C O N T E X T 1 1 5 : J U LY 2 0 1 0 17 UNESCO’s complementary Declaration on the Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape (2005) stressed the need properly to contextualise contemporary architecture. It accepted that socio-economic development was essential in many historic cities but with the proviso that it should ‘simultaneously respect the inherited townscape and its setting’. Liverpool City council’s unitary development plan (adopted in 2002) contains the usual policies to protect the settings of listed buildings, and to preserve and enhance conservation areas. Its only specific policy on views is that development ‘should not detract from the city’s skyline, roofscape and local views within the city’. In 2003, in preparation for the regional spatial strategy (RSS), the regional planning authority commissioned a study of regionally significant views, which included a high proportion around Liverpool and its waterfront, to be protected and enhanced for the benefit of the region. It identified key viewpoints and scored each view for aesthetic quality, uniqueness, sense of place, popularity, accessibility and quality. While the methodology of the study was not challenged, at that time Liverpool City council was reluctant to support the subsequent policies, which could restrict economic development in order to protect views of the city through the RSS for the benefit of those outside the city, and they were not included in the RSS. Around the same time the World Heritage Site Management Plan (approved in December 2003) was in preparation. It too recognised the importance of views. It separated Liverpool’s views into defined vistas, panoramic views, the Mersey View Corridor and views of visually significant buildings, and made a preliminary identification of them. It included ‘Objective 4.4: Identify and protect key visual relationships, panoramas and vistas into, out of and across the world heritage site’, and identified the need for a more comprehensive study and detailed guidance. With Liverpool’s inscription on to the world heritage list in 2004, Liverpool accepted that its outstanding universal value, including its key views, should be protected for the benefit of all mankind. A mission from UNESCO and ICOMOS came to assess the impact of the developments on the world heritage site in 2006. It acknowledged the value of the development brief and it concluded that the ‘outstanding universal value’ of the site was not under threat from the proposed development. Even so, the mission warned of the potential damage to the world heritage site by other, less polite, developments. It recommended that the city council should produce stricter planning guidance for the whole world heritage site to prescribe heights for new development and to protect its spirit of place. The city council’s response to that request was the adoption in 2009 of the supplementary planning document for Liverpool’s world heritage site. The supplementary planning document has capitalised on the earlier view analysis for the regional spatial strategy and theWorld Heritage Site Management Plan and taken it forward, identifying different types of views: 1 It took seven of the views which were identified in the study for the regional spatial strategy, added a further one, defined them all as ‘distant views to the world heritage site’ and divided them into ‘river prospects’ and ‘panoramas’. 2 It recognised that views of the world heritage site from vessels in the river, especially the ferries and cruise liners which were once again mooring at the Pier Head, were important. Distant views to the world heritage site, from the world heritage site supplementary planning document (Crown Copyright) Key landmark buildings and local views, from the world heritage site supplementary planning document (Crown Copyright)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=