1/ Historic England's objections to the Bramley-Moore project is perhaps one of the weakest objections. What they've left out considerable weakens their case.

2/ Everton in filling the dock within the docks complex is not new. It's been done before. Why no reference to this in their objection?

3/ They mention BMD had residential planning permission, but fail to recognise that no specific proposals have been put forward to build. How long has that permission being in place with no build?

4/ Even the holding company Peel, recognised that North Liverpool development would not happen for decades. Are you seriously arguing that a neglected Brown field site with no visitor access should remain fallow for decades? How does that preserve the world heritage status?

5/You fail to mention that Everton plan to re-purpose existing bricks which would preserve the general character of the dock and is an innovative feature of the build.

6/ You signally fail to mention the light house rebuild proposal. Something that you should be championing as another piece of innovation.

7/ You fail to mention the reverse engineering of the infill should the situation change. That alone is where you should have stopped your letter and ripped it up.

8/ Finally, you fail to detail the overwhelming economic benefit and the revitalization of that area of North Liverpool. And the overwhelming support for the project from all sectors in the city. Ok, except Dave from West Derby. Done.

Really sorry about this rant, but something had to be said. It's such a weak objection they should not have put pen to paper