Planning matters

Liverpool’s historic waterfront is one of the most recognisable in the world. Once a powerhouse of global trade, its docks and warehouses are steeped in industrial and maritime heritage. The City is second only to London in the number of Grade I listed buildings it contains. But it is also a place that continues to evolve, and in recent years, not without tension. The loss of Liverpool’s World Heritage Site status in 2021 was a high-profile moment, raising questions about how cities manage growth in a heritage context.

 In the years since, there has been a noticeable uptick in urban development activity - from residential-led schemes in the Baltic Triangle, to holistic masterplanning of the North Docks, and, most recently, proposals for the city’s tallest building at King Edward Triangle. Liverpool City Council has responded with a renewed focus on how best to understand, protect and shape its historic environment. The draft Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), now out for consultation, is a key part of that response. It provides detailed guidance on how the city’s planning policies should be applied to developments affecting heritage assets, helping applicants and decision-makers navigate what can often be seen as a complex part of the planning process.

While many of its core messages reflect established national and local policy, the SPD stands out for its broad scope, and its level of practical detail on issues that regularly arise in heritage decision-making. It embraces the current direction of travel for the sector in terms of climate adaptation and retrofit.

For developers or owners of heritage buildings, or for authorities facing similar pressures around change in historic places, Liverpool’s SPD is likely to be of interest.

The SPD brings together a wide range of planning policy, legislation, guidance and good practice into a single accessible framework. It advocates all the core principles you would expect; early engagement, establishing an understanding of significance, and using this to shape a contextually appropriate design response.

However, it provides a level of detail that goes beyond broad policy interpretation. It also includes a characterisation of different parts of the city, providing context for understanding how Liverpool’s historic areas have developed over time.

It covers all types of heritage asset, including non-designated assets, and provides detailed practical advice on matters such as shopfront design, often the subject of their own separate SPD.

This is a real strength of the document. It goes further than most historic environment SPDs, by providing detailed, practical guidance on a wide range of common development alterations. These include extensions, window replacements, rooftop alterations, boundary treatments, shopfront changes, and public realm schemes. It sets out clear expectations for what is likely to be supported and when listed building consent is required. 

The detailed guidance on what is likely to be acceptable, and the thresholds for listed building consent, should give applicants greater certainty and improve the quality of submissions. The result, in theory, should be more predictable outcomes and a smoother planning process. Whilst similar guidance has been provided by authorities in other jurisdictions, this has occasionally proved too prescriptive. Liverpool's approach appears to strike a better balance, offering clear expectations without being overly rigid.

The SPD also addresses climate resilience, sustainability and energy efficiency, embracing Historic England’s recent guidance[1] on retrofitting historic buildings. It provides detailed guidance on interventions such as breathable insulation, secondary glazing, double glazing, heat pumps, solar panels and microgeneration, setting out the circumstances in which these are likely to be appropriate.

 It is encouraging to see the SPD align with this guidance, which in some regards can be seen as quite a progressive stance. This will be particularly important as pressure increases for existing buildings to meet higher environmental standards.

Although this SPD serves as a city-wide document, it also sits alongside other emerging tools, including the separate draft Waterfront Historic Environment and Design SPD. Taken together, these tools reflect a coordinated and proactive approach to heritage-led planning across Liverpool, providing a foundation for managing change.

The draft Historic Environment SPD offers a useful and detailed guide to managing change across Liverpool’s historic environment.

While many of its principles will be familiar to heritage professionals, the way in which the document brings these issues together in one place, particularly its focus on everyday development pressures, makes it a worthwhile reference. It is also notable for its integration of current thinking on sustainability and climate adaptation.

In the context of Liverpool’s loss of World Heritage Site status, the SPD can be seen as a constructive and practical step in reaffirming how the city manages and communicates the value of its historic environment.

For other authorities, the SPD may offer a model for how heritage guidance can be made more accessible and tailored to common issues. For those working in Liverpool, it is a document worth becoming familiar with as it will become a material consideration in planning decisions.

If you would like to comment on the document, the consultation runs until 3rd September 2025. If you are a working with historic buildings in the city and require more tailored, project-specific heritage advice, then please get in touch.

Lichfields has a dedicated team of heritage specialists who appraise historic buildings and places of all periods and condition. We successfully manage change to heritage assets through consideration of their heritage significance and impacts on setting. Our experience encompasses work locally in Liverpool, and nationally on World Heritage Sites, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens and Archaeology.
 

With further guidance promised and consultation on BNG ongoing (The Government’s BNG consultations explained (and why you should care)), this blog sets out key issues and takes a reading of the industry’s response.

Key to the utility of any DCO is its future compatibility with updated technology, and there is increasing recognition of the benefits of using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ to build in flexibility to a DCO. However, the rapid pace of technological advancement seems to be increasingly incompatible with the current DCO process. It was noted that a high proportion of consented DCOs are now incompatible with the latest technology, meaning many consented projects may not be built at all, or will require a post-consent change application to incorporate updated technology. 

 

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill removes the distinction between non-material and material changes post-consent to streamline this process. This is a welcome amendment that will help to ensure that major infrastructure projects can be built to optimal design.

 

One of the most interesting sessions for me was the talk by Ed McCann of Expedition Engineering on ‘Fit for purpose consents’ looked at key issues in project delivery. As Planners, we are not often involved in the ongoing implementation of major projects, but restrictions agreed to as part of the consent (for example construction working hours) can have severe cost and time implications, undermining project deliverability. Costing impacts must be fully interrogated at the consent stage, and we can hope that a simplified process for post-consent changes may also assist in this area.

 

Another issue requiring a strategic view relates to the use of the Rochdale Envelope. Whilst many developers are making use of opportunities for design optimisation post-consent, protracted pre-application timescales and delayed decisions often see this activity curtailed. It is hoped that time savings through reforms will re-establish opportunities for this refinement.

Changes to DCO consultation requirements was another key topic of the day. One key message from NIPA’s engagement with members was the need for consultation to focus on outcomes, as a proportionate exercise that is meaningful, open and transparent. This feedback was complemented by the case law update session, with a talk given by Daniel Kozelko on discarded alternatives during consultation. Drawing on case law including Mosely v LB Haringey (2014) and R (Possible (The 10:10 Foundation)) v SST (2025), Kozelko recommended that alternatives should be set out during consultation, relevant to the scope of the consultation. It is best practice to include brief commentary on arguable alternatives, setting out why they were rejected or considered non-viable.

 

Currently, it has been suggested that many developers are ‘gold plating’ consultation to avoid the risk of judicial review. Future guidance must establish clear requirements so that this does not carry over. Clarity on alternatives would be a welcome addition to this guidance, and confirmation of the applicability of these changes to post-consent change applications should also be included.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is set to apply to NSIPs from May 2026. I attended the workshop run by DEFRA on the Government’s ongoing consultation and heard views from delegates on the proposals.

 

The government proposes using the Order Limits to calculate the baseline BNG value and has suggested that it should apply to all NSIP types. Numerous participants raised the significant implications of this for linear projects, especially above ground or underground installations where there would be limited impacts to most of the land, and where wide lateral parameters are often used.

 

It was suggested that a maximum construction footprint should be used in the initial calculation, and the government’s proposal to enable later re-calculations was welcomed. The government is set to produce further guidance on BNG calculations to account for the use of parameters and design flexibility, which will be especially important in light of the increasing need for flexibility.

 

Further details of the consultation can be found on Lichfields’ blog: The Government's BNG consultations explained (and why you should care). The consultation is running until 24th July 2025.

The government’s recognition of the essential nature of major infrastructure projects to the UK’s growth strategy via the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has brought optimism to the industry, but also a high degree of uncertainty. The industry is keenly awaiting clear guidance on updated consultation requirements, and whilst there is support across the sector for the introduction of BNG for NSIPs, this is tempered by concern that a rigid application of the requirement will undermine project deliverability.

 

DCOs establish essential design flexibility which is of increasing importance in the context of rapid technological advancement. The compatibility of BNG with this process is yet to be confirmed. In this same vein, whilst there was little discussion of the proposed amendments to the post-consent change process, it is clear that this will contribute to better project outcomes: enabling the process to keep pace with technology, rescuing undeliverable projects, and opening up more avenues for post-consent design optimisation.

 

There is reason for optimism. The government is listening to the industry, and if recommendations are taken on board, it is hoped that the package of reforms currently underway will help to improve efficiency, flexibility, and proportionality in the DCO consenting process.