Residents, local businesses, stakeholders and the general public are being invited to share their thoughts on the updated plans released in August and formally submitted to Liverpool City Council earlier this month.
The amendments came after the Blues responded to a number of local authority queries relating to the planning application, as flagged up by statutory consultees. The main changes involve the car park, which will now be placed on the West Quay, with the solar panels originally set for that area moving to the roof of the proposed stadium, which has been slightly lowered.
The full submission and amendments to the plans can be viewed on the Liverpool City Council website here.
Plans will be reviewed by the council before the end of 2020 and, should planning application be granted, the club hope to begin work on the site in early 2021.
Reader Comments (28)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
2 Posted 24/09/2020 at 17:44:59
3 Posted 24/09/2020 at 17:53:30
4 Posted 24/09/2020 at 18:19:16
This is becoming a sick joke.
5 Posted 24/09/2020 at 18:46:19
My money, not much of it mind, would be on the club moving in 2025. There are almost certain to be some unforeseen issues with this particular site, given its location.
6 Posted 24/09/2020 at 18:50:07
7 Posted 24/09/2020 at 18:55:15
And those from English Heritage are trying to prove that they have the public interest in mind by trying to stop plans for the regeneration of an area of Liverpool that is derelict, and while English Heritage have never had any plans to restore this area.
Since this has gone on, I wonder if Fulham in building their new stand and had to extend the wall 9 metres out into the Thames had any problem with the English Heritage?
8 Posted 24/09/2020 at 18:58:10
9 Posted 24/09/2020 at 18:59:39
10 Posted 24/09/2020 at 19:02:34
Well, if he jumps in, that'll be the water removed from the dock in a oner!
11 Posted 24/09/2020 at 19:05:10
12 Posted 24/09/2020 at 19:09:32
The place as it stands, or before we expressed an interest, is a dump, and has been for quite some time. I know from experience because a friend of mine who has since passed, had a boat moored there in the dock while he was refurbishing it. I did a lot of the mechanical and electrical work on the boat – and that was 30 years or so ago!
If English Heritage were that interested in the site, they wouldn't have let it go to rack and almost ruin. Why is it that, now we have not only submitted plans for a total facelift with the new Stadium, but the whole area will receive a boost and also look so different to it's decaying hitherto existence?
13 Posted 24/09/2020 at 19:45:07
Not that it will make a jot of difference; the "air con exhaust" will get the go-ahead.
14 Posted 24/09/2020 at 19:45:47
15 Posted 24/09/2020 at 20:07:28
The integration of differing, contradictory yet complementary styles is what the truly great architects can achieve. Large structures like the stadium cause less shock and impact on large open sites like the dock, but there's the future to consider too. Many factors.
The world being as crazy as it is now though, if the stadium when built managed to look exactly as if it was erected in the heyday of the docks, there would be accusations of lack of imagination, anti-progressive thinking etc.
What's going on now is just the standard dance that accompanies any similar project today. Hopefully the outcome will be to go ahead – it usually is.
16 Posted 24/09/2020 at 20:11:11
17 Posted 24/09/2020 at 20:16:20
There is a clear and obvious conflict between having a World Heritage Site for the much-vaunted waterfront that includes a series of docks, with the dock walls themselves protected by a Grade II listing, and a developer coming along, filling in the dock, so those listed and protected dock walls are to be totally buried.
If you look at the carefully worded statement they made, the 'out' for the planning committee – and the Secretary of State if it is called in – is already provided:
“Due to the impact of the proposals on a World Heritage Site, which has the highest level of heritage protection and is internationally significant, we regrettably think that this application should be determined by the Secretary of State and will ask for it to be called in for his determination. We have also advised that the application should be refused, unless the decision-maker concludes that the public benefits would outweigh the damage to Bramley-Moore dock and the harm to the World Heritage Site which the proposals would cause.”
I will be surprised if this is not how it plays out, and the 'public benefits' argument that everyone has made wins out – especially after the "Build, Build, Build" call from Boris.
18 Posted 24/09/2020 at 20:39:59
19 Posted 24/09/2020 at 20:54:48
I agree with Michael that they have to do what their constitution requires but surely as they are an NGO and a registered charity with an income of just over £100m pa a little pragmatism would be in order.
Even if they were to preserve the dock walls, how much of them would be visible and enhance the Liverpool dockland experience.
20 Posted 24/09/2020 at 21:30:35
I do agree moreover the repurposed dock buildings more than suffice in maintaining the historical integrity of the area.
As Michael points out, these people are simply fulfilling a brief and the caveat he quotes will see it through hopefully to kick start a transformation of the entire area.
21 Posted 24/09/2020 at 21:55:52
22 Posted 24/09/2020 at 22:09:44
As Michael points out, English Heritage are being very, very careful to not kill the development altogether.
If you look at this cynically, it smells of a brown envelope to the Secretary of State! Pay the dude / lady off under the table and get 'er done!
I'm not serious ^.
23 Posted 24/09/2020 at 22:38:02
Take HS2 Phase 1 for example. Regardless of whether or not it's a good idea, it really shouldn't take 24 years (from inception to completion) to build 100 miles of railway!
As for the question of brown envelopes – I doubt Everton themselves would do anything illegal but I'm sure Mr Moshiri and his team have contacts in positions of power. Always helps to have friends in high places, as they say.
24 Posted 25/09/2020 at 01:24:52
At every turn, these clowns are blocking his efforts. Example: they insist that the dining room oak panelling remains untouched due to it being ‘of historical import!' This, after he has proved that it was constructed in 1952!
Utter tossers to a man/woman.
25 Posted 25/09/2020 at 02:40:49
26 Posted 25/09/2020 at 03:56:53
I had a look at the “MEAS Response Memo". Going by the first paragraph, either someone has made a major blooper or we are in for a pleasant surprise?
“This planning application. The proposals comprises involve infilling/partial infilling of BMD, demolition of non-listed structures, partial demolition of listed structures; construction of 60,000 seater gstadium with retail, museum, ancillary offices, betting shop, associated facilities, concourse, 900 space car park, footways and public realm.“
27 Posted 25/09/2020 at 04:30:56
28 Posted 26/09/2020 at 11:43:36
It seems there is to be further consultation on the modified plans now presented to the Council. I would urge all readers of ToffeeWeb to submit to the Council their continued support for the new stadium so that they and others can be in no doubt that the scheme has the wholehearted support of the club's supporters.
With the risk of call-in by the Secretary of State, as advocated English Heritage, whereby the application is recovered by the Government for their determination (ie, taking the decision out of the Council's hands) public support is vital. Bear in mind if the application is called-in all the documentation that attaches to this application must be presented to the Secretary of State. That includes all statements and documents received by the Council as part of the various rounds of consultation.
Call-in, if English Heritage have their way, would result in a Public Inquiry as I have previously outlined, and set the decision back at least 12 months. However, as Michael Kenrick rightly points out, the decision to call in will have to be taken with care since the Government have to weigh in the balance the risks to them politically of endangering the scheme and the loss of the wider social and economic benefits to the City.
29 Posted 26/09/2020 at 17:50:59
It's a filthy disgrace and the very air stinks.
This is the real heritage of the docks, not the phoney worker's heaven portrayed by these unelected, alien bodies from outside Liverpool.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.