18 C O N T E X T 1 1 5 : J U LY 2 0 1 0 3 It identified 26 ‘key local views’, separating them into ‘defined vistas’ (typically along a street towards a landmark building); ‘general views/panoramas’ (often broad views of a few landmark buildings within a broader context); and ‘general views with a focal point’. 4 It identified 18 ‘key landmark buildings/ensembles’ in and around the world heritage site. These were mostly historic buildings but some were recent tall buildings which have become landmarks. Through an additional exercise, it carefully identified the principal features (old and new) in each view and categorised them into ‘foreground’, ‘middle-ground’ and ‘background/ skyline’ features. In deference to English Heritage’s emerging guidance, it also identified the ‘history’ in each view. Notwitstanding the specific views that have been identified, the supplementary planning document recognises that they are not a definitive list of all of the important views in and around the world heritage site. So it encourages developers at a pre-application stage to agree with the city council the views of a proposed development which require assessment and consideration as part of the application process. The supplementary planning document includes the guidance that: • For each development in and around the world heritage site, developers are required to consider the question: How does the development incorporate and protect relevant views to, from and across the world heritage site? • When considering the impact of a particular development on a view, it will be the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that impact through a series of accurately rendered images and/or use of a 3D model (digital or actual). The city council will assess the acceptability of that impact on a case-by-case basis. • The city council expects applicants to demonstrate clearly in their design and access statements how they have addressed potential impacts on the agreed views. The city council will require them to provide accurate visual representations showing the effect of the development on the agreed views where it considers that this is necessary to assess the scale of potential change. This will always be the case with high-rise and tall building proposals. The city council may need to request that the impact of development on additional views to be provided. • While the city council accepts that all developments have some impact on views, it accepts that some developments can have a positive impact on views by enclosing space and creating framed views. The city council expects applications not to have a significant adverse impact on the key views to, from and within the world heritage site, by wholly obstructing a key public view of a landmark building or overly dominating a panorama. • It will be important to deliver riverside development within the buffer zone in a manner that respects the world heritage site’s ‘outstanding universal value’ and certain particular features.These are the importance of views of the Pier Head buildings as the focal point for Liverpool’s and the world heritage site’s river frontage; the varied skyline of city centre, in particular views to the cathedrals, other landmark buildings and the ridge of higher ground to the east of the city centre; the careful juxtaposition of buildings of different periods along the waterfront of both historic and contemporary buildings, which demonstrate the evolution of the waterfront and can create an exciting visual interplay. • The city council’s aim is to create a cohesive and exciting waterfront of both historic and contemporary buildings, sitting harmoniously together. Central to this will be the achievement of a sense of cohesion along the river frontage with well-defined focal points of existing and new landmark buildings, and clusters of buildings that are read as part of a continual whole. Key existing focal points that need to be incorporated in such an approach include the Victoria Clock Tower, the Stanley Dock complex, Waterloo Warehouse, the Pier Head group, Albert Dock warehouses and the Arena. These focal points are all robust buildings of monumental scale. Their value to the cityscape is dynamic, dependent on a wide variety of factors, such as environmental conditions and the exact viewing point. Some development which intrudes into the views of them could be accommodated, provided that it does not wholly obstruct key views. But developers will need to demonstrate that their proposals will not compromise their fundamental contribution to the quality and interest of the skyline. The adoption of the supplementary planning document is not the end of the matter. It is a stage in the continuing process of understanding, valuing and caring for the views of the world heritage site.The next steps, which are under way, are to devise a rigorous and comprehensive methodology for assessing the impact of development proposals on views, as well as the other attributes of Liverpool’s ‘outstanding universal value’. The guidance on views in the supplementary planning document for Liverpool’s world heritage site is still relatively new. It remains untested at appeal and (at the time of writing) remains to be judged by UNESCO’s world heritage committee. What can be said is that the supplementary planning document is based on the premise that Liverpool’s fractured urban fabric needs careful repair. The guidance is consistent with the over-arching aim of the supplementary planning document, which is to protect the city’s unique spirit of place while positively encouraging the right form of development in the right place. The pragmatic approach of the guidance has been welcomed by the local media, which declared it a ‘triumph for common sense’ on its adoption. Current and forthcoming major development proposals in and around the world heritage site will cause the robustness of the guidance to be closely interrogated. For further information, visit www.liverpoolworldheritage.com. John Hinchliffe is world heritage officer with Liverpool City Council. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the council.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=