Unescos World Heritage committee meet for the 33rd session http://whc.unesco.org/ In Seville Spain from the 22nd-30th June 2009. High on the agenda is Liverpools State of Conservation
UNESCO World Heritage Committee DOCUMENT 2008
115. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom) (C 1150)
Decision: 32 COM 7B.115
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.121, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),
3. Notes the progress that has been made in developing supplementary planning guidance which will:
a) clearly establish and respect prescribed heights;
b) define the townscape characteristics, wider values (building density, urban patterns and materials) and sense of place;
c) suggest how design briefs can incorporate characteristics and qualities of the property,
4. Also notes that work has been undertaken to raise the profile of the property and inform the general public about its Outstanding Universal Value and its management;
5. Urges the State Party to complete and approve the Supplementary Planning Document as soon as possible;
6. Encourages the State Party to supplement this Supplementary Planning Document with the development of strategic plans for the overall townscape and for the skyline and river front – as highlighted by the 2006 Reactive Monitoring mission and reinforced by the comments of the Urban Panel – in order to achieve the highest quality and to ensure sustainable development; Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, an update report on progress made on the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.
UNESCO World Heritage Committee DOCUMENT 2007
31COM 7B.21 - Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom) (C 1150)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decision 30 COM 7B.93, adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006),
3. Notes the conclusions of the World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to the property of October 2006 and in particular that the outstanding universal value of the site is not threatened although a number of visual integrity as well as management issues have been raised, including the:a) Overall management of new developments;b) Lack of analysis and description of the townscape characteristics relevant to theOutstanding Universal Value of the property and important views related to the property and its buffer zone;c) Lack of clearly established maximum heights for new development, for the backdrops of the World Heritage areas as well as along the waterfront;d) Lack of awareness of developers, building professionals and the wider public about the World Heritage property, its outstanding universal value and requirements under the World Heritage Convention;
4. Also notes the State Party’s report and its reference to the Management Plan of 2004 and specifically requests the State Party to:a) clearly establish and respect prescribed heights;b) adhere to the townscape characteristics, wider values (building density, urban patterns and materials) and sense of place;c) inform the general public about the outstanding universal value of the property and its management;
5. Regrets that the Design Briefs for new development do not take into account the Outstanding Universal Value, integrity and authenticity of the property, and requests the State Party to fully take them into account in future briefs;
6. Further notes that further guidance is required on the definitions of the conditions of integrity for cultural properties as indicated in Chapter II E (Paragraph 89 footnote) of the Operational Guidelines, and requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to work together towards the explanatory text for inclusion at the next revision of the Operational Guidelines;
7. Welcomes the offer of the United Kingdom to support the elaboration of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape with a case study analysis;
8. Also requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre with an updatereport by 1 February 2008 on progress made on a stricter planning control, a set of supplementary planning documents and a timetable for the implementation of theworks for examination by the Committee at its 32nd session in 2008.
Original Decision Document
Other InformationThemes: N/AProperties: Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City
SENT TO UNESCO
Dear Dr Rossler, Dear All,
We have for a long while thought that Unesco is not interested in Liverpool and is going through the motions.The ongoing desecration of Liverpools World Heritage Site is too painful for us here and we feel you have abandoned us to our fate.
We as a group decided that the Supplementary Development plan was a waste of time as most of the damage has been done. It is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Preparing this document are the perpetrators of the disaster the city council and its planners, that is not a very clever thing to do. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/ we have tried to inform the public.
Unesco asked that this document be debated in public. This has not happened in fact if it was not for us no-one would know of the document.It apears the City Council do not want a debate. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/06/liverpool-world-heritage-disaster.html todays headlines. We see no point in Unesco discussing the SPD unless another look at what is happenig to Liverpool is done by Unesco.
A return of the mission.
Maybe at the WHC 33rd session there could be an attemt to focus by revisiting the site. I am afraid to say nothing else will do.
Wayne Colquhoun Chairman and Spokesperson
Not Me, Guv - In a letter to the “Echo”, Mayor Anderson states unequivocally that it is not the business of the council to get involved between private companies. For on...