The former Wimpey chairman is a Liverpudlian who moved back to the North-west last week, having lived in the South for the past 17 years. He is charged with attracting major private sector investment to a city where most developers fear to tread.
Bolshie trade unions, a militant council, corruption 鈥� Liverpool has had it all, and to a far greater degree than any other British city. Laing, with its strict values, is still wary of working there after a bitter dispute on a docks project 35 years ago. Dwyer himself had a rough ride with the 15 unions operating in the city when he was working for Wimpey at the Cammell Laird shipyard in 1964 and 1965.
This was followed in the 1980s by the reign of Labour militant Derek Hatton, deputy leader of the council. Then, in 1990, Wimpey was drawn into a police investigation into alleged corruption in Liverpool, which led to the jailing of a former Wimpey regional director.
Dwyer admits that Liverpool鈥檚 negative image causes problems. He says: 鈥淭here is already a lot going on here, but the work is almost entirely by local developers like Urban Splash, Neptune and David McLean. What I will try to do is get national investors to see the benefit of coming to Liverpool.
鈥淚f you ask any developer whether they would work in Liverpool they would say no. They wouldn鈥檛 tell you exactly why, but beneath the surface they would be worried about militant unionism and the council.
鈥淚t was true these issues caused problems, but it鈥檚 not true now. The council had been the biggest problem and had been pretty poorly run, but now they believe it鈥檚 pointless to stay on their backsides trying to win political arguments. They鈥檝e got to get out and do something. I wouldn鈥檛 have taken this job if I didn鈥檛 believe there was a consensus in the city behind regeneration.鈥� Another reason the city may be able to start attracting developers and contractors now is that the political climate has changed. Dwyer explains: 鈥淭he city is still smarting from the Derek Hatton era. Now Liverpool is run by Liberal Democrats and has a much more moderate Labour group.
鈥淚t helps that Manchester has done tremendously well. Borne out of the tragedy of the IRA bomb, the council and the private sector have done a wonderful job, and we need to see more of that attitude here.鈥� Dwyer says relations with trade unions have changed since Laing 鈥渃ame a cropper鈥� on its docks project. 鈥淎mec and Wimpey have been here ever since and have done well. It鈥檚 very different today. Trade unionism is negligible.鈥� Liverpool Vision鈥檚 board includes representatives of the council, the North-west regional development agency and English Partnerships, as well as the Liverpudlian Tesco chief executive Terry Leahy and Littlewoods chairman James Ross.
Fellow Liverpudlian and board member Mike Grant, who is finance director of the Strategic Rail Authority, may help Dwyer open a few doors as he works on longer-term plans to improve the city鈥檚 transport links.
Liverpool Vision subsumes the council鈥檚 city-centre development team, and is a cross between a lightweight body with enabling powers and a muscular 1980s urban development corporation. And it has the backing of all relevant public sector regeneration bodies.
This is crucial. One reason Dwyer took the job was that, for the first time, he could see these outfits pulling together. Although Liverpool Vision does not have planning powers, it will organise the tender process for development of major sites in the city centre.
The city is still smarting from the Hatton era. Now it鈥檚 run by Liberal Democrats and has a much more moderate Labour group
High on Dwyer鈥檚 list of priorities are the Paradise Street retail area, the stalled 拢120m Chavasse Park millennium scheme and further development of the Mersey鈥檚 waterfront area.
鈥淐oming back to Liverpool after so long, I was surprised how many students were in the city, which has made it more vibrant. It鈥檚 become a much livelier place and, if anything, leisure development is lacking,鈥� he says.
Liverpool Vision鈥檚 first big project is a masterplanning exercise for the whole city centre. It is about to take on 鈥渟coping鈥� consultants to determine the brief, and will then pick the brains of masterplanners from around the world.
Dwyer鈥檚 plan is for all the parties represented by Liverpool Vision to sign up to the masterplan, so every developer will be clear on what it can and cannot do. One possible reference point is Lord Rogers鈥� urban taskforce report 鈥� mixed-use schemes and city-centre housing are likely to be recommended for Liverpool. Dwyer, however, plays down the report鈥檚 significance: 鈥淭his is not totally borne out of the Rogers report,鈥� he says. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 more about social exclusion and people, while we are focusing more strictly on regeneration.
鈥淢ost of the Rogers report one would have difficulty disagreeing with, but I can鈥檛 go along with his comments about [greenfield] taxation, and I鈥檓 not sure they would work,鈥� he says, exposing his housebuilding roots.
Liverpool Vision鈥檚 powers extend beyond the city centre: it has the power to plan and recommend transport improvements affecting the whole city.
Dwyer is exploring how the long journey from the M62 into the city centre can be speeded up, possibly by converting disused railway tracks into roads. He also wants better links between Liverpool鈥檚 airport and London.
But his real aim is to change attitudes inside and outside the city. 鈥淢y earnest hope is that soon we won鈥檛 be talking about public sector investment in Liverpool,鈥� he says.
鈥淢ost other parts of the UK talk just about private sector investment to get regeneration moving and I want to get away from the dependency culture here to always rely on the next European Union or government handout.
