, although displaced, part of the World Heri- pool, perhaps, most abounds in all the vari- tage Site’s outstanding universal value. It is not only ety of land-sharks, land–rats, and other a remarkable example of Liverpool’s cast iron vermin, which make the hapless mariner craftsmanship in the 19th century but it also provides their prey. In the shape of landlords, bar- potent evidence of Liverpool’s past role as a Sailor keepers, clothiers, crimps, and boarding- Town and how benevolent organisations were es- house loungers, the land-sharks devour

tablished to overcome some of the dangers of the itinerant life of merchant sailors.

25

The Gates in the Liverpool Sailors’ Home

Progress Visualisation of the gates in Liverpool The gateway was privately owned near Birmingham and was identified as a monument there. However, the merchant seamen of Liverpool have long cam- paigned for the return of the gateway to Liverpool and in 2008 the City council began the process of securing their return to Liverpool as a monument to all merchant seamen who have passed through the port.

It has been a complicated process to put everything in place but now: ƒ Consent for the removal of the gates has now been granted by the local authority near Birmingham (Sandwell MBC), ƒ Planning permission for their relocation in a prominent location in Liverpool has been The Gates near Birmingham 2008 granted ƒ The owners have signed an agreement to transfer ownership to Liverpool City Council ƒ The gateway has been dismantled and taken to a foundry for conservation and re- pair ƒ Funding has been secured to pay for the conservation, repair and re-erection

The gateway will be returned to Liverpool in 2011 by Liverpool City Council and dedicated as a memorial to all merchant seamen who have passed through Liverpool during its long history as an international seaport.

Liverpool’s Flagship Projects

26 The table below is an extract from the HerO Flag- ship Projects 201

The Future for Liverpool’s Heritage

Liverpool has benefited greatly from its involvement in the HerO Project. The officers, politi- cians and members of the local support group have been proud to showcase Liverpool’s achievements in the conservation and management of its cultural heritage but, more impor- tantly, have learnt from the experiences of the other historic cities in the project.

Liverpool will continue to place a high priority on protecting its cultural heritage and will care- fully balance this imperative with the other imperative of encouraging the economic recovery of the city. The sustainable management strategies for vital historic urban areas that have been developed through the HerO Project will be invaluable in informing stakeholders in this proc- ess. Liverpool’s future is firmly rooted in its rich maritime past!

URBACT is a European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban develop- ment. It enables cities to work together to develop solu- tions to major urban challenges, reaffirming the key role they play in facing increasingly complex socie- tal challenges. It helps them to develop pragmatic solutions that are new and sustainable, and that integrate economic, social and environmental di- mensions. It enables cities to share good practices and lessons learned with all professionals involved in urban policy throughout Europe. URBACT is 181 cities, 29 countries, and 5,000 active participants

www.urbact.eu/hero