Factorsaffecting the property identified in previous reports
Governance: Lack of overall management of new developments
High impact research/monitoring activities: Lack of analysis and description of the townscape characteristics relevant to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and important views related to the property and its buffer zone
Legal framework: Lack of established maximum heights for new developments along the waterfront and for the backdrops of the World Heritage property
Social/cultural uses of heritage
Buildings and development: Commercial development, housing, interpretative and visitor facilities
Lack of adequate management system/management plan
Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.93, 37 COM 7A.35, 38 COM 7A.19, 39 COM 7A.43, 40 COM 7A.31, 41 COM 7A.22 and42 COM 7A.7 adopted at its 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012), 37th (Phnom Penh, 2013), 38th (Doha, 2014), 39th (Bonn, 2015), 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017) and 42nd (Manama, 2018) sessions respectively;
Acknowledges the increasing engagement of civil society in the care of the property and its World Heritage status;
Recalls its repeated serious concerns over the impact of the proposed Liverpool Waters developments in the form presented in the approved Outline Planning Consent (2013-2042) which constitutes an ascertained threat in conformity with paragraph 179 of the Operational Guidelines;
Although noting that the State Party has submitted an updated and revised draft Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR), notesthat comprehensive assessment of the proposed DSOCR by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies is still not feasible, as the approval of the DSOCR relies on the content of additional documents, which are yet to be prepared or finalized, including the Local Plan, the revised Supplementary Planning Document, the majority of the Neighbourhood Masterplans, and the Tall Building (skyline) Policy;
Reiterates that the submission of a further draft of the DSOCR by the State Party and its adoption by the Committee should come prior to the finalization and approval of the necessary planning tools and regulatory framework and regrets that the alternative proposal of the Committee, expressed in Decision 42 COM 7A.7, for substantive commitments to limitation on the quantity, location and size of allowable built form, has not been followed;
Although also noting that Peel Holdings (Liverpool Waters developer) reiterated its confirmation to Liverpool City Council (LCC) that there is no likelihood of the Liverpool Waters development scheme coming forward in the same form of the Outline Planning Consent, strongly requests the commitment of the State Party that the approved Outline Planning Consent (2013-2042) will not be implemented by Peel Holdings or other developers, and its revised version will not propose interventions that will impact adversely on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, including its authenticity and integrity;
Expresses its extreme concern that the State Party has not complied with the Committee’s request to adopt a moratorium for new buildings within the property and its buffer zone, until the Local Plan, the revised Supplementary Planning Document, the Neighbourhood Masterplans, and the Tall Building (skyline) Policy are reviewed and endorsed by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, and the DSOCR is completely finalized and adopted by the World Heritage Committee, and urges the State Party to comply with this request;
Also regrets that the submission of Princes Dock Masterplan and changes to the Liverpool Water scheme to the World Heritage Centre took place after their adoption by the LCC, and expresses its utmost concernthat these documents are putting forward plans, which does not ensure the adequate mitigation of the potential threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
Also reiterates its consideration that the recent planning permissions issued for the Liverpool Waters scheme and elsewhere within the property and its buffer zone, and the stated inability of the State Party to control further developments, clearly reflect inadequate governance systems and planning mechanisms that will not allow the State Party to comply with Committee Decisions and will result in ascertained threat on the OUV of the property;
Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2020, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 44th session in 2020, as well as a DSOCR and corrective measures that could be considered for adoption by the Committee;
Decidesto retain Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) on the List of World Heritage in Danger, with a view to considering its deletion from the World Heritage List at its 44th session in 2020, if the Committee Decisions related to the adoption of the DSOCR and the moratorium for new buildings are not met.
Just months after it was announced that
Chanel 4 would not be locating its news service to Liverpool. The
Littlewoods building touted as being a new digital media centre for
the film industry in Liverpool is torched.
The developers say they were about to
create The Dream factory. Only now its a nightmare.
At the time there were angry and nasty
comments from councillors towards Chanel 4, including vile comments
from the Mayor.
Now Littlewoods goes up in flames. Its
a disgrace. This was a fine Art Deco structure that was in good
condition that just needed a bit of care with a sympathetic scheme.
The whole area was crying out for this to happen.
The Luftwaffe missed it, well they may
have got a bit of it.
But now its been torched. Police have
Now its in a worse condition than if
Goering had of got it.
Questions need to be asked as to why
there is a frequent event of buildings going up in flames in
Liverpool......just as they are about to be redeveloped.
Wolthamstone square is a recent one
that springs to mind.
Part of that caught light by
combustion, on its own, allegedly without any help.
Oh yes tell us another one. Just like
the other one.
Owned by one of Joe Anderson's mates
Eliot, it allegedly caught fire in the middle of the night. Its now
set to become, guess what, Student Flats.
We have worked long and hard to bring
this structure The Littlewoods Building the old Pools Headquarters to
the attention of the public, not just locally but nationally. And now
the whole country knows about it. For all the wrong reasons.
The owner or a representative from
Capital and Centric was on BBC lunchtime news saying the scheme will
Only now the job will be easier.
Joe Anderson crying his crocodile tears
saying he is heartbroken will now say we need to get it up and
running and redeveloped.
And it will now be an easier, and a
cheaper job to carry out
And will it have a big ugly carbuncle
stuck on the top of it?
Replacing the lack of a torched roof
that isn't there anymore?
That's where the cash is, in building
upwards just like Lawrence Kenwright another mate of Joe Anderson
did, on The Shankly Hotel, in the town centre.
Because that's what Liverpool does,
creates eyesores where there was beauty.
They have already developed part of the
Littlewoods site called The Bunker.
Yes we all need tin hats on in this
area. Its like a war zone now.
Incidentally we wrote about The real
Bunker on the Littlewoods Site that had period murals on the walls, a
piece of Liverpool history from the blitz a real bunker.
What happened to that? No one seems to
The police will need to investigate how
a fire started in an empty building and then spread like wildfire of
a Sunday when Joe Andersons Fire Brigade cutbacks that he blames the
Tories for is at its most acute.
He blamed cutbacks for losing the car
park next to the Oldham Echo Arena.
So why was the fire not brought under
control more quickly.
The fire brigade say they responded
quickly. Well not quick enough.
How many appliances were on the site
within 5 minutes?
Six appliances were not enough.
Will there be any evidence?? The fire
brigade say it was arson.
One of the by passers says he heard an
There will be no recriminations by the
council they will just accept it and move on like they did when the
boathouse in Sefton Park was torched and they built a modern building
in its place.
Easier than restoring a new one.
Then we will wait for the next historic
building that goes on fire or is accidentally knocked down by a
Couldn't the developers even spent the
minimum wage to employ a cocky watchman.
Or did they, and where was he?
How did an arsonist get in the
This building should be taken off the
CPO'd like what happened to the rest of
We never nominated this year 2018
Nomination The Shankly Hotel Liverpool......we got beat to it.
The beautifully detailed lead roofed, Louis XVth Style end of the block, with its Corinthian pilasters and its beautifully designed sculptures had already been butchered by the council to some extent for Millenium House.
But nothing could have anticipated what landed, on the top of the block.
The rooftop extension was constructed
illegally by Kenwright as boss of Signature Living who seems to believe his own hype.
He then was
made to submit a retrospective planning application after numerous
complaints about him flouting the planning laws.
Mates with Fat Joe it was sure to be
Signature Living have threatened BD
with legal action for what he called libellous comments.
Some people cant bear to hear the
truth, and the truth is that this publicity seeking individual who
runs the organisation is out of control, not only in his own mind, he
always was a architectural disaster waiting to happen.
If he is not stopped he will help
enable the city to be judged by the hen parties who are unfortunate enough to stay at his
hotels as a blight on the city and the great heritage that we once
Oh hang on most of them are that pissed when they get here they
struggle to find his hotel.
This particular block styled as a flat
iron to fit on the site was sold to Kenwright by Liverpool City
Council, so they have to uphold his attempts at becoming Bob the
Builder so they don't look even more stupid than they are.
How many deals are done under the
counter these days by the Oligarchs who run the council?
How does Bob the Blunderer get away
with providing such boring space and then getting it passed by the
What is unquestionable is that
Liverpool is now a architectural mess. If you don't like it don't read
on. The waterfront is an architectural abortion and Liverpool retains
its infamous badge of being on The World Heritage 'In Danger' list.
The clowns at the council run by Fat
Joe are the least able people to judge architecture. So they should
not be passing anything that hits the planning table.
The laughing stock that Liverpool is
becoming in architectural circles, among those who can bear to look
at the abomination that has happened is staying silent right now.
They are scared to open their mouths for fear of being unpatriotic to
the great city.
The more of you you that don't wake up
to reality and show your mentality the more you will have people like
Kenwright writing the articles for the Liverpool Echo and thus
pulling the wool over the thick people who read it.
Lets hope The Shankly Hotel Extension
wins the Carbuncle Cup award not only as a justified winner but as an
example of what is befalling a city that now looks worse than when we
had no investment. That is covered in high rise student flat
Only an Evertonian could do this, with
the help of the Shankly family we have to add.
We think Bill Shankly will be turning
in his grave.
October 2006: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Reactive
Monitoring mission; November 2011: joint World Heritage Centre /
ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; February 2015: joint World
Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Advisory mission
affecting the property identified in previous reports
Governance: Lack of overall management of newdevelopments
impact research/monitoring activities: Lack of analysis and
description of the townscape characteristics relevant to the
Outstanding Universal Value of the property and important views
related to the property and its bufferzone
framework: Lack of established maximum heights for new developments
along the waterfront and for the backdrops of the World Heritageproperty
and development: Commercial development, housing, interpretative and
On 31 January 2018, the State Party transmitted a state of
conservation report, which is available at
as well as a proposed Desired state of conservation for the
removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
(DSOCR) and a set of corrective measures.Following dialogue with the
World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, the State Party
transmitted on 26 April 2018 a revised draft DSOCR and set of
corrective measures. The report and the revised draft DSOCR provide
information on the following issues:
A proposed interpretation and communication strategy
focused on positive stories of heritage-led regeneration and on
raising awareness of the benefits of World Heritage status on
tourism, the economy andwell-being;
Adoption of the Management Plan by the Mayor’s
Planning Document (SPD) for inclusion in the draft LocalPlan;
A draft of the Local Plan expected to be submitted for
public examination in May2018;
England, and developers to ensure that planning decisions are
informed by Heritage Impact Assessments(HIA);
CreationofaMayoralTaskForceofindependentexpertstoprovideadvicethatwillassistinavoiding the removal of the property from the
Commitment of all stakeholders and increasing
engagement of civil society, in particular Engage Liverpool and
Additional measures taken to reinforce planning
permission procedure, including required neighbourhoodmasterplansdetailingdevelopmentbriefsthatre-setmaximumheightsforindividual
plots and measures to ensure the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)
of the property and heritage assets are protected and enhanced
including views from, within and to theproperty;
for Central Dock currently under preparation and being guided by the
Historic Urban Landscape (HUL)approach.
The report indicates also that in the opinion of the State Party, the
developments within Liverpool Waters to date have not caused harm to
the OUV and that Peel Holdings (the Liverpool Waters developer) will
not fully implement the illustrative masterplan that accompanied the
2013 planning consent. The report further underlines that no planning
permissions for developments that may have a negative impact have
been allowed other than the outline consent for Liverpool Waters,
which have been guided by the 2009 SPD to be revised in 2018.The
DSOCR seeks to ensure that corrective measures that prevent potential
harm in the future to OUV are put in place.
Analysis and Conclusions of the World
Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM
The January 2018 DSOCR and its revision (April 2018) following ICOMOS
Technical review (March 2018) offer a significant improvement in
approach and direction relative to previous draft DSOCR iterations.
The DSOCR outlines overall attributes of the property, which
contribute to its OUV, and acknowledges the importance of their
protection, as well as the significance of the context of the
property and its Buffer Zone. Seven objectives are set out as the
‘Desired state of conservation for removal’, followed by 10
proposed corrective measures, together with a timeline for their
implementation and proposed progress indicators.
It is promising that Peel Holdings (Liverpool Waters developer) has
recently confirmed to LCC that there is no likelihood of the scheme
coming forward in the same form of the Outline Planning Consent
(2013- 2042), and a new master planning process has started taking
heritage considerations into account including HUL approach.
The proposed DSOCR provides a clear indication of intent by the State
Party; however, as the State Party has itself foreshadowed, the DSOCR
and corrective measures are not yet complete and therefore not in a
form that might be considered for adoption by the Committee, as
requested in Decision 41COM 7A.22.
Specifically, the current draft DSOCR does not yet incorporate
sufficient specific commitment regarding development controls
(including specific view line and skyline controls) and reduction to
the existing outline planning permission to remove the threats to the
authenticity and integrity (and therefore to the OUV) of the
property. The DSOCR, as currently proposed, relies heavily on future
guideline documents, which are still in preparation, namely, the
Local Plan, the Neighbourhood Masterplans, the height (‘skyline’)
policy, and the proposed revision to the SPD. Therefore, in order to
carry out a full assessment of the adequacy of the proposed DSOCR, it
is necessary to assess the content of these documents and to
establish a clear commitment by the State Party to limit the
quantity, location and size of allowable built form, as specifically
requested in Decision 41 COM7A.22.
In order for the World Heritage Committee to consider approving a
final DSOCR, the State Party should consider an alternative process
that involves: 1) defining first the specific desired outcome to
which the Local Plan, the height (‘skyline’) policy, the SPD and
neighbourhood masterplans could then be aligned and, 2) that these
documents be then reviewed together with the proposed DSOCR. Those
documents would need to be reviewed and agreed by the World Heritage
Centre and ICOMOS before they are endorsed by the relevant State
Party agencies and adopted by LCC. Furthermore, it is recommended
that the Committee reiterate its previous request to the State Party
to adopt a moratorium for new buildings within the property and its
buffer zone, until the DSOCR is completely finalized and approved.
Draft Decision: 42 COM 7A.7
The World Heritage Committee,
Recalling Decisions 37 COM 7A.35,
38 COM 7A.19, 39 COM 7A.43,
40 COM 7A.31, and 41 COM 7A.22,
adopted at its 37th (Phnom Penh, 2013), 38th (Doha, 2014), 39th
(Bonn, 2015), 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016) and 41st (Krakow,
2017) sessions respectively,
Recalls that it has repeatedly expressed
its serious concerns over the impact of the proposedLiverpoolWatersdevelopmentsintheformpresentedintheapprovedOutline
Acknowledges the increasing engagement of
civil society in the care of the World Heritage property and its
status, in particular the organization “EngageLiverpool”;
Although noting that the State Party has
proposed a draft Desired state of conservation for the removal of
the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR),
including a set of corrective measures, a timeframe for
implementation, as well as indicators; also notes
that comprehensive assessment of the proposed DSOCR by the World
Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies is not feasible at this
stage, as the DSCORisnotyetcompleteandreliesonthecontentofadditionaldocuments,whichare yet to be
prepared by the State Party,including the
Local Plan, the revised Supplementary Planning Document, the
neighbourhood masterplans, and the height (‘skyline’)policy;
Liverpool City Council that there is no likelihood of the scheme
coming forward in the same form of the Outline Planning Consent, and
that Peel Holdings is undertaking a comprehensive review of the
scheme and drawing up new neighbourhood masterplans taking full
account of heritage considerations and recorded commentary by the
ReiteratesitspreviousrequesttotheStatePartytoadoptamoratoriumfornewbuildings within the
property and its buffer zone, until the
Local Plan, the revised Supplementary PlanningDocument,theneighbourhoodmasterplans,andtheheight(‘skyline’)policyare all carefully reviewed and endorsed
by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, and the DSOCR
is completely finalized and approved by the World Heritage
Requests the State Party to submit to the World
Heritage Centre, the Local Plan, the revised Supplementary Planning
Document, the neighbourhood masterplans, andthe
height (skyline) policy, or any other relevant document, for
preliminary examination by the World Heritage Centre and the
AlsorequeststheStatePartytosubmittotheWorldHeritageCentreby1February2019 a revised DSOCR and a report on the
state of conservation of the property for examination by the World
Heritage Committee at its 43rd session in 2019 and, in this context,recallsitspositionexpressedinDecision41COM7A.22-Paragraph11,incase
the State Party doesnot:
Some India Buildings shopkeepers
recently asked Nick Small if he would meet with them as they were
having a horrid time. This was because of the inefficient and
ineffectual builders that saw the pavements blocked and at least 10
holes dug in the streets outside their shops. The landlords seemed to
be controlling this as if on purpose. To make thinks more difficult
for the traders.
Nick Small is the assistant Mayor of
We heard that the builders had bought
the streets around India Buildings from the council for a year.
Buying out all the parking bays and having Fenwick Street closed.
This seemed one of the reasons why all the local shopkeepers were
Business was down significantly. Customers could not get
to their shops.
He did not willingly wish to get
involved. It was only when the Mayors office got a call that he
arranged to come out and see those shopkeepers, struggling in his
He turned up 30 minutes late and one
shopkeeper had to leave right away as they had an appointment booked.
Then right from the off he started
shouting at the small business owners who were worried about their
livelihoods and wished to talk to him.
He was taken into Mr Gazali's
newsagent, City News. This poor guy is being stripped of his ability
to trade by the pavements being closed. There were obstructions and
numerous signs blocking the way people walk.
The council had placed signs in a most
inappropriate way, that did more to hinder movement than assist.
The main sign was a massive one saying
Small Businesses Open As Usual.
This was blocking the Merseyrail
Water Street entrance.
That sign was, in the way. To make
things worse the council placed several more signs in front of it
with arrows marking that pedestrians should walk around........ the
signs that did not really seem to be in the right place anyhow.
We are advised that there
did not seem to be anyone thinking about the situation at all. There
were holes in the pavements. One of the contractors fell in one.
Just have a word with this poor guy he
was asked may not be here that long if it continues like this.
When told of his plight he proclaimed,
in a drunken tone.
“Well we will get other shops in here
when the building is done up”
He went into City News along with
another shopkeeper and he insulted them.
The shopkeeper spoke English as a
second language and luckily for him, he did not get the full gist of
“I cant see what the problem is” he
said “The newsagents was busy then when I went in” he was heard
to say out loud. One shopkeeper walked off disgusted with him.
He was not interested at all. He had
another agenda, and it was not to help.
Or even listen to people who had paid
rates for decades. A random member of the public told him “I walk
here everyday and this is dangerous” he said “People are walking
out into the road right from the station entrance. People walk in a
way they are used to.”
He then started arguing with them. The
man went after being bemused.
He created an argument in the street,
defending the developers.
The newsagent was evicted two weeks
later and the other shopkeeper has been forced out by the despicable
Landlord of India Buildings.
Developing more than just
buildings.Developing more than just buildings.
We at Shelborn Asset Management are committed to enhancing the
value of our clients’ investments through proactive management,
income growth and property development. We identify opportunities
that are under performing and utilise our skills to unlock the
We can think of another way to describe them. And it wont sound nice.
Here we see the treatment of another small shopkeeper that Worthington Owen worked on in tandem with Shelborn Asset Management Ltd.
They even moved into the building, India Buildngs in Water Street, to befriend all the people there.
Slithering amongst them, smiling, cracking jokes. While all along wanting to shut their shop.
They even bought sweets and cigarettes there. While all along they wanted this mans shop In India Buildings. But it is not they wish to develop that is the problem its the totally disgusting and disrespectful manner that they treat these small shopkeepers that is a disgrace.
This shop had been part of the community they wrecked his business.
And its the way they do this wrecking which is unbelievable. There are no ifs and buts here they stink. They behave in a way that should be reported to the police for its viscous intensity and greed.
You have to beg the question. What do
their wives think of the way they are afforded a lifestyle of luxury
in the big money property dealing world of high finace?
When they are off on their flash
holidays or buying posh handbags do they stop to think where the money
And what of the Rackmans incarnate The
Rabinowitz pair of father and son. Maybe the father is to blame.
How could you bring your son up to
spread misery on so many people without any care and consideration
for their families? For money.
What of the redundancies that they
What of the children who dont get a
Christmas present or even a meal.
How many people have they put on the
We are now hearing of a long line of
misery that has been brought about by greed, and deciet by dodgy
tactics and they have been representing household names with
shareholder. Such as the HMRC.
The partnership of Worthington Owen and Shelborn needs to be brought to the attention of the authorities. How can they behave this way on behalf of HMRC. Evicting people who pay their taxes.
Read more here soon.
Have you been affected by tactics of
Worthington Owen in Liverpool or further afield?
We are now looking into the relationship with Liverpool City Council and its Councillors.
Have you been shafted by the Shelborn
Asset Management Ltd?
Or any of the previous companies (and there are
quite a few) that Brian Rabinowitz has been a director of. Such as
the offshore tax avoiding MARWEES Ltd.
Shelborn Asset Management Ltd https://www.shelborn.com/are the asset managers for
MARWEES LTD. the offshore tax avoidance company that were registered
in The Virgin Islands. Then Guernsey.
Who it seems have just made 50 million quid
out of the HMRC. Out of the taxpayers. Yet they couldn't treat this man with respect.
We feel the HMRC are doing a deal with
companies that operate as no more than thugs in suits.
MARWEES bought India Buildings for 17
million and then managed, somehow, to get the HMRC involved in
relocating to one of Liverpool's historic gems. Yet they send a locksmith in to evict CITY NEWS who are just trying to survive.
We have a Labour Council doing business
with tax......avoiders. For want of a better word.
Can you believe
it. They have let these developers run riot in the area of India Buildings. CITY NEWS was once a news vendor sitting alongside India Buildings and when Carol Group bought the building in the 80's they did the decent thing and gave him a shop because he was located where they wanted to build a ramp.
Now we know the area needs lifting but
what about Liverpool's historic structures. India Buildings and Holts
Arcade was recently upgraded to Grade II* by English Heritage. Then
they set about destroying it. English Heritage have passed the
planning decisions to Liverpool planners who are using Joe Anderson's
DELEGATED POWERS to wack it through for the developers. There is a
campaign to keep it open. While they are trashing their way through the people who have been paying their business rated for decades.
When the property was purchased all the
staff, some of who had been there for over 30 years were made to sign
away their rights.
The TUPE law that protects staff from dodgy
employers tactics was totally disregarded. They found some section in the law that allows them to avoid respecting people who work for or with them.
Those rights were
laughed at by Shelborn and the associate company Shield run by Gavin,
Mark Rabinowitz old mate, who signed them up for a new deal and
subsequently shifted them out to Exchange Flags another property that
Where they are also running wild.
All this under the noses of Labour
Councillors. Betty Braddock will be turning in her grave.
Nick Small is the local councillor.
Now this may all have been done
legally. But it stinks of immorality. How can staff complain when they
would be sacked and have no wages with which to pay the rent. There
was nobody there to protect them from immorality.
Then Shelborn Asset Management and the
paymasters MARWEES Ltd set about doing a deal with Legal and General and the property arm of this listed company who agreed to
cough up about a hundred million pounds. That deal may now have been
That seems a clear profit after costs
to to all the work, of at least £50,000,000.
That's fifty millions pounds of profit
to a offshore company and we the public are paying for the privilidge
through our taxes. That go around treating people like dirt.
Why did the HMRC not buy it themselves
and spend £30,000,000 for the works and we the public would save
Legal and General have just completed
the deal and Shelborn are still retained as asset managers that's very
bad news for the locality.
Meanwhile all around the property the
existing businesses have been treated like dirt. By scum.
Holes dug up and access restricted
making it unbearable to trade. Then big daddy Rabinowitz goes round
bullying the tenants with his big speak. “We will get you out” he
told one shopkeeper. “We will tie you up with legals” he says
like as if he's Dirty Harry. In reality there is only one word to
describe people like this, and it is just plain .....dirty. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/klFyK7HNkWJ7gTpqTZVjixtGDwY/appointments
How can they get away with this bully
tactics. How can they sleep at night.
Here the newsagents City News were
subjected to months of restrictions making it so difficult to
trade....while the shafters were trying to put the rent up.
Then while negotiating with them. He
locked them out.
What a disgrace.
They lulled the poor man into a false
sense of security, giving him hope, while all along they were
planning to shaft him so they could get more rent.
And it was done while he was in
Is this what Liverpool has become.
Where Investors and asset managers like
Shelborn get privilege over its citizens.
The Liverpool Preservation Trust Are a active group of people who care passionately about the Urban landscape of our Historic City and are fed up watching vested interests carve it up.
We are a reactive monitering force with a no-nonsense approach.
Written and edited by David Ward.