Nick Kavanagh and Elliot Lawless Arrested on Bribery and Corruption Charges.

Both were released after questioning on conditional bail.

Police arrested Mr Lawless, aged 32, at his city centre flat. 

That he has spent one million pounds, yes a Million pounds restoring from its ex council office style 1960's building into his new swanky pad.

This pad overlooks Joe Anderson's offices at Cunard Buildings.

SHOULD THE POLICE CHECK ALL THE DELIVERY NOTES TO THE ADDRESS OF HIS APARTMENT and is THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THE MATERIALS MAY HAVE BEEN BOOKED ELSEWHERE??????? 

THEY, and the HMRC REALLY SHOULD CHECK AS HE HAS SOME PUBLIC FUNDED CONTRACTS. 

Why was he given the contract to restore publicly owned properties?

 Is there where the alleged misapropriation has taken place?

Mr Kavanagh, aged 50, was arrested in his office. He was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in a public office.

Mr Lawless was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud, bribery and corruption.

Mr Kavanagh was appointed director for regeneration at the city council in 2011 and is in charge of the city’s major regeneration schemes.A Merseyside Police statement said: “A 32-year-old man from Liverpool city centre has been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud, bribery and corruption.

Police said “Whilst a 50-year-old man, employed by Liverpool City Council, has been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in public office.”

Mr Lawless said: “This is a frustrating turn of events as we are extremely busy delivering major schemes across the north.

“I’m helping the police fully with their enquiries and am more than happy to do so. It is important that I clear my good name quickly and that we move on from this.

“The allegations are completely baseless but due process needs to be followed and whilst the police do their work I’ll not comment further on the issue.

“In the meantime, it’s business as usual. I have seven live schemes in Liverpool to deliver and am back at my desk doing just that.”

YES HE WOULD SAY THAT OR IS IT WORDS CONJURED UP BY HIS PR COMPANY. 

Which may or may not be run by Jon Egan and co who also PR personally for Joe Anderson and the council and several publicaly funded bodies.
Mr Lawless, a former plumber, who drives a Bentley is the founder of the Elliot Group which is working on major schemes in Liverpool and Salford.

Schemes include the £170m redevelopment of Heap’s Rice Mill, the £100m redevelopment of Wolstenholme Square, the £100m Aura student scheme and a scheme including 1,000 apartments on Leeds Street in Liverpool.
https://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2016/08/heaps-rice-mill-letter-to-joe-anderson.html
Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: “We will co-operate with the police unequivocally and will assist them in any way that we can."

Yes he would say that wouldn't he.

He was recently questioned by Police.

https://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2017/06/ged-fitzgerald-answers-questions-about.html

Why has frank McKenna from Downtown Liverpool in Business gone quiet these days?????

It was Kavanagh that Joe Anderson said brought to his attention the fact that Cunard Buildings were up for sale and they should move the whole council from, the quite newly build council offices on Victoria street and sell the block to Lawrence Kenwright. https://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2018/09/lawrence-kenwrights-carbuncle-shankly.html

Maybe another investigation should take place. 

This corruption goes right to the top in our opinion.

Here is a couple more we did earlier

https://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2016/06/elliot-developments-where-is-all-money.html

https://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2016/08/elliot-group-build-block-of-student.html

Liverpool To Lose World Heritage Site Status in 2020.

UNESCO World Heritage Committee Meet next week and they  STATE.

https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3881 Read more by clicking the link.

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

Draft Decision: 43 COM 7A.47

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined
2. Document WHC/19/43.COM/7A,
3. Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.93, 37 COM 7A.35, 38 COM 7A.19, 39 COM 7A.43, 40 COM 7A.31, 41 COM 7A.22 and 42 COM 7A.7 adopted at its 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012), 37th (Phnom Penh, 2013), 38th (Doha, 2014), 39th (Bonn, 2015), 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017) and 42nd (Manama, 2018) sessions respectively;
4. Acknowledges the increasing engagement of civil society in the care of the property and its World Heritage status;
5. Recalls its repeated serious concerns over the impact of the proposed Liverpool Waters developments in the form presented in the approved Outline Planning Consent (2013-2042) which constitutes an ascertained threat in conformity with paragraph 179 of the Operational Guidelines;
6. Although noting that the State Party has submitted an updated and revised draft Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR), notesthat comprehensive assessment of the proposed DSOCR by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies is still not feasible, as the approval of the DSOCR relies on the content of additional documents, which are yet to be prepared or finalized, including the Local Plan, the revised Supplementary Planning Document, the majority of the Neighbourhood Masterplans, and the Tall Building (skyline) Policy;
7. Reiterates that the submission of a further draft of the DSOCR by the State Party and its adoption by the Committee should come prior to the finalization and approval of the necessary planning tools and regulatory framework and regrets that the alternative proposal of the Committee, expressed in Decision 42 COM 7A.7, for substantive commitments to limitation on the quantity, location and size of allowable built form, has not been followed;
8. Although also noting that Peel Holdings (Liverpool Waters developer) reiterated its confirmation to Liverpool City Council (LCC) that there is no likelihood of the Liverpool Waters development scheme coming forward in the same form of the Outline Planning Consent, strongly requests the commitment of the State Party that the approved Outline Planning Consent (2013-2042) will not be implemented by Peel Holdings or other developers, and its revised version will not propose interventions that will impact adversely on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, including its authenticity and integrity;
9. Expresses its extreme concern that the State Party has not complied with the Committee’s request to adopt a moratorium for new buildings within the property and its buffer zone, until the Local Plan, the revised Supplementary Planning Document, the Neighbourhood Masterplans, and the Tall Building (skyline) Policy are reviewed and endorsed by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, and the DSOCR is completely finalized and adopted by the World Heritage Committee, and urges the State Party to comply with this request;
10. Also regrets that the submission of Princes Dock Masterplan and changes to the Liverpool Water scheme to the World Heritage Centre took place after their adoption by the LCC, and expresses its utmost concernthat these documents are putting forward plans, which does not ensure the adequate mitigation of the potential threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
11. Also reiterates its consideration that the recent planning permissions issued for the Liverpool Waters scheme and elsewhere within the property and its buffer zone, and the stated inability of the State Party to control further developments, clearly reflect inadequate governance systems and planning mechanisms that will not allow the State Party to comply with Committee Decisions and will result in ascertained threat on the OUV of the property;
12. Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2020, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 44^th session in 2020, as well as a DSOCR and corrective measures that could be considered for adoption by the Committee;
13. Decides to retain Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) on the List of World Heritage in Danger, with a view to considering its deletion from the World Heritage List at its 44th session in 2020, if the Committee Decisions related to the adoption of the DSOCR and the moratorium for new buildings are not met.