In 1996 the former Fallows printing works at 10-14 High Street, Wavertree, was acquired by a new owner, who promptly demolished what had originally been a row of mid-Victorian houses. Such demolition required Conservation Area Consent - but none had been applied for. The owner then started to construct a new building on the site - again without applying for planning permission. The City Council took him to court, and a fine was imposed. Eventually, in 1999, architect-drawn plans were submitted, showing a traditional-looking building (flats above shop units) incorporating a slate roof and timber sliding-sash windows. Planning permission was granted, and the building work re-commenced, but the results differed from the drawings in several important respects. The City Council took enforcement action, and the owner appealed against this decision. Now a Planning Inspector has dismissed the appeal and ordered the owner to replace the new UPVC casement windows with timber sliding-sash, to replace the concrete roof tiles with natural slate, and to remove the unauthorised rear balconies.

The Inspector's Report is unequivocal:

"The appellant is naturally concerned about the financial implications of having to comply with the terms of the original permission, but I am not persuaded that this should outweigh the serious harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area which I have identified".

In 1993 the trees and shrubs in the side garden of 20 North Drive (a listed building in Victoria Park) were bulldozed, and a fence was erected to form what the owner hoped would be a new building plot. We protested at these unauthorised actions, pointing out that large gardens are a characteristic feature of Victoria Park - which is an important part of the Wavertree Village Conservation Area.

Since that time, a number of planning applications have been submitted, the latest (ref. 03F/0228) being to build a two-storey detached house within the former garden area. Our view has always been that to allow such infill development would set an unfortunate precedent, and might encourage other property owners in the area to do the same with their 'surplus' land.