New Everton Stadium

[Toffeelover]

Taken from theie web page. - Historic England

However, we consider that the proposal to infill the dock would result in substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II listed Bramley-Moore Dock and cause harm to the World Heritage Site.

Due to the impact of the proposals on a World Heritage Site, which has the highest level of heritage protection and is internationally significant, we think that this application should be determined by the Secretary of State and will ask for it to be called in for his determination. We have also advised that the application should be refused, unless the decision-maker concludes that the public benefits would outweigh the substantial harm to Bramley-Moore dock and the harm to the World Heritage Site which the proposals would cause.

If we are refused what is left of BMD. Just 3 weed covered dirty quays enclosing a dock full of dirty water what is there of this that requires preservation? Nothing what can be done with a dock full of dirty water? Notice how these charlatans do not make any suggestion as to what should be done to BMD or the whole Stanley dock complex. They make no suggestions about restoring the tower or the pumphouse or funding there of. There is in fact nothing that can be done except use to store like timber. If they have their way our city would be forever blighted by these old docks just lying there, derelict and weed ridden.

 

[bazza86]

Taken from theie web page. - Historic England

However, we consider that the proposal to infill the dock would result in substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II listed Bramley-Moore Dock and cause harm to the World Heritage Site.

Due to the impact of the proposals on a World Heritage Site, which has the highest level of heritage protection and is internationally significant, we think that this application should be determined by the Secretary of State and will ask for it to be called in for his determination. We have also advised that the application should be refused, unless the decision-maker concludes that the public benefits would outweigh the substantial harm to Bramley-Moore dock and the harm to the World Heritage Site which the proposals would cause.

If we are refused what is left of BMD. Just 3 weed covered dirty quays enclosing a dock full of dirty water what is there of this that requires preservation? Nothing what can be done with a dock full of dirty water? Notice how these charlatans do not make any suggestion as to what should be done to BMD or the whole Stanley dock complex. They make no suggestions about restoring the tower or the pumphouse or funding there of. There is in fact nothing that can be done except use to store like timber. If they have their way our city would be forever blighted by these old docks just lying there, derelict and weed ridden.

Although Historic England do give the planners a get out clause (if they need one) regarding 'public benefits' (highlighted in red)

 

[davek]

Obviously. But how realistic is that given the complexity of the site and now throwing a pandemic into the mix. Not really something you can beat the club with to be honest.

I'm not so much doing that as pointing to the people on here who told me I was a clueless and defeatist etc for believing very early on (and saying so) that this would land on the desk of the Sec of State.

 

[Stephen Gibson]

I'm not so much doing that as pointing to the people on here who told me I was a clueless and defeatist etc for believing very early on (and saying so) that this would land on the desk of the Sec of State.

Has it? No.

 

[wainy]

I'm not so much doing that as pointing to the people on here who told me I was a clueless and defeatist etc for believing very early on (and saying so) that this would land on the desk of the Sec of State.

Well let’s see how it plays out mate, I know you get a fair bit of stick on this issue but you’ve always been fair and measured in your arguments.

 

[rylojr]

The only footy news that the red echo are reporting today are that 2 new RS murals are being done in Anfield and some Kirkby community centre. Fed up hearing about these murals. We need to start doing some ourselves they are trying not take over the city

Try jibbing that arsepaper off, swerve the website and definitely don't buy a physical copy. It's generally accepted that it's a rag by blues. I shouldn't need to inform anyone of a blue persuasion of this, of course.....

 

[davek]

Has it? No.

I think it's inevitable given that 3 conservation groups with national and international standing are demanding the decision be taken out of the hands of the local state.

 

[Joeharper07]

If the stadium at BMD is halted by a combination of heritage and government and the reason is because of the dock being filled in, will this have an implication for the rest of the dock development plan ?

Can’t recall any of the other docks all the way down to Aigburth that have been redeveloped have had any of the docks filled in since the redevelopment started in 1982

 

[Stephen Gibson]

I think it's inevitable given that 3 conservation groups with national and international standing are demanding the decision be taken out of the hands of the local state.

No, you have decided it's inevitable. The statements made by the parties concerned can easily be seen as one way or the other. With your glass almost empty view on everything Everton you obviously are jumping up & down on the statement made by Historic England as a victory. I see it as a part of the process of building a stadium on a 'protected' dock. It could have been absolutely anything being built on Bramley Moore & Heritage England would have kicked up a fuss & put out the letter they did. To me thier statement sounded defeatist. We altered the hight of the stadium slightly to keep them happy & make them feel like they won but really deep down they know it's happening. To save face they put thier letter out & claim to thier members that they did thier best but we all know this build is happening.

 

[davek]

No, you have decided it's inevitable. The statements made by the parties concerned can easily be seen as one way or the other. With your glass almost empty view on everything Everton you obviously are jumping up & down on the statement made by Historic England as a victory. I see it as a part of the process of building a stadium on a 'protected' dock. It could have been absolutely anything being built on Bramley Moore & Heritage England would have kicked up a fuss & put out the letter they did. To me thier statement sounded defeatist. We altered the hight of the stadium slightly to keep them happy & make them feel like they won but really deep down they know it's happening. To save face they put thier letter out & claim to thier members that they did thier best but we all know this build is happening.

I think you and others are missing my point here: the call in will happen, and however long that lasts (and the possibility of an appeal against any decision for the club) it will test the resolve of all those partnering Everton and standing in the wings to financially back the stadium plan.

That's all. Just that. I'm not saying it wont be built. I'm saying (as I have consistently said throughout this dock stadium scheme) that this is Everton and this is a stadium plan - and we all know how very wrong things can get when those two come into contact with each other.

 

[MickA]

Can’t recall any of the other docks all the way down to Aigburth that have been redeveloped have had any of the docks filled in since the redevelopment started in 1982

Loads have in the past but yeah none recently to my knowledge. Just walked the dog an hour ago on what was George's Dock. No idea what it looked like before but I'm pretty certain it looks better now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Liverpool_Docks

I think the heritage groups are just doing their job. I doubt they think they can halt progress, they may not even want to in this instance, but they have to be seen to be doing their job. I don't think it will de-rail progress, LOR will be surprised if they aren't on-site before 2021.

 

[Stephen Gibson]

I think you and others are missing my point here: the call in will happen, and however long that lasts (and the possibility of an appeal against any decision for the club) it will test the resolve of all those partnering Everton and standing in the wings to financially back the stadium plan.

That's all. Just that. I'm not saying it wont be built. I'm saying (as I have consistently said throughout this dock stadium scheme) that this is Everton and this is a stadium plan - and we all know how very wrong things can get when those two come into contact with each other.

Without pulling up every quote, I'm sure you have stated on many occasions that the stadium would never be built. As for testing the resolve of the financial & building partners, this was always a possibility, in fact it was a certainty that the people who moan about builds like this such as UNESCO & Heritage England were always going to moan. They were hardly going to sit there & say nowt. If you're a lender or builder then you're smart enough to know this. It's not testing resolve at all in my book. It's a huge project that is good for the club, good for the lender & good for the builder even after a few obstacles. I simply don't see it going to the SoS as it would be a waste of everyones time. No other significant alterations will get made to the design either so it's either this ground or nothing & too many people need this to happen including the government who will milk it.

 

[John from Bootle]

And as the poster above has said, the owners, planners and whoever else is involved with the project must have expected opposition to this from these heritage types.

There's not even a 'must have' element of doubt about it. We know they have. It's literally been officially stated on several occasions that the club are communicating with these agencies.

 

[Joeharper07]

Loads have in the past but yeah none recently to my knowledge. Just walked the dog an hour ago on what was George's Dock. No idea what it looked like before but I'm pretty certain it looks better now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Liverpool_Docks

I think the heritage groups are just doing their job. I doubt they think they can halt progress, they may not even want to in this instance, but they have to be seen to be doing their job. I don't think it will de-rail progress, LOR will be surprised if they aren't on-site before 2021.

That’s my take as well if non have been filled in these last 35 plus years , they may be worried filling one in creates a planning precedent but it’s not new that to accommodate the stadium it needed filling in so surely there objections should have been louder when first planned .

Part of the appeal once BM is built is the prospect of bars , cafes accommodation all built around the existing docks back towards the city centre .

 

[Toffeelover]

Although Historic England do give the planners a get out clause (if they need one) regarding 'public benefits' (highlighted in red)

That as maybe but my points remain about the dock area.