Stanley Dock

Heritage Interpretation and Management Plan

Produced by

Chris Han, Adrian Juscikowski and Megan Atkinson

May 2015

Contents 1. Purpose of the Plan

2. History and Description of Stanley Dock

3. Assessment of Significance and Summary of Current Condition

4. Implementation and Monitoring

5. Management Issues

6. Aims and Objectives

7. Bibliography

1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The purpose of this document is to establish a heritage management plan for Stanley Dock in

Liverpool which, at the time of writing, is undergoing a regeneration project due to be completed in

2020 [online] (Regeneration Investment Organisation). The document will assess the significance of

the dock’s built heritage and suggest various forms of heritage and cultural interpretation for the

site as a means of attracting visitors and providing them with a quality experience and understanding

of its importance (Ballantyne 1998).

2 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF STANLEY DOCK

2.1 LIVERPOOL AS A PORT CITYThe city of Liverpool quickly expanded as a result of the growth in the 19 th century global maritime

network (Milne 2006). Due to the expansion in Irish Sea and Atlantic trades from the early 19 th

century, Liverpool’s great maritime age became well established with the development of a frontier

of docks (Milne 2006) (Fig. 1). The commercial docks that characteristically dominate Liverpool’s

waterfront were necessary because the River Mersey was too rough to handle shipping on and

therefore efficient cargo loading and unloading required sheltered anchorages and storage facilities.

The only way to create these conditions on the Mersey was to build enclosed docks (Milne 2006).

Fig. 1 Map of Liverpool’s frontier of docks along the River Mersey, showing the date each dock was

established (Milne 2006: 268)

2.2 SITE PLAN OF STANLEY DOCK

Fig. 2 Present day OS Map (1:2500) of Stanley Dock system, which connects to Collingwood Dock on

the left and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal on the right [online] (Digimap)

Built to connect the Leeds and Liverpool canal with the dock system, Stanley Dock is the only existing

inland Liverpool dock (Towers 2011). It is situated in the Vauxhall area of Liverpool, which lies in the

northern part of Liverpool’s dock system (Fig. 1). It compromises of a central dock and three

buildings: the recently converted North warehouse, the Tobacco warehouse and the South

warehouse (Fig. 2). The north warehouse is grade II* listed and the other buildings are grade II listed.

The dock lies within Liverpool City Council’s ‘Stanley Dock Conservation Area’ and is included in

UNESCO’s World Heritage Site for Liverpool (Liverpool City Council 2004). Other buildings and

features that are grade II listed within the site include the Hydraulic Tower (Fig. 3) and the Gate

Watchman’s Huts (Fig. 4) at the entrance points.

Fig. 3 View of the grade II listed Hydraulic Tower on the north side of the dock (Authors 2015)

Fig. 4 View of a Gate Watchman’s Hut on the north entrance to the dock complex (Authors 2015)

2.3 HISTORY OF STANLEY DOCKThe Stanley Dock complex was designed and engineered by Jesse Hartley in 1848 as part of

Liverpool’s rapid growth as a port city (Towers 2011). The mid-19th century complex compromised of

a north and south warehouse either side of the dock and a wall that surrounded the complex (Fig. 5).

The north and south warehouses demonstrate Hartley’s influential architectural style, as seen in the

arches and columns (Fig. 6 and 7) that are a very similar style to Albert Dock.

Fig. 5 1890s OS Map (1:2500) of Stanley Dock before the Tobacco Warehouse was built in 1901

[online] (Digimap)

Fig. 6 Photograph of Stanley Dock north warehouse, designed by Jesse Hartley in 1848 (Authors

2015)

Fig. 7 View of the south end warehouse that was designed by Jesse Hartley in 1848 (Authors 2015)

The warehouses were used to store various goods that were unloaded from incoming boats from the

international trade (Milne 2006). The north warehouse (Fig. 6) was used to store vast vats of rum

until this warehouse was severely damaged by bombing in the Second World War (Titanic Hotel

Liverpool 2013). In 1901 Stanley Dock was partially infilled and the Tobacco Warehouse was built in

front of the south warehouse (Towers 2011) (Fig. 8 and 9). The building’s massing overshadows the

original warehouses and is argued to be the largest brick warehouse in Europe (Towers 2011).

Fig. 8 1920s OS map (1: 1800) of Stanley Dock showing the later infill with the Tobacco warehouse

[online] (Digimap)

Fig. 9 View of the Tobacco Warehouse at Stanley Dock (Authors 2015)

In the post-war era, employment reform, financial crisis of dock owners and changes in shipping

methods dramatically reshaped Liverpool’s docks (Murden 2006 and Tallon 2013). Stanley Dock

continued to be used until 1980 when it closed down and fell into a state of dereliction and disrepair

(Towers 2011). A proposal for a regeneration project was approved in 2007 to turn the site into a

mixed use site of both commercial and residential units (Liverpool Vision 2013). The north

warehouse was successfully converted into a luxury hotel in 2014 and the adaptation of the rest of

the site aims to be completed by 2020 [online] (Regeneration Investment Organisation).

2.4 LIVERPOOL’S DOCK WORKERS AND COMMUNITIES

Fig. 10 View of dockers at work in Liverpool (Towers 2011: 98)

Due to the fluctuation of trade in port cities, the labour employment system of ‘casualism’ was

deeply entrenched in Liverpool’s docks until reform occurred from the 1960s (Wilson 1972). In the

19th century, men looking for dock work (known as dockers) would present themselves at the docks’

hiring stands, which operated in the morning or the middle of the day (Milne 2006). Depending on

the shipments that had arrived, the foremen would hire the required number of dockers to load and

unload shipments, then send away the rest (Wilson 1972). As can be seen in Fig. 10, it is often

claimed that dock work was unskilled labour requiring no more than ‘mere muscle’, but on the other

hand many people have argued that the work was actually specialised depending on the type of

cargo that was being handled (Phillips and Whiteside 1985). At Stanley Dock there was variation in

the type of cargo, but it became synonymous with tobacco storage from the early 20 th century

because the Tobacco Warehouse was built in 1901 (Towers 2011) (Fig. 11). However, the elusive

nature of what is defined as ‘skill’ in this instance is believed to have perpetuated the casual system

of employment in relation to the docks (Phillips and Whiteside 1985). ‘Much work on the Merseyside

was relatively unregulated and potentially dangerous and accidents and illness which interrupted

employment was common’ (Milne 2006: 204); the port employers were not responsible for the

welfare of the casual labourers which they only employed for the hours worked or tons moved

(Wilson 1972).

Fig. 11 View of dock workers organising cargo in the Stanley Dock Tobacco warehouse (Towers 2011:

100)

Due to the unpredictable available work, a close proximity to the docks was required to ensure that

the men could easily present themselves in the morning at the hiring stands (Milne 2006).

Consequently, ‘living within walking distance of the docks was almost essential’ (Milne 2006: 204)

because dockers had to know when a boat was coming in and work would be available (Pooley

2006). The casual nature of the labour and fluctuations in trade, meant that dockers gained an

irregular income – ranging from 5 to 26 shillings a week (Milne 2006). Therefore, the housing near

the dock had to be relatively cheap because of the massive variation in wages (Milne 2006).

Condensed terraced housing rapidly developed nearby and simultaneous to the development of the

docks (Pooley 2006). It became iconic to Liverpool’s 19th century morphological development (Pooley

2006) (Fig. 12). It was known as slum terraced housing because the overcrowding (Fig. 13) and

poverty led to poor health and the quick spread of disease. In the 1930s, attempts were made by

Liverpool City Council to alleviate these problems by creating new peripheral housing estates but the

dock workers were unwilling to move to these estates as they would lose out on the local knowledge

of available dock work (Pooley 2006).

Fig. 12 Picture of the typical crowded terraced housing that was in a close proximity to Liverpool’s

docks (Milne 2006: 209)

Fig. 13 1890s OS Map of condensed terraced in the Vauxhall area to the north of Stanley Dock [online] (Digimap)

In 1913 it was recorded that nearly 50% of Liverpool’s dockers earned less than 15 shillings a week

(Phillips and Whiteside 1985). The effects of casualism impacted the families of dockers in many

ways (Wilson 1972). The fluctuations in the dockers’ wages meant that many families were on the

border of acute poverty (Wilson 1972), having only two meals of bread and margarine a day (Milne

2006). As a result, many dockers liked to rely on secondary sources of income which was usually

acquired by the women of household either through domestic craft industries (Wilson 1972) or they

gained employment as live-in domestic servants for wealthier families (Milne 2006). In addition,

casualism is believed to have become cyclical in dockers’ families because the children grew up

undernourished, stunted and poorly clothed and subsequently went on to seek unskilled labour

themselves (Wilson 1972).

In 1967 Liverpool dock workers held the longest strike in comparison to other dockers in Britain in

order to achieve a level of fairness in pay through decasualization (Murden 2006). The employment

reforms that occurred that year, through the National Dock Labour Board, assigned port employers

with permanent employees, which for the first time placed responsibility for the provision of work

on these employers (Mellish 1972). The 1967 decasualization led to an increase in employment for

dockers nationwide, with 20,511 registered dockers recorded in the first year (Mellish 1972).

However, wider geo-political influences on port trade threw dockers into the midst of a bigger crisis

due to containerisation (Murden 2006). Container cargo vessels were able to maximise the earning

capacity of shipping through standardised dimensions, but they also became mechanised and

required fewer dockers to manually load the cargo (Wilson 1972). Sidled with the physical damage

to docks from the Second World War and financial crisis of dock owners, the emptying of

warehouses and closure of Liverpool and nationwide docks began in the 1970s (Murden 2006).

Overall, the availability of dockers’ work was heavily reliant on the fluctuations in the trade system

from the outset. Dockers were an integral part of the port system throughout Liverpool and Britain’s

period of industrial dominance, but their conditions of work and living were not reflective of their

importance. Reform arguably occurred too late as globalisation had shifted the way trade was

organised and the docks were unable to respond to this change leading to their eventual closure

(Milne 2006). Since the 1980s, famous waterfront regeneration projects have become characteristic

of a process of urban renaissance in the UK (Tallon 2013). The dockers no longer remain a visible

part of our heritage, but their place of work continues to contribute to the built heritage of port

cities.

3 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SUMMARY OF CURRENT CONDITION

3.1 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE By using Historic England’s (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance, this document will

consider how the following heritage values – evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal –

amount to the significance of the site.

Evidential value

‘Evidential value derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity’

(Historic England 2008: 28).

The main evidential value that Stanley Dock possesses is its tangible connection to Liverpool and the

nation’s industrial heritage. Although there are some architectural flourishes, the warehouses are

clearly built for function rather than form. In addition, there has been limited 20 th century

developments that have obscured its evidential significance as a dock complex, and therefore, it

remains as one of the few complete inland dock systems in Liverpool. Moreover, the site still

contains its original wall with gate watchman’s huts (Fig. 14) that are grade II listed within the

conservation area. However, the demolition of the surrounding slum terraced housing has

diminished the evidential value of the historical urban morphology that was crucial to Liverpool’s

development in the 19th century. This has greatly eroded the evidential connection of the dockers’

working conditions and living arrangements.

Fig. 14 The gatekeeper towers for Stanley Dock are grade II listed as part of the original wall (Authors

2015)

Fig. 15 The North warehouse, which has been converted into the Titanic warehouse, has Hartley’s

characteristic architectural style of arches and columns (Authors 2015)

The dock’s connection to the architect and engineer Jesse Hartley [online] (Regeneration Investment

Organisation) is evident in the architectural style of the arches and columns (Fig. 15) – which creates

connotations to the famous Grade I listed Albert Dock complex also in Liverpool. Its layout and

existing buildings and machinery (Fig. 16) help give an insight into the environment for the

waterfront workers in the Industrial Revolution and yield evidence about the past human activity of

the space.

Fig. 16 View of the Tobacco warehouse and visible machinery (Authors 2015)

Consequently, the evidential value of Stanley Dock is one of its most important heritage values

because it shows the later infill of the dock with the building of the Tobacco Warehouse in 1901 (Fig,

16), remains in its original entirety and provides evidence of the industrial development of the city

and the country. But the surrounding demolition of 19th century housing has impacted the way the

landscape can be understood in terms of its connection to the community.

Historical value

‘Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be

connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative’ (Historic England

2008: 28).

Stanley Dock’s historical value lies in its associative connections to the industrial and maritime

workers. Additionally, it has both an illustrative and associative connection to the architectural style

of Jesse Hartley because of the characteristic arches and columns that are similar to Albert Dock (Fig.

15). It has remained an accurate representation of 19th century and very early 20th century

warehouse and dock complexes, but its significance has been diminished by the influence of wider

economic changes and its subsequent disuse and dereliction since the late 20 th century.

Fig. 17 View of the connection to the Leeds-Liverpool canal at the east side of the dock (Authors

2015)

It has been designated a heritage asset at local, national and international scales: Stanley Dock

Conservation Area by Liverpool City Council, Grade II and II* listed buildings and a World Heritage

Site by UNESCO in 2004. Its industrial connections are therefore widely recognised as influential

parts of the collective industrial heritages. Furthermore, it has illustrative historical connections to

the Leeds-Liverpool canal (Fig. 17) and therefore also has important historical connections to the

development of the canal network.

Aesthetic value

‘Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation

from a place’ (Historic England 2008: 30).

People will draw sensory stimulation from the red brick building material that is characteristic of

Liverpool’s 19th century industrial buildings. Furthermore, the massing of the buildings are significant

to the aesthetic value, as the Tobacco Warehouse is the largest brick warehouse in Europe (Towers

2011). The massing also mirrors the socio-economic prowess and dominance the city had up until

the late 20th century (Towers 2011). People will also draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from

the sublime associations of the architectural design of the complex that is juxtaposed with the visible

waterfront of the River Mersey. In addition, surrounding designated features such as the grade II

listed Victoria clock tower in Collingwood Dock (Fig. 18) add to the aesthetic value because it

highlights how Liverpool’s waterway systems and docks were interconnected.

Fig. 18 View of Collingwood Dock, which is connected to the west of Stanley Dock, and its grade II

listed Victoria clock tower [online] (Pennine Waterways)

The complex’s aesthetic authenticity has been untouched by 20th century development and the

machinery and buildings remain visible for the public. Many of the original windows have been

reused in the recently regenerated North warehouse and the same process will be applied to the

South warehouses (Liverpool Vision 2013) – which increases the ‘authenticity’ of the aesthetic value.

However, with the obsolescence and abandonment of the docks since the late 1980s (Towers 2011)

the aesthetic value has been eroded by the lack of maintenance and the state of disrepair that some

parts currently exist in (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19 View of the Tobacco Warehouse in the current, 2015, state of disrepair and abandonment

(Authors 2015)

Communal value

‘Communal value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom

it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with

historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific

aspects’ (Historic England 2008: 31).

Since the 1980s the Stanley Dock complex fell into a state of disrepair and dereliction (Fig. 19) and,

like many other industrial buildings, became a symbol of economic decline and low prosperity (Strike

1994). Previously, the dock area was a place only for workers (Towers 2011) and therefore, with the

current regeneration project underway, the site will become more accessible to the public and once

more be a symbol of economic prosperity. This will greatly add to its communal value as people can

better understand its historical significance and reap aesthetic and evidential value from the existing

fabric.

People will relate to the dock complex because it remains a symbol of Liverpool’s industrial heritage

and relates to the city’s historical development. This is integral to defining people’s ‘sense of place’

(Historic England 2008). The space is recognised at all heritage designation scales – local, national

and global – which means the community will make associative connections through the site to the

important role and dramatic changes to society that occurred in the Industrial Revolution (Historic

England 2011).

The regeneration project may negatively impact the legibility of the buildings and how they were

originally used, but because their use is obsolete in the ‘New Economy’ (Tallon 2013), it is the most

viable option to ensure that the buildings continue to be tied up with the community’s cultural

meanings and memories of the space. As previously mentioned, its tangible connection to the

community has been removed and therefore the site on the one hand remains ever more important

as it is a remnant but also contradictorily represents a disconnection to the city. Therefore, an

interpretation of the site would be useful to communicate information and not negatively impact

the legibility of the site for the community (Historic England 2013).

3.2 SUMMARY OF CURRENT CONDITION The site is currently in a partially completed stage. The north warehouse has been converted into a

hotel and conference centre (Fig. 20). The Tobacco warehouse (Fig. 21) and south warehouse,

however, remain in a derelict condition. But work is underway to convert these warehouses into

apartments

Fig. 20 The recently regenerated grade II* north warehouse has been converted into a hotel and

conference centre

Fig. 21 Work is currently underway to convert the abandoned and derelict grade II Tobacco

Warehouse into an apartment complex (Liverpool Vision 2013)

4 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

4.1 INTERPRETATION MATERIAL By evaluating existing dock interpretation, such as that already offered at Albert Dock in Liverpool,

the authors found this focused on the international narrative of dock systems: colonialism, trade and

slavery [online] (National Museums Liverpool). The authors identified there was a ‘gap’ in the

heritage interpretation of local and, even, national narratives of the dock systems. As previously

mentioned, the evidence of the Stanley Dock’s connection to its working community has been

greatly eroded. Therefore, the suggested heritage and cultural interpretation material will

incorporate previously excluded memories into the public sphere (Macdonald 2009) and emphasise

some of the lost historical evidence by focusing on dock workers and their communities.

Interpretation Boards

Three interpretation boards will be placed around the site each covering a different topic: history of

the site (Fig. 22), life of a docker (Fig. 23) and dockland communities.

Fig. 22 Sample of the ‘History of the Site’ interpretation board (Created by Authors 2015)

Fig. 23 Sample of the ‘Life of a Docker & Trade’ interpretation board (Created by Authors 2015)

To ensure the interpretation is fully appreciated, the interpretation boards should be strategically

placed so they are visible but not obstructing important historical views (Hems 2006). The authors

have suggested that the interpretation boards should be placed in three locations (Fig. 24). The

boards will be angled rather than standing vertically at 90 degrees, as seen in the example in Fig. 25.

This will contribute to the conservation of the site’s significance.

Fig. 24 Map of the location of interpretation boards [online] (Digimap). Annotated by the authors.

Fig. 25 View of the angle of interpretation board that will be used at the Stanley Dock [online]

(Shelley Signs)

Phone and Tablet App

It could be considered there is often a conflict between heritage interpretation and conservation;

the former tries to engage with site visitors, whilst the latter attempts to reduce permanent damage

to the historic fabric of buildings (Hems 2006). Modern technology could be a way to overcome this

conflict (Bath 2006). The use of technology has many benefits: it allows off-site interpretation, the

reduction of damage caused by visitors, it does not create unsightly intrusions to the landscape,

different narratives can be easily represented and a wider demographic can be accessed (Bath 2006).

It is proposed that a ‘Stanley Dock’ app will be used to interpret the site (Fig. 26). The app will be

operable on both a smartphone and tablet. Historic information about dock workers and their

communities can be found on the app and used offsite (Fig. 27). However, an additional map feature

will allow the visitor to interpret the site as they walk around it – it will use GPS to identify where the

user is located (Fig. 28). The app will then show historic pictures of the part of the site they are

looking at (Fig. 29). A prototype of this app can be found at: https://marvelapp.com/b4121h

Fig. 26 Sample of the front page of the Stanley Dock app (Created by Authors 2015)

Fig. 27 Sample view of the dockland communities information page on the app (Created by Authors

2015)

Fig. 28 Sample view of the map gallery section of the app (Created by Authors 2015)

Fig. 29 Sample view of a historic picture that will be given to the user of the app (Created by Authors

2015)

Themed Tours

It is recognised that building a trip around a particular theme such as heritage or culture offers the

opportunity for a true connection with a region, historical event or other areas of special interest

(About Travel 2015). Heritage tourism is a growing industry in the UK, as towns and cities look for

innovative ways to capitalise on their historic assets and to promote them as part of a package that

differentiates them from other places (Tallon 2013).

Themed tours can last for an afternoon, day or weekend. Most themed tours are led by experts who

provide special insight into the events, places and people related to the theme (About Travel 2015).

The main company for this type of heritage interpretation in Liverpool City Centre is provided by the

popular Visit England quality assured theatrically led ghost and history tour company Shiverpool.

Their tours explore the city's most famous locations whilst also telling the history of the site during

an entertaining and theatrical performance. The tours are inclusive and have no age limits; they are

popular all year round and have scheduled tours every week of the year (Shiverpool 2015). A

partnership with Shiverpool would be the ideal way to access an already established client base and

growing audience.

There are a number of reported hauntings in Stanley Dock and its warehouses throughout its history.

As part of the Shiverpool Tours they would tie in these ghost stories with the historical aspect of the

site, including information about the workers, local residents and the conditions in which they lived

and worked. The company also offers the option for coach or mini bus tours, which could be used for

the short journey to Stanley Dock from the city centre. The tours can accommodate up to 40 people

at a time and are offered at various times throughout the day, again ensuring that a wide audience

and age range can be targeted. Temporary and non-intrusive modes of interpretation, such as tours

and re-enactments, are a good way of increasing people’s understanding of the site without

permanently impacting the fabric of the buildings (Hems 2006).

4.2 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Heritage is a concept always in flux, and ‘new things become heritage all the time’ (Howard 2003:

186). Therefore in order to remain ‘relevant’, it is important that the suggested interpretation of the

site is regularly reviewed and analysed. The site interpreters should frequently ask ‘why do we

interpret?’ rather than just ‘how?’ (Ballantyne 1998: 10).

In the early stages of its implementation, the plan should be reviewed every 6 months and then take

a longer review plan if believed necessary. Feedback should be collected on site by questionnaires

and interviews with visitors and should aim to identify the motivational needs of the visitors (Trainer

et al. 2012). In addition, the ‘Stanley Dock app’ should offer an optional feedback prompt to users

and for the themed tours an optional feedback sheet will be sent to people who booked onto the

tours via e-mail. This information should be collated with the on-site data to create a tailored and

needs-based interpretation program for Stanley Dock (Trainer et al. 2012).

5 MANAGEMENT ISSUES

5.1 ACCESS

Fig. 30 Map of present day Stanley Dock, the boundary wall to the site is highlighted in red which

shows the main entrance and access points to the site (Liverpool Vision 2013)

‘[E]veryone should be able to enjoy easy and inclusive access to the historic environment’ (Historic

England 2012: 5). As this plan offers an interpretation for Stanley Dock, management issues of easy

access and safety need to be considered to ensure the site can be equally appreciated in a safe

manner. The walls around the dock complex offer 6 entrance points, but there is limited available

space for onsite parking for heritage visitors (Fig. 30). The surrounding streets have available on-

street parking, but encouraging this may cause problems for the local residents and businesses. As a

result, it is suggested that public transport to the site is encouraged; the nearest train station,

Sandhills, is less than a 15 minute walk and a taxi boat or shuttle bus between Albert Dock and

Stanley Dock could be established.

5.2 SAFETY

Fig. 31 Photograph of the cobble stones at the south end warehouse of Stanley Dock (Authors 2015)

Currently, the navigation of the site would require walking on uneven cobble stones (Fig. 31).

Cobbles can be difficult for disabled people to walk on, will restrict wheelchair use around the site

and may create a trip hazard for visitors (Historic England 2012). The authors suggest that a smooth

path or paving stones (similar to those currently used in Albert Dock or at the North warehouse (Fig.

32)) should be laid down to allow easy access around the site. However to conserve the significance

of the site, these should only be laid down around the dock and en route to exit and entrance points.

In addition, secure railings around the unprotected dock and waterway connections (Fig. 33) will be

implemented so that visitors can view the heritage values without being put at risk.

Fig. 32 View of the walkway next to the regenerated north warehouse at Stanley Dock that has used

paving stones for improved access through the site (Authors 2015)

Fig. 33 Photograph of the Tobacco warehouse and entrance point to Stanley Dock from Collingwood

Dock (Authors 2015)

Conservation is about managing change to best sustain the heritage’s significance, whilst also

recognising there are opportunities to reveal its qualities for present and future generations (Historic

England 2013). Although some of the suggested changes, such as those to the cobble stones, may

decrease aspects of the significance at Stanley Dock there are greater cultural gains to be reaped

from allowing the interpretation of the site to be equally accessed by everyone (Historic England

2013). And as is outlined in the guidance, ‘[t]here are no standard solutions because every access

improvement must be assessed in the context of its own site.’ (Historic England 2013: 41)

6 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

6.1 HERITAGE INTERPRETATION ‘Interpretation has played a crucial role in regenerating declining urban, industrial and rural areas

through tourism and conservation programmes. Equally though, it has been accused of trivialising

history and inculcating within the public a reactionary, superficial and romantic view of the past’

(Uzzell 1998: 11). The aim of this interpretation plan is to attract visitors to the site and educate

them in the social history of the docks, looking specifically at Liverpool but also offering a comment

on the workers that played a crucial role in the collective heritage of Britain’s industrial and maritime

age. The plan will acknowledge that by presenting the past and present as separate concepts,

historical narratives can inadvertently offer an idyllic and misrepresentative view of the past

(Hewison 1987). However, the aim of this plan is to ensure that Stanley Dock’s built heritage is

demonstrated as significant because of its evidence of the past industrial age but to also highlight its

potential to continue contributing to Liverpool’s economic prosperity. The interpretation aims to

offer an analytical view of dock workers: their roles within the dock and the standards of living and

work.

6.2 VISITOR DEMOGRAPHICSApproximately 5.8 million people visited Liverpool’s Albert Dock waterfront in 2013 and this figure

has been steadily increasing since 2010 [online] (McDonough 2014). It is clear from the statistics that

waterfront and industrial sites are important visitor attractions in heritage tourism. The authors

have, subsequently, identified this as a growing heritage market to tap into. But the interpretation

offered at Stanley Dock will consider a different waterfront narrative than the one currently offered

at Albert Dock to avoid repetition and a disengaging visitor experience.

Visitor research shows that the major demographic visiting heritage sites is an older population aged

50 or over (Richards 1999), classified as ‘Affluent Greys’, they contribute to 7.9% of the population

(CACI 2007). In addition, ‘Secure Families’ that are 15.5% of the population are often targeted in

heritage tourism (CACI 2007). Therefore, the authors decided to tailor the various interpretations to

allow different demographics, from older adults to children, to ‘experience new things’ and ‘learn

new things’ – which are identified as the main motivations for visitors (Richards 1999). However,

there is a massive ‘gap’ in attracting other demographics of the population to heritage interpretation

sites. This includes young adults, such as ‘Educated Urbanites’ (CACI 2007), and working class

families. Consequently, it is believed that the use of modern technology will help broaden the

demographic of the heritage interpretation to create a more inclusive experience.

As part of the National Curriculum, students in Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14) deepen their knowledge of

and understanding of the political power and conflicts in 19th and 20th century British and

international history (Department for Education 2013). This can include ‘Britain as the first industrial

nation’ (DoE 2013: 4) and its impact on society. Consequently, the interpretation information offered

about industrialisation, the development of Liverpool as a port city and the role of its waterfront

workers at the interpretation boards and on the app will be tailored to an audience of Key Stages 3

and above. The Shiverpool company will be able to offer an engaging experience that will attract a

wider demographic and could be used for younger educational audience as a result.

6.3 SUMMARY In summary, the main aims and objectives of the management and interpretation plan include:

1. Attract visitors, locals and ‘day trippers’, to the site to increase the understanding of its

significance

2. Create an enjoyable and inclusive experience for affluent greys, families and KS3+

educational visitors

3. Aim to also engage young adult and working class demographics that are often overlooked

in heritage tourism visitor profiles

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY About Travel (2015) Themed Tours [online] Found at:

http://seniortravel.about.com/od/typesoftravelforseniors/a/Themed-Travel.htm [Date accessed

29th May 2015]

Ballantyne, R. (1998) Problems and prospects for heritage and environmental interpretation in the

new millennium: an introduction, in Uzzell, D. and Ballantyne, R. (eds) Contemporary Issues in

Heritage and Environmental Interpretation: Problems and Prospects, The Stationary Office: London

Bath, B. (2006) The use of new technology in the interpretation of historic landscapes, in Hems, A.

and Blockley, M. (eds) Heritage Interpretation, Routledge: London

CACI (2007) Acorn: Smarter Consumer Classification, Found at:

http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/6069/mrdoc/pdf/6069_acorn_userguide.pdf [Date Accessed 27th May

2015]

Department for Education (2013) National Curriculum in England: History Programmes of Study for

Key Stage 3, Found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239075/

SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_History.pdf [Date Accessed 22nd May 2015]

Digimap [online] Present day OS Map of Stanley Dock (1:2500), Found at:

http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os [Date Accessed 2nd May 2015]

Digimap [online] Historic Roam, Found at: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/ancientroam/historic [Date

Accessed 2nd May 2015]

Hems, A. (2006) Introduction, in Hems, A. and Blockley, M. (eds) Heritage Interpretation, Routledge:

London

Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry, Methuen: London

Historic England (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance

Historic England (2011) Designation Listing Selection Guide to Industrial Structures

Historic England (2012) Easy Access to Historic Buildings

Historic England (2013) Easy Access to Historic Landscapes

Howard, P. (2003) Heritage: Management, Interpretation and Identity, Continuum: London

Liverpool City Council (2004) Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City: Official Map and Guide, Found

at: http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/images/printable_map_with_street_names.pdf [Date

Accessed 2nd May 2015]

Liverpool Vision (2013) Stanley Dock: Liverpool, Found at: http://www.liverpoolvision.co.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2014/03/Stanley-Dock-A4-2pp.pdf [Date Accessed 1st May 2015]

Macdonald, S. (2009) Unsettling Memories: intervention and controversy over difficult public

heritage, in Peralta, E. and Anico, M. (eds) Heritage and Identity in the Twenty-First Century, Oxon:

Routledge

McDonough, T. [online] (2014) Albert Dock visitor numbers rise for the fourth year in a row, Found

at: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/business/albert-dock-visitor-numbers-rise-6539972 [Date

Accessed 21st May 2015]

Mellish, M. (1972) The Docks after Devlin, Heinemann Educational Books: London

Milne, G.J. (2006) Maritime Liverpool, in Belchem, J. (ed) Liverpool 800: Culture, Character and

History, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool

Murden, J. (2006) ‘City of Change and Challenge’: Liverpool since 1945, in Belchem, J. (ed) Liverpool

800: Culture, Character and History, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool

National Museums Liverpool [online] International Slavery Museum, Found at:

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/index.aspx [Date Accessed 2nd May 2015]

National Museums Liverpool [online] Merseyside Maritime Museum, Found at:

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/index.aspx [Date Accessed 2nd May 2015]

Pennine Waterways [online] Liverpool Canal Link, Found at:

http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/liverpoolcanallink/link61.htm [Date Accessed 6th May 2015]

Phillips, G. and Whiteside, N. (1985) Casual Labour: the unemployment question in the port

transport industry 1880-1970, Clarendon Press: Oxford

Pooley, C.G. (2006) Living in Liverpool: The Modern City, in Belchem, J. (ed) Liverpool 800: Culture,

Character and History, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool

Regeneration Investment Organisation [online] Regeneration Project: Stanley Dock – Liverpool,

Found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regeneration-project-stanley-docks-

liverpool-gdv-130m/regeneration-project-stanley-docks-liverpool-gdv-130m [Date Accessed 1st May

2015]

Richards, G. (1999) Heritage Visitor Attractions in Europe: A Visitor Profile, Interpretation, 4(3), pp.

9-13

Shelley Signs [online] Shelley Signs Interpretation Boards, Found at:

http://www.shelleysigns.co.uk/overview/interpretation-board/ [Date Accessed 27th May 2015]

Shiverpool (2015) About Shiverpool [online] Found at: http://www.shiverpool.co.uk/about.aspx

[Date accessed 29th May 2015]

Strike, J. (1994) Architecture in Conservation, Routledge: London

Tallon, A. (2013) Urban Regeneration, (2nd edition), Routledge: London

Titantic Hotel Liverpool (2013) Built to Last…Here to Stay, Found at:

http://www.millsmediagroup.com/Downloads/Titanic%20and%20Rum%20Warehouse%20Fact

%20Sheet.pdf [Date Accessed 27th May 2015]

Towers, B. (2011) Waterfront Blues: The Rise and Fall of Liverpool’s Dockland, Carnegie Publishing

Ltd: London

Trainer, L., Steele-Inama, M. and Christopher, A. (2012) Uncovering Visitor Identity: a citywide

utilization of the Falk visitor-identity model, Journal of Museum Education, 37 (1), pp. 101-114

Uzzell, D. (1998) Interpreting our Heritage: a theoretical interpretation, in Uzzell, D. and Ballantyne,

R. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation: Problems and Prospects,

The Stationary Office: London

Wilson, D.F. (1972) Dockers: the impact of industrial change, Fontana: Suffolk