Monday, 3 September 2018

Littlewoods Goes On Fire-It Was Torched.

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.
What an advert for Liverpool.
We have been warning of this for years.
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 confirmed it.
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 go ahead.
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 care.
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 explosion.
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 bulldozer.
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 building?

This building should be taken off the current developers.

CPO'd like what happened to the rest of Edge Lane.

No, the council will probably give them a grant.

Only in Liverpool could this happen.

The Shankly Hotel

Saturday, 1 September 2018

Lawrence Kenwrights Carbuncle-The Shankly Hotel.

Only an Evertonian could have done this.

Building Design, the architect weekly has paid Liverpool a lot of attention in recent years.
With good reason.
2009 winner, the Terminal Ferry carbuncle at the Pier Head won the (un)coveted title of the worst bit of construction that year.
One Park Worst by Cesar Peli on Chavasse lawn came third.
The giant squashed ciggy packet and ROME MAXXI lookalike that is, The Museum of Liverpool also at The Pier Head designed by 3XN, who subsequently got sacked, came runner up in 2011. 
To Peel holdings MEDIA City.
The following year Liverpools Architectural tragedy The Three Black coffins on Mann Island,designed by Matt Brook of Broadway Malyan was runner up.

The nomination this year is The Shankly Hotel designed by Coco The Clown.
 It even made Sky News.
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 passed though. 
The council has sold the building to Signature living to buy Cunard Buildings
Anyone else would have been made to take it down.
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 had.
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 pathetic planners.
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 carbuncles.

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.

Tuesday, 26 June 2018

Liverpool World Heritage State Of Conservation Documents for UNESCO Discusion at Bahrain 2018


7. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (C 1150)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 2004
Criteria (ii)(iii)(iv)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger 2012-present

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
The proposed development of "Liverpool Waters"
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
In progress
Corrective measures identified
In progress
Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
In progress
Previous Committee Decisions see page

International Assistance
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 0
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
Previous monitoring missions
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

Factors affecting 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

Illustrative material see page

Current conservation issues
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 and well-being;
  • Adoption of the Management Plan by the Mayor’s Cabinet in 2017;
  • Development of a height (‘skyline’) policy and proposed review in 2018-2019 of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for inclusion in the draft Local Plan;
  • A draft of the Local Plan expected to be submitted for public examination in May 2018;
  • Continued efforts by the State Party to work in partnership with Liverpool City Council (LCC), Historic England, and developers to ensure that planning decisions are informed by Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA);
  • Creation of a Mayoral Task Force of independent experts to provide advice that will assist in avoiding the removal of the property from the World Heritage List;
  • Commitment of all stakeholders and increasing engagement of civil society, in particular Engage Liverpool and Merseyside Civic Society;
  • Additional measures taken to reinforce planning permission procedure, including required neighbourhood masterplans detailing development briefs that re-set maximum heights for individual 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 the property;
  • The neighbourhood masterplan for Princes Dock submitted to LCC for approval and the masterplan 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 41 COM 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 COM 7A.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,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7A.Add,

  1. 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,

  1. Recalls that it has repeatedly expressed its serious concerns over the impact of the proposed Liverpool Waters developments in the form presented in the approved Outline Planning Consent (2013-2042);

  1. Acknowledges the increasing engagement of civil society in the care of the World Heritage property and its status, in particular the organization “Engage Liverpool”;

  1. 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 DSCOR is not yet complete and relies on the content of additional documents, which are 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;

  1. Further notes that Peel Holdings (Liverpool Waters developer) has recently confirmed to 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 World Heritage Committee;

  1. Reiterates its previous request to the State Party 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 height (‘skyline’) policy are 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 Committee;

  1. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, the Local Plan, the revised Supplementary Planning Document, the neighbourhood masterplans, and the height (skyline) policy, or any other relevant document, for preliminary examination by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies;

  2. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2019 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, recalls its position expressed in Decision 41 COM 7A.22 - Paragraph 11, in case the State Party does not:
    1. Provide substantive commitments to limitation on the quantity, location and size of allowable built form,
    2. Link the strategic city development vision to a regulatory planning document,
    3. Submit a fully-complete DSOCR and corrective measures in a form that might be considered for adoption by the Committee;
  3. Decides to retain Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Thursday, 5 April 2018

Nasty Nick Small. Liverpool City Councillor.

Who Is No Help At All.

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 Liverpool.

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 struggling. 
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 ward.
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 his tone.
“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.
 The Post Office has also been forced out and others are currently fighting eviction by the most unscrupulous sort.
“Thanks for helping Small businesses Nick. 
Or not.
 Lawrence Kenwright has got the measure of you alright.

 You were a complete waste of time. You behaved with no respect for the people who get you elected, your constituents.
It was as if he was employed by the developers in some capacity. It seems that he is not interested in those businesses that have been trading for 20 years.
Just insulting them.
A labour councillor in bed with big business. Just like his mate Gary Millar of Chinatown fame.
 This is not Liverpool anymore. This is not a labour council.
 They may as well be a Tory council.
 Even Trevor Jones would not have let this go on.
Betty Braddock must be turning in her grave.
You should be ashamed of yourself you nasty, little, or should we say Nasty Small man.

David Ward

Photo supplied

Friday, 30 March 2018

Worthington Owen Liverpool Estate Agents. Can We Trust Them?

That is a question we were asked last week by a reputable member of the Liverpool Surveyor Fraternity.
So why would a qualified surveyor give up his professional qualifications?
The very thing that gives them the credibility to trade in a respectable manner and follow the code of conduct laid down by the professional body.
Who in this instance, are The Association of The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Or RICS.
Mark Worthington had these qualifications and they have now disapeared from his name! Why would you do that. Is it voluntarily? If so ,why would you do that?

Is this to trade in a different way to those with professional qualifications? To be free of the restraint, of acting within those perimeters, set down by RICS?.
He seems to have made friends with a company called Shelborn Assett Management Ltd.
and Mark Rabinowitz.

These people have a record creating misery and a trail of evictions of small businesses from premises that they manage. We have even heard them called thugs.
And the people helping them with these evictions are Mr Worthington and Mr Owen his partner in slime.
We have been advised, on good authority, of the way they operate. Mark Worthington will go in ahead and butter the tenant up. Making friends with them and coming across as a reasonable person. 
Where in reality he is after the same thing possession of the property at any cost.
 So the owners agents and typically Shelborn Asset Managers can get the lay of the land. 
Then they play good cop, bad cop in tandem. 

While The Rabinowitz pair bully and harass them Mark Worthington offers a friendly hand, to help them out of the situation.
And the situation always seems the same, eviction on any grounds as long as the property becomes vacant then they are happy. 
And they can get more rent.
If you have the misfortune to come across any of the characters mentioned well you had better be on your guard.
 The spirit of Rackman is well and truly alive here in Liverpool.
They say on their website.

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 potential.

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 comes from?
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 enforce?
What of the children who dont get a Christmas present or even a meal.
How many people have they put on the dole?
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.

We would like to hear from you.

Written by
David Ward
(photos supplied)

Thursday, 29 March 2018

Shelborn Asset Management Shaft Another Small Business.

We thought Rackman was dead, but no, he is alive and kicking in the shape of The Rabinowitz.
Brian Rabinowitz has trained his little Rabonowitz, Mark to be as ruthless as himself.
They do not care a jot about the lives of the small people they shit on from a great height.
Here he signs the death nell on another business.
How can this be allowed to happen in 2018.
First of all they harassed this small shopkeeper in Water Street CITY NEWS. That had been trading at India Buildings for over 20 years. 
Then they put him out of his misery. 
All this by stealth in a way that has been practised to perfection. Read more here
There should be laws against this thugish eviction where the owner come into his shop to find he had been locked out without prior notification. THUGS.
But if those small shopkeepers have seen your profits go down the pan, how do they get the will to fight a big offshore organisation.
Shelborn Asset Management Ltd 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 they manage.
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 completed.
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 £50,000,000.
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.
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 hospital.
Is this what Liverpool has become. Another London.
Where Investors and asset managers like Shelborn get privilege over its citizens.


Written by David Ward

Thursday, 22 March 2018

LIVERPOOL MARITIME MERCANTILE CITY Desired State Of Conservation Report January 2018

LIVERPOOL MARITIME MERCANTILE CITY (United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland)
Desired State of Conservation Report for the Removal of the Property from the
List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) and a set of Corrective Measures.

The following DSOCR and Corrective Measures was developed on behalf of the UK State Party
by Liverpool City Council with the advice of Historic England in response to the requests of
the World Heritage Committee. It takes account of decisions taken by the Committee and is
based on the approved Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) for the Property and
its attributes as defined in the Management Plan (2017-2024) that was approved by the
Cabinet of Liverpool City Council in 2017, namely:

 . The spirit of innovation illustrated by the architecture, engineering, transport, port
management and labour systems created and developed in Liverpool;
. The tradition of cultural exchange exemplified by Liverpool’s roles in the development
of popular music and as a patron of the visual arts.
. The buildings and monuments, stories and records that evidence Liverpool’s central
role in the development of the British Empire and global trade.
. The buildings and monuments, stories and records that evidence Liverpool’s central
role in global migration.
. The docks, warehouses, commercial buildings, cultural buildings and dwelling houses
and their relationships to each other that illustrate Liverpool’s development as a port
city of global importance.

 The Property contains six main character areas that help to convey the above key attributes.
These are:

. The waterfront Pier Head that contains the emblematic trio of buildings known as the
Three Graces, and acted as the prime gateway into the city from the River Mersey;
. The waterfront Albert Dock, its linkage to a series of neighbouring docks, and a group
of privately owned warehouses now successfully and sensitively refurbished to include
museums and galleries;
. The waterfront Stanley Dock, including three privately owned warehouses now
successfully and sensitively refurbished as a hotel, and the massive Tobacco and
Southern warehouses currently in progress of conversion to adaptive re-use;
. Castle Street/Dale Street Commercial Centre - the historic ‘downtown’ area that
contains the City’s key civic and financial buildings;
. William Brown Street that contains a cluster of monumental buildings, including St
George’s Hall, Museum, Art Gallery, Central Library, and Lime Street Station;
. Ropewalks area that developed shortly after the opening of the Old Dock in 1715 and
contains merchants’ housing and warehouses close to the existing city centre and the
Bluecoat, the oldest arts centre in Great Britain and the oldest surviving building in the
city centre.

The above areas – taken as a whole - are manifestations of the commercial enterprise of
Liverpool as a global trading port, and the civic and cultural institutions that grew as part of
this trade. They help define its physical characteristics.

 State of Conservation
The physical state of conservation is not the issue - as this has improved substantially - and
systematically - since inscription in 2004; indeed, the repair and re-use of a number of
outstanding historic buildings that were previously at risk was highlighted in the Report of the
Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission (24-25 February 2015). This positive situation

 . The number of Buildings at Risk (problematic heritage buildings requiring repair and
re-use) have been reduced to below 2.75% of building stock - far below the UK national
average – an achievement made possible by prioritisation of the substantial finances
for heritage managed by Liverpool City Council;

From 2015 each development proposal that has the potential to affect the OUV of the
Property is accompanied by an ICOMOS-compliant Heritage Impact Assessment that
details the significance of the asset/s that may be affected, the nature of that impact
and, where appropriate, how any harmful impacts can be mitigated. Historic England,
as the national heritage advisory body, is consulted on all of these proposals and the
State Party, taking into consideration the advice of Historic England, will notify the
World Heritage Centre, as necessary, under the provisions of the Operational
Guidelines paragraph 172.

The issue is the ascertained threat of “the proposed development of Liverpool Waters”. The
State Party accepts that this scheme - if implemented in line with the illustrative masterplan
that accompanied the outline planning permission granted on 18 June 2013 – would
undoubtedly cause substantial harm to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World
Heritage Property and would lead the World Heritage Committee to delete the Property from
the World Heritage List.

 Planning consent for Liverpool Waters legally lasts until 2042. However, it should be
emphasized that the masterplan, which illustrated the quantum of development for which
approval has been granted, is not one of the ten parameter plans that, together with the
development schedule, govern the consent. As such, it carries little weight in planning terms.
More importantly, Peel Holdings (the property owner that proposes the Liverpool Waters
Regeneration Project) has recently confirmed to Liverpool City Council that there is no
likelihood of the scheme coming forward in this form. Instead, Peel Holdings is undertaking a
comprehensive review of the scheme and drawing up new masterplans taking full account of
heritage considerations including all recorded commentary by the World Heritage
Committee. The key stakeholders would welcome the advice of ICOMOS and the World
Heritage Centre as the new masterplans come forward. The thinking behind the new
masterplanning exercise for the Central Docks neighbourhood is summarised below in
Corrective measure (g). In addition, it should be remembered that the plans for the
implementation of the outline consent require detailed planning consent for the layout,
scale, appearance, access and landscaping of all components of the scheme. The new
masterplanning work is taking account of these requirements, particularly as they relate to
OUV, and reflects exactly the 2015 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission report
which states “As the Liverpool Waters is a 30 year plus long-term development project,
involving some parts of the World Heritage property, it is likely to become an evolving
concept, transmuting and developing through time in response to changing context.”

The lack of confidence by the World Heritage Committee in Liverpool’s effective planning
control to avoid negative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Property is a
serious concern to the State Party which, while it does not believe this is the case, is
committed together with other key stakeholders, to making improvements to the
management and protection regime, should this prove necessary.

Detailed planning proposals that have subsequently been approved within the Princes Dock
neighbourhood / first phase of Liverpool Waters have, however, not been deemed to have
negatively impacted on the attributes that convey the OUV of the property by Historic
England, the State Party’s heritage adviser. Such proposals have been guided by the 2009
Supplementary Planning Document (to be revised in 2018), which contains detailed guidance
on how development is managed to avoid harm to OUV within the World Heritage Site and
its Buffer Zone. However, the World Heritage Committee considered the approval (2016) of a
planning proposal for a 34-storey residential tower block on Princes Dock in the Buffer Zone
unacceptable due to excessive height, albeit recognising that this was much lower than the
2013 Outline Planning Consent. ICOMOS also found the approved student residences at
Skelhorne Street, in the Buffer Zone of the Property adjacent to Lime Street railway station
unacceptable. Further approvals, whilst again acceptable to the State Party’s heritage

adviser, Historic England, were granted in 2017. These applications were each carefully
assessed through ICOMOS-compliant Heritage Impact Assessments.

Desired State of Conservation for Removal
. Effective protection of the physical dimension and the characteristics of the townscape
and port landscape, together with an understanding of the historic function, that is
relevant to the Outstanding Universal Value of the Property and its Buffer Zone;

. Effective protection of important views related to the Property and its Buffer Zone;

. Threats to the World Heritage Property from the Liverpool Waters development
(whether from within the Property, or its Buffer Zone) have been reversed or mitigated
to such an extent that they no longer pose a threat to the OUV of the Property;
. Policy and regulatory measures in place to regulate maximum heights for new
developments (“Liverpool Skyline” policy to be adopted);
. Awareness and appreciation of Liverpool’s World Heritage status by its citizens and
visitors enhanced through the successful implementation and evaluation of a heritage
interpretation and communication strategy;
. Awareness, by developers and building professionals, of the World Heritage Property,
its Outstanding Universal Value and conservation and management requirements under
the World Heritage Convention enhanced through progressive engagement by
. Integrity of the World Heritage Property enhanced through the inscription of an
extension to the World Heritage Property and its Buffer Zone.

Corrective Measures and Timeframe for their Implementation
. a) Update of planning tool in force, responding to the 2015 mission to “…provide
comprehensive documentation concerning the management system/plan to be put in
place…”: a comprehensive updated Management Plan was adopted in 2017 that
integrates the attributes of the World Heritage property to guide Citywide policies and
actions (responsive to the economics of the city-growth target of a population of
460,000 for the year 2020), and that clearly integrates the necessary public-private
investments from 2018 onwards to ensure a feasible phasing of action for the World

Heritage Property in particular, and the City centre and wider Liverpool regeneration
in general;
. b) Update of planning tool in force, by the definition and adoption of policy and
regulatory measures embodied in a Local Plan (link to final draft documentation pack
at Appendix A) based on townscape characteristics, functional relationships in the port
area, together with relevant important views, to ensure protection of the attributes of
the World Heritage Property. U.K. National Planning Policy places Local Plans at the
heart of the planning system. The Liverpool Local Plan, together with the
Neighbourhood Masterplans being developed for Liverpool Waters, the adopted World
Heritage Site Management Plan, and the Supplementary Planning Document (being
updated in 2018), are the regulatory planning documents which provide: clear legal
guidelines to protect the OUV of the Property; assistance for developers to design their
projects accordingly; and the basis for considering whether applications can be
approved. Historic England is a statutory consultee. This will manage the
comprehensive regeneration of the city, set the context for the World Heritage Site,
and will integrate heritage conservation with the on-going socio-economic and
regeneration imperative for Liverpool within the City Region;
. c) Update of planning tool in force, following the adoption of the Local Plan before the
end of 2018, through the revision of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that
adopts the Historic Urban Landscape approach and further strengthens the clear
analysis and description of the townscape characteristics relevant to the attributes of
the OUV of the Property that has been described in the SPD Evidential Report (March
2009) that will be made available online in 2018. The existing SPD will be subject to a
full review and, if necessary, enhancement of the section on important views related
to the Property and its Buffer Zone, as currently defined, together with a clear
description of the functional relationships and public circulation in the port area (with
the community of Liverpool in mind);
. d) Review the development in progress for the Princes Dock Neighbourhood (approvals
received no objections from Historic England) and, by negotiation with all parties
concerned, to continue the pattern of substantially lowering the height of schemes
which receive detailed permission as compared to the maximum envelope granted
under the Liverpool Waters Outline Planning Consent;
. e) Bramley Moore Dock. Everton Football Club is considering the potential to construct
a new stadium at Bramley Moore Dock. No planning application has been submitted,
nor is such an application imminent. In the event that a planning application is
submitted it will be dealt with in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Framework and Liverpool’s own statutory Development Plan including the World

Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document. As part of the assessment, Historic
England, as advisor to DCMS, will be a statutory consultee and that the World
Heritage Centre would be immediately informed under section 172 of the Operational
. f) Develop and finalize a height (“skyline”) policy for tall buildings within the Property
and its Buffer Zone. Note: - A tall buildings policy has been included in the submission
draft of the Liverpool Local Plan. The Local Plan, approved by Cabinet and Council on
19th and 24th January 2018 respectively, will be published for pre-submission
consultation for a period of 6 weeks. After which it is expected that it will be submitted
to the Secretary of State for the purposes of an independent public examination in mid
2018. After the examination, the City Council would hope to adopt the Plan towards
the end of 2018 or early 2019.

 . g) Responding to the 2015 mission to “…ensure urban design guidelines that will
provide continued coherence for the architectural and town-planning values and that
will be pro-active to ensure the management of the World Heritage property and the
city centre…” the Neighbourhood Masterplans for Central Docks and for Northern
Docks and their respective surroundings will be reviewed and finalized, in accordance
with the terms of the outline permission in close consultation with the national
statutory heritage advisor Historic England and be guided by the core principle of the
DSOCR to ensure that the architectural and town-planning coherence and the
conditions of authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Property are sustained.

The detailed plans will integrate all the different dock areas of the property into one
continuous historic urban landscape, maintaining the existing horizontal layering of
the city profile, expressed as a three-tiered urban structure, and the important views
from the northern and central docks back to the Three Graces and the strategic views
of the city from the opposite side of the River Mersey. The detailed plans will provide
detailed content on: the general disposition of buildings in each neighbourhood and
plan for a general reduction in the height and urban density from the maximum
indicated in the outline permission, in order to attain a more sustainable and
deliverable development that will re-vitalise the City for the well-being of the
community and its visitors alike; the rationale for the height limitation of buildings by
relating to, and being guided by, specific buildings in the World Heritage Property
(some individual buildings might break height threshold but will nonetheless reflect
historic elements); and how the morphology and functional hierarchy expressed by the
port circulation system is maintained. To demonstrate the very real progress that is
being made to realize this desired state of conservation, the emerging Central Docks
neighbourhood plan has initiated a fresh approach, which utilizes OUV as a driver for
place making.

 Key protected views are being maintained and enhanced and a legible pattern of
historic streets is being established reflecting historical characteristics. We recognize
that this is work in progress and we invite the active participation of the World
Heritage Centre and ICOMOS in the masterplanning process to assist us in reaching
the desired state of conservation that is set out here.

 . h) Implement the new complementary framework within the WHS Buffer Zone of the
“Ten Streets” proposals area of the City (south of the Stanley Dock complex comprising
the remnants of historic warehousing that have been redundant for decades). The
City Council has produced a “Ten Streets” Spatial Regeneration Framework (SRF). A
draft SRF was consulted on in autumn 2017 with the final document due to be
considered for adoption as an SPD by the City Council’s Cabinet in February 2018. This
articulates a shared vision for the area, provides an overarching context for
regeneration, establishes principles for development, and a focus for investment and
regeneration. Celebrating heritage is one of the ten ‘big ideas’ that are fundamental to
the SRF and support the vision and conservation and refurbishment of all the area’s
listed and important heritage buildings, starting with Liverpool’s largest listed
structure – the Tobacco Warehouse at Stanley Dock.

. i) Strengthen the management system for the Property, and the consistency of
approach in managing the development process, through an integrated multi-
stakeholder approach, including consideration of the creation of a Liverpool World
Heritage Trust (LWHT), a new partnership under an agreed mandate on behalf of the
wider stakeholder interest including: the UK Government Department for Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport; Historic England; ICOMOS UK; Liverpool City Council;
property owners; developer interests; Merseyside Civic Society and ‘Engage Liverpool’.
LWHT is designed to embrace the comprehensive interests of Liverpool not only in the
management of the Property but for the benefit of the City’s wider historic
environment. Note: - The Terms of Reference for the WHS Steering Group were
reviewed and refreshed in 2017 and are included in the WHS Management Plan
adopted in April 2017. An independent Design and Heritage Review Panel has also
been set up in 2017 which considers appropriate major schemes of local and or
national importance including those within the World Heritage Site and its Buffer
. j) Develop and implement a World Heritage interpretation and communication strategy
aimed at the community of Liverpool, and its visitors, and an awareness-raising
programme aimed at developers and building professionals, of the World Heritage
Property, its Outstanding Universal Value and conservation and management
requirements under the World Heritage Convention. Note: - The City Council in partnership with Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) North has established a
Hub for Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site in the City Gallery of the
new national architecture centre, which opened on Liverpool’s Waterfront in 2017.
The Digital City Model in the City Gallery provides accessible information on the WHS
and its OUV to a wide range of audiences and can be used as a planning and
development tool with developers and buildings professionals;
. k) Review the Property boundaries and Buffer Zone, and consider an enhancement of
its integrity by an extension of Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site
to better reflect her maritime and mercantile pre-eminence as the greatest Western
European seaport, from the early eighteenth to the mid -twentieth centuries.


a) Implementation of the comprehensive updated
Management Plan 2018 (ongoing)

b) Approval of Local Plan 2018

c) Revised Supplementary Planning Document 2018-19

d) Princes Dock development amendments 2018 (ongoing)

e) Bramley Moore Dock. As there is no planning
application for the proposed stadium, nor is this
imminent, a timeframe cannot yet be established

f) Develop and finalize a height (“skyline”) policy for tall
buildings 2018

g) Review and approval of neighbourhood plans 2018 (ongoing)

h) Implement the new complementary framework 2018 (ongoing)

i) Creation of a Liverpool World Heritage Trust 2018

j) World Heritage interpretation and communication strategy 2019

k) Extension of Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City 2025

Desired State Indicators
The following Desired State Indicators have been developed specifically for the DSOCR and
respond to its Corrective Measures. In the case of Liverpool, it is fundamental to understand
that the indicators are not measures of the restoration of the attributes that convey the OUV

of the Property. The indicators are measures that monitor progress towards the elimination
of a major perceived development threat, and of the strengthening of the Property’s overall
effective protection and management and consequently the strengthening of OUV as a
whole. Such Desired State Indicators augment existing indicators implemented since
inscription to monitor the condition of the OUV of the Property.

Corrective Measure

Indicator for removal of the Property from the List in Danger Rationale Method of Verification

a) Adoption of an approved updated Management Plan Update of planning tool in force Date approved.

b) Adoption of Local Plan Update of planning tool in force Date approved

c) Supplementary Planning Document Update of planning tool in force Date approved

d) Adoption of Neighbourhood Masterplan for Princes Dock Update of planning tool in force Date approved

e) Planning status of a football stadium on the site of Bramley Moore Dock

Mitigation of potential negative impact on the OUV of the Property if application arises

Satisfactory Heritage Impact Assessment accompanying any application

f) Height policy for the WHS and its Buffer Zone Update of planning tool in force

Date of an approved tall buildings policy adopted in Local Plan

g) Adoption of Neighbourhood Masterplans for Central Docks and Northern Docks Update of planning tool in force Date approved

h) Spatial Regeneration Framework for “Ten Streets”Update of planning tool in force Date approved;
Date implemented

i) Creation of a Liverpool World Heritage Trust Strengthened, independent management of the WHS and its Buffer Zone Date implemented

j) World Heritage Interpretation and Communication Strategy, and an awareness-raising programme
Enhanced awareness and understanding of World Heritage values
Dates implemented

k) Extension of the WHS and its Buffer Zone Enhanced integrity and Date of nomination, date of inscription

Appendix A
Links to Liverpool City Council Local Plan Final Draft – January 2018:

1. Link to the Submission Draft Local Plan document only 

2. Link to the Policies Map – City Centre Inset - shows whole of the WHS and most of the

 3. Link to Policies Map – rest of Liverpool -
note a small part of the Buffer Zone is shown on this map