National Planning Policy Framework-It Does Protect Liverpool's World Heritage Site

National Planning Policy Framework-Just gone online today

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2115939.pdf
12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

126. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment,29 including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account:

●●the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

●●the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

●●the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and

●●opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

127. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest.
128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.

29 The principles and policies set out in this section apply to the heritage-related consent regimes for which local planning authorities are responsible under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as well as to plan-making and decision-taking.

Achieving sustainable development
31

131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

●●the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

●●the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

●●the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

●●the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

●●no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

●●conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

●●the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. 135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

32
National Planning Policy Framework

136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.
137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
138. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole.
139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.
140. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.30 However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

Do Peel Holdings Make Political Donations?

Have they funded the Conservative Party?
That is a question we are considering today.

Or indeed did they fund the Labour party?
We ask these questions because our local press wont ask any questions preferring to accept council press releases and run Joe Anderson's Mayoral campaign than engage in proper journalism making excuses for the laziness of their writing.
In the light of the recent reporting in the national press of how you can buy your way to the Prime Minister.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/26/david-cameron-donor-dinners-cash-access
We consider how it works on a regiona level.

Wayne advises me that he how he met with David Bartlett and told him that David Cameron was seen on a trade mission with John Whittaker of Peel Holdings, and his son. Despite the local press being paid for their trip to the Shanghai Expo 2010 not a mention of it was made in the local press.


He also spoke with him asking who are Peel Holdings, invisible, Chinese Investors that the Daily Ghost and its sister paper have built up. Stating Stella Shiu is a high ranking Chines Government Official without any evidence to support it.. http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/05/17/chinese-businesswoman-stella-shiu-behind-25m-wirral-international-trade-centre-plans-92534-28705937/ Can they be serious?
Yet http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299266/Communist-plot-Chinas-bid-grow-worlds-biggest-vegetables-help-British-gardener.html they all looked like a plant at the recent planning meeting, where we waved away our World Heritage Site, on the basis that these are the Chinese investors about to bring a fortune to the city!
This is what we asked. Who is Stella Shiu?
So is John Whittaker or any of his Peel Holdings subsiduaries funding David Cameron?
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/who-is-stella-shiu-and-who-are-peel.html
http://www.conservatives.com/Donate/Donor_Clubs.aspx This is the Tory Party website stating that unlike the Labour Party they are not funded by Trade Unions.

So just who are they funded by.

The Leader's Group (annual membership £50,000), described as the "premier supporter group" of the Conservative party, with members "invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches".

• The Treasurers' Group (£25,000), whose members are "invited to join senior figures from the Conservative party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches".
• The Renaissance Forum (£10,000), pitched at the party's "closest supporters to enjoy dinners and political debate with eminent speakers from the world of business and politics".
• The Front Bench Club (£5,000), whose members are given "the opportunity to meet and debate with MPs at a series of political lunches and receptions held throughout the year".
• The City and Entrepreneurs Forum (£2,500), aimed at professionals, executives and entrepreneurs to hold "discussions with leading industrialists, parliamentarians and prominent City figures".
• Team 2000 (£2,000): "The principal group of donors who support and market the party's policies in government, by hearing them first hand from the leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups".
• Fastrack (£250), for young professionals under 40 to attend networking and social events, with events hosted by "key figures in politics, business, industry, the arts and beyond".
• Party Patrons (£50 a month), for "committed Conservative supporters" who are prepared to support campaigning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/26/cash-for-access-cameron-meetings-donors?intcmp=239

Is David Bartlett Running Joe Anderson's Mayoral Campaign?

He hasn't done too badly of late, well, while we have been feeding him the documents on World Heritage that, he no doubt will win another award for.
But has Bobby Bartlett, at the now close to extinct Daily Ghost, recently been reverting to type.
They say that most journalists have the shape of water and they follow the the shape of the vessel they are contained within.
Today's front page is a declaration of what the intrepid Council leader, Our Joe, cue the trumpets unfurl the flags, will do for us.   http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news//tm_headline=liverpool-international-migration-centre-plans-announced-to-help-trace-ancestors-who-left-for-americas%26method=full%26objectid=30597432%26siteid=100252-name_page.html
What they fail to mention is that he is the biggest threat to Liverpool's skyline since Herman Goerring and his Lufftwaffe.
Bartlett writes on Anderson's behalf
PLANS to create an international migration centre (IMC) to celebrate Liverpool’s role as a gateway to the Americas were due to be announced today.

In a speech today Cllr Anderson was expected to say: “We need to continue to develop a game-changing programme of events and develop a new way of working that defines the city’s ambition and vision.
“Our success has not made us complacent. The economic climate has not diminished our ambition. In fact it has made us more imaginative, more innovative.”

He hasn't even made the speech yet. But Bartlet is giving him a big hurrah the day before!!!!!!!!!

But what is alarming is the claim that Barack Obama's ancestors passed through the port.
Stinky Ink writes;

The immigrants who passed through Liverpool include the ancestors of famous Americans such as President Barack Obama, Tom Cruise, Hillary Clinton, and John F Kennedy.

Now everyone knows that no slaves were landed in the port of Liverpool.......well except those at the Daily Ghost and Joe Anderson, and more precisly Marc Waddington who last week put us back years in the attempt to stop the vandalism of St James Church in Toxteth.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/st-james-church-liverpools-heritage-at.html
While we are trying to alert people to the fact that they want to build on the graveyard of a listed building. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/english-heretics.html
You really have to STOP THE ROT at the Liverpool Echo.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/03/13/45m-toxteth-regeneration-to-include-uk-s-first-slave-trade-victims-memorial-100252-30517431/
Waddington again with another Joe Anderson advertorial writes, if you could call it that;
Toxteth is in line for a major transformation worth £47m – including the UK’s first monument to victims of the slave trade.
The massive project will see St James Church on the corner of Upper Parliament Street and Park Road refurbished, and an “African Garden of Remembrance” placed in the graveyard in recognition of the many slaves who were buried there.
The council hopes the monument will be a “major pilgrimage attraction bringing tourists and particularly religious sightseers from America, the Caribbean and West Africa”.
Waddington should be ashamed of this ill informed style of writing that does no good to anyone except Joe Anderson.

Its very worrying indeed.
Meanwhile Private Eye's 'Piloti' has Mr Anderson covered again its a shame those at the Daily Peel don't read it.

Warren Bradley-You Liar

Why does Liverpool have such a history of bad leadership is it something in the water at the Town Hall. Is there a tradition of dirty polititicians who think they can get away with it.

Warren Bradley who sold out the first tranche of the world heritage site has been charged with perjury.

It is claimed a tragedy by some local commentators. But the real tragedy is that we had to endure this dispicable character for years.

Is it true he was placed in power by Clever Trevor Jones and Mike Storey so they could do what they want?

Picture Warren Bradley "I tell them this long"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/excouncil-leader-warren-bradley-fined-for-perjury-7575640.html Here is what the independent has to say.

Bradley defended the other criminal at the Fib-Dems in Liverpool when he was convicted, Steve Hurst is now a outcast. http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/councillor-steve-hurst-steps-down-good.html

Oh! and Whatever happened to Bernie Turnip.

Who is Stella Shiu-And Who Are Peel Holdings Invisible Investors?

Our Friends at Liverpool Confidential have been doing sterling work of recent dates.
http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/The-Laz-Word-on-Peel-and-Liverpool-Waters  This was the last article that little Larry Neild did for the site.
He also followed up his work on his City Talk FM programme which goes out Sunday Morning 9am-10 am, always worth a listen.

Wayne has approached the local press and asked them who are Peel Holdings Investors?
As of yet no work has been done BY ANYONE to substantiate who they are.
Yet, on Liverpool Confidential this link has appeared

Kabo Tam Last Thursday at 6:05 AM.
I base in Liverpool, when I read the delegation brought by Chinese Lady Stella Shiu, when I google her, I found that she was bankrupt in 2008. The following is the link. Peel holding told the media that Stella Shiu will sponsor over £200 million for the construction. How?Kabo Tam Last Thursday at 12:40 PM.


The media also reported that she is the chairman of the multi-billiondollars company, I found that her company is only 3 million HK dollars capital, I think it is totally telling lies. She also claimed that she is the senior government official, when I checked with the Chinese government embasy office in UK, there is no Stella Shiu name. For such a huge project, why Peel holding has not done any checking before annoucing the totally wrong information. Lindsy Asworth totally telling lies to the public.
Kabo
http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/The-Laz-Word-on-Peel-and-Liverpool-Waters



pls browser http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/
, type "HBC 4234/2008" in "Quick Search for Case Number: " column and click "GO", then you can see the case details.
Sorry, type "HCB 4324/2008" is correct.

There are more questions tha that need to be answered.
NONE OF THEM ARE BEING ASKED BY THE LOCAL PRESS.

LIKE JUST WHO ARE PEEL HOLDINGS SO CALLED CHINESE INVESTORS?
THAT ARE ABOUT TO DESTROY LIVERPOOLS WORLD HERITAGE SITE?

LETS HAVE SOME INFORMATION.

e-petition Liverpool Waters.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30272



Protect Liverpools World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters
Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Due to the threat to a Unesco World Heritage Site from the development known as Liverpool Waters it would be most appropriate if the government "called in" this application for scrutiny.
Unesco say:
Mission’s Conclusion and Recommendation
The mission concludes that if the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme as outlined during the mission would be implemented, the World Heritage property would be irreversibly damaged, due to a serious deterioration of its architectural and town-planning coherence, a serious loss of historical authenticity, and an important loss of cultural significance. It strongly recommends that the three principal stakeholders, being Liverpool City Council, Peel Holdings and English Heritage, reconvene around the table.

The government must not let Liverpool lose its WHS status for a speculative scheme that lacks the skill to create a 21st century city that respects its heritage assetts.

A Monster Terrorising the Three Graces-Charles Clover Sunday Times

Maybe the penny is now starting to drop.

But what is the idle World Heritage Officer John Hinchliffe doing about it?

click on pics to expand

Liverpool Waters Plans nodded through by Peel's planning poodles.

Yes it was unanimous. You have seen those nodding dogs on the back parcelshelf of a 1979 Rover. Well imagine having ten of them sitting in the front of you as a planning committee, latching on to every word that the arrogant Lindsey Ashworth says, up and down they go nodding away with the promise of jobs.
Ashworth says in a after meeting video done by the Echo.

 "This is the end of the beginning". he says
Well it could well spell the beginning of the end for Liverpools World Heritage site.  http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/_services/ajax/ajax_controller.cfm?event=kyteURL&t=video&u=channels/408938/1618277

David Swift a true heritage campaigner and Wayne Colquhoun were interviewed after the meeting.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/_services/ajax/ajax_controller.cfm?event=kyteURL&t=video&u=channels/408938/1618381

Here is the full text of the meeting put online by Neil McDonald of the Echo digital team.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/03/06/liverpool-council-planning-committee-unanimously-approves-5bn-liverpool-waters-scheme-100252-30472608/

Do Peel Holdings Want Liverpools World Heritage Status Scrapped?

And will their land value for Liverpool's North Docks increase if it is scrapped?

"Protect Liverpool's World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters" sign the e-petition now




http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30272



Protect Liverpools World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters

Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Due to the threat to a Unesco World Heritage Site from the development known as Liverpool Waters it would be most appropriate if the government "called in" this application for scrutiny.
Unesco say:
Mission’s Conclusion and Recommendation
The mission concludes that if the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme as outlined during the mission would be implemented, the World Heritage property would be irreversibly damaged, due to a serious deterioration of its architectural and town-planning coherence, a serious loss of historical authenticity, and an important loss of cultural significance. It strongly recommends that the three principal stakeholders, being Liverpool City Council, Peel Holdings and English Heritage, reconvene around the table.
The government must not let Liverpool lose its WHS status for a speculative scheme that lacks the skill to create a 21st century city that respects its heritage assetts.

Call In Liverpool Waters says Liam Fogarty-Mayoral Candidate for Liverpool.

liam4liverpool


March 5th, 2012

Dear Secretary of State,
Tomorrow, Tuesday March 6th, the Planning Committee of Liverpool City Council will consider whether to grant planning permission to the huge Liverpool Waters scheme in the city's northern docklands.
Council officers are recommending that permission is given for site owners, Peel Holdings, to develop the first phase of the project to be built between now and 2016.
You will be aware that the scheme is highly controversial both because of its scale ( described by council officers as "unprecedented" and "beyond living experience") and its proximity to the Liverpool Waterfront World Heritage Site (WHS.)
Putting arguments about the possible threat to WHS status to one side, it is clear that the scheme proposed by Peel is indeed of international significance and could change the face of Liverpool for generations.
It is our civic leaders' duty not to be dazzled by developer "hype" or tempted to ignore the scheme's shortcomings in order to approve something - anything - on such a derelict site.
I believe that Liverpool Waters - and its sister scheme in Wirral - represent an out-dated model of global property development that was discredited once the credit crunch began to bite. Notions of building not just a “Dubai” but an “Abu Dhabi” on either side of the River Mersey are surely fanciful.
And the architectural quality of what is being proposed is, to put it mildly, debatable. English Heritage, CABE and Civic Voice have been highly critical of what's being proposed.
For my part, I believe that Peel's plans for Liverpool Waters are mediocre and soulless.
Liverpool is proud of its heritage of outstanding architecture. With Liverpool Waters we shouldn't be afraid to insist on the highest standards of design and sustainability, even if our Council won't.
If, as expected, Peel's application is approved then I would urge you to call in the scheme and subject it to a public enquiry.
Yours sincerely,

Liam Fogarty

Prospective Independent Candidate
Liverpool Mayoral Election 2012

Liverpool Confidential Take An Interest In Liverpool Waters.

Greater Manchester Doubtful Over Peel's Atlantic Gateway
Liverpool Confidential writes http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Greater-Manchester-Has-Doubts-Over-Peels-Atlantic-Gateway

The regional authorities need convincing over Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters schemes

---

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED ON OUR SISTER SITE PLACE NORTH WEST.

GREATER Manchester Combined Authority is likely to vote against a proposal by the new Atlantic Gateway Board to prioritise Liverpool and Wirral Waters (the latter pictured above) as major projects for economic growth, unless there is more 'robust evidence' in their favour.

"It will work constructively with the scheme sponsors and the Atlantic Gateway Board to test the information and the evidence base to establish whether Wirral and Liverpool Waters should be identified as projects of more than sub-regional significance, and thus major projects for Atlantic Gateway to support."

A paper put to the executive board meeting of the GM Combined Authority in Oldham was written by Mike Emmerich, chief executive of GM policy think-tank New Economy, and Barbara Spicer, chief executive of Salford City Council. The pair responded to a request from the Atlantic Gateway Board to elevate Peel Group's Liverpool and Wirral Waters as 'major projects' within Atlantic Gateway.

The Atlantic Gateway Board is a public-private group made up of local authority officers, councillors, private sector advisors, and chaired by former Manchester Airport boss Geoff Muirhead.

The board, which includes representatives from Greater Manchester, was formed in late 2011 to promote large infrastructure and innovation projects (see below for list of board members) planned for the area around the River Mersey, Manchester Ship Canal and hinterland. Many but not all of the projects are proposed by Peel Group. Others promoted include Daresbury Science & Innovation Campus and Northern Hub rail expansion.

Emmerich and Spicer recommend that "the [GM] Combined Authority does not support [Peel's] Wirral and Liverpool Waters schemes as priority projects for Atlantic Gateway until it can be satisfied" on three points.

The points are:

a) There is a robust evidence base to confirm market demand for such a significant amount of grade A commercial floor-space outside any city centre

b) It can be clearly demonstrated that the projects will deliver net added value to the region as a whole, across all three LEP areas

c) There is a clear deliverable investment plan in place that shows the level of private investment involved, and considers the costs and benefits of any public investment that may be required including infrastructure support

The report goes on: "The Combined Authority is concerned to ensure that at a time when public investment to support priorities is likely to be severely constrained, that the focus is on those projects which really can contribute to the region's GVA at the minimum cost to the public purse.

"It will work constructively with the scheme sponsors and the Atlantic Gateway Board to test the information and the evidence base to establish whether Wirral and Liverpool Waters should be identified as projects of more than sub-regional significance, and thus major projects for Atlantic Gateway to support."

Manchester City Council and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities have objected previously on similar economic grounds.

Liverpool Waters, currently pending planning and subject to opposition from English Heritage, would cover 150 acres of dockland north of the city centre. Wirral Waters has outline planning consent and envisages more than 6m sq ft of mixed-use development in Birkenhead docklands.

Peel declined to comment.

The board members of Atlantic Gateway are:

• Geoff Muirhead, private sector
• Dennis Bate, private sector
• John Downes, private sector
• Peter Nears, private sector
• Martin Douglas, private sector
• Roger Milburn, private sector and Greater Manchester LEP
• Steve O'Connor, private and Liverpool City Region LEP
• Martin Ashcroft, private and Cheshire & Warrington LEP
• Walter Menzies, voluntary sector - environmental representative
• Cllr John Merry, public sector, Association of Greater Manchester Authorities
• Cllr Rob Polhill , public sector, Liverpool City Region
• Cllr Terry O'Neill , public sector - Cheshire and Warrington

Larry Neild also write now that he has left the dreadful Aurora Media(once October communications) he may well be less comprimised and we congratulate him for getting out of the slime. http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Crunch-time-looms-for-Liverpool-Waters-after-Peel-ultimatum

"Protect Liverpools World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters" sign the e-petition now

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30272
Just gone live today please take some time to sign the petition on the basis of;

Protect Liverpools World Heritage Site from Liverpool Waters


Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport



Due to the threat to a Unesco World Heritage Site from the development known as Liverpool Waters it would be most appropriate if the government "called in" this application for scrutiny.

Unesco say:

Mission’s Conclusion and Recommendation
The mission concludes that if the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme as outlined during the mission would be implemented, the World Heritage property would be irreversibly damaged, due to a serious deterioration of its architectural and town-planning coherence, a serious loss of historical authenticity, and an important loss of cultural significance. It strongly recommends that the three principal stakeholders, being Liverpool City Council, Peel Holdings and English Heritage, reconvene around the table.

The government must not let Liverpool lose its WHS status for a speculative scheme that lacks the skill to create a 21st century city that respects its heritage assetts.

The Victorian Society Object To Liverpool Waters.

Buried in the annuls of the council planning file of Liverpool Waters is a document that has not been made public, a Victorian Society objection and that is before they have had a planning application for Jess Hartleys Dock Wall to be smashed open by the hole in the wall gang, the arrogant Peel Holdings.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2012/02/peel-holdings-submit-planning.html
This must mean every agency in the country and abroad if we include Unesco is against Liverpool Waters.
I noticed a comment on the Echo website yesterday that said
"Why is everyone saying the planners are going to pass the plans for Liverpool Waters, the planning committee are independent, aren't they or have they been bought"
Now this may seem unfair but what it says has some common sense.
Why is this planning application said to be a done deal. 

Liverpool Waters and the Liverpool World Heritage State of Conservation Report.

Prepared by DCMS (The UK State Party) dated 28th February 2012

Here is a link to a document produced by the DCMS at the request of Unesco.........by the 1st February.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/4168.aspx

This document goes on to outline how Liverpool Waters will seriously damage the OUV of the World Heritage Site.
It was only sent to 5 people one of those being the completely idle John Hinchliffe who will now try all he can to bury it for sure.

Here is an extract from pg
The UK Government welcomes this recognition of the progress made and the substantial amount of work involved in putting development strategies, planning procedures and management systems in place, largely reflecting the efforts of the City Council.


World Heritage sites in the UK are protected through specific national and local designations and the spatial planning system. National planning guidance on the historic environment (Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5)) emphasises the need to protect World Heritage properties as noted by the mission.

Since 2009, there has been a government planning circular in England specifically covering World Heritage (CLG Circular 07/09 The Protection of World Heritage Sites). This is supported by further English Heritage guidance, which has been endorsed by ministers. The Circular states:

• Statements of Outstanding Universal Value are key references for the effective protection and management of World Heritage Sites

• World Heritage Sites can also contribute to a national and local sense of community and to sustainable economic development and sustainable regeneration.

• Local authorities should have appropriate spatial planning policies to protect World Heritage properties which should aim to:

o protect the property and its setting, including any buffer zone, from inappropriate development,

o strike a balance between the needs of conservation, biodiversity, access, the interests of the local community and the sustainable economic use of the property in its setting

o protect a World Heritage Site from the effect of changes which are relatively minor but which, on a cumulative basis, could have a significant effect

o enhance the World Heritage Site where appropriate and possible through positive management

o protect World Heritage Sites from climate change but ensure that mitigation is not at the expense of authenticity or integrity

• World Heritage properties are a key material consideration in the planning system

• World Heritage properties should have Management Plans to protect their Outstanding Universal Value

• Management Plans should be prepared in a consensual way by the key stakeholders in each property, including significant landowners

• There should be a steering group of key stakeholders, including significant landowners

• Relevant policies in Management Plans are key material considerations in the spatial planning system

• Local authorities should support and promote World Heritage properties in all their actions, not just within the spatial planning system

• When a local authority is minded to grant consent for a planning application to which English Heritage has maintained an objection, the authority must refer the case to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for him to consider calling it in for decision at national level

The Government is currently reviewing planning policy guidance and intends to replace much of it with a much more succinct National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This will maintain existing levels of protection for World Heritage properties, which will continue to be treated as designations of the highest importance.

In Liverpool, the City Council has relevant policies in its Unitary Development Plan and, as noted above, adopted a Supplementary Planning Document in 2009 providing detailed planning guidance on the World Heritage property. This seeks:

“to provide guidance for protecting and enhancing the Outstanding Universal value of (the) World Heritage Site, whilst encouraging investment and development which supports a healthy economy and supports regeneration.”