Liverpool Stripped of World Heritage Status

A few months ago, I wrote about my beloved Everton FC being granted planning permission to build a new landmark stadium on the banks of the River Mersey. I wrote gleefully about the contribution the development would make to the regeneration of Liverpool’s long-neglected North Docks, as well as the major economic boost it would deliver for the Liverpool City Region. A proud, exciting day for Everton and the city.

Permission was granted despite an objection from UNESCO on the grounds of the potential for an “irretrievable loss of attributes” to the Liverpool Waterfront World Heritage site; i.e. substantial harm in planning terms. Liverpool’s decision-makers bravely made the decision to allow the development, which was then confirmed by the Secretary of State. Liverpool knew that granting permission might push UNESCO to go through with their threat to revoke the World Heritage status of its waterfront; a long-standing possibility initially triggered by the granting of outline planning permission for Peel’s Liverpool Waters plans several years ago.

Sadly, today it was confirmed that UNESCO has formally revoked the World Heritage status because of the extent of waterfront development. In doing so, Liverpool becomes only the third site to lose its World Heritage status since the list began in 1978.

As a passionate development professional, I am fuelled with anger and frustration at this ruling. It should not be the case that well-planned, sustainable development irretrievably harms heritage assets, and UNESCO’s ruling flies in the face of those of us working in a sector which strives for positive, sensitive developments that successfully marry old and new.

Liverpool has always been fiercely proud of its World Heritage status, and has successfully used its heritage assets to drive its identity, economic base and popularity as a tourist destination. It is inconceivable that the city would permit development that jeopardises the very hand that feeds it. UNESCO’s position has put Liverpool in a development straight-jacket, which threatens to stifle its ability to keep up with its regional competitors. Liverpool chose to walk the tightrope with UNESCO by taking a forward-thinking approach, and has paid the price.

I am left asking myself: how can Liverpool be competitive with other progressive cities when its historic assets – the very base that founded the city – become an impeding factor themselves? This cannot be. Decision makers at UNESCO and other high-powered historic bodies must find ways to align their own objectives with the economic, social and environmental needs for development. Bluntly, Liverpool would hugely suffer were it not for the ability to use development to grow and advance, and UNESCO appear to be blind to this importance.

I sincerely hope that Liverpool does all it can to reverse UNESCO’s decision and there is a key role to play for Central Government here too. Now is the time for it to deliver on its election promise of “levelling up”: help a city in need.