Heritage, power and policy in Liverpool's post-industrial transformation (2004–2021)

Purpose This article critically examines how Liverpool's UNESCO World Heritage status was used to support urban regeneration agendas, highlighting the tensions between heritage conservation and neoliberal planning that ultimately led to the city's delisting. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a qualitative research approach combining document analysis, interview data and archival research. It examines planning documents, heritage reports and policy texts related to Liverpool's urban development and World Heritage Site status. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with planners, heritage professionals, private developers and community members. The analysis is guided by discourse theory, political economy and heritage governance frameworks. The study investigates how institutional actors constructed competing visions of heritage and regeneration, identifying key discursive strategies and structural dynamics that contributed to policy conflict, governance fragmentation and the eventual removal of World Heritage Site status. Findings The study finds that heritage in Liverpool was reframed as a tool for economic regeneration rather than protected cultural value. Planning documents and decisions prioritised visual branding and investment attraction, sidelining conservation responsibilities. Conflicting interpretations of heritage value led to institutional misalignment, limited coordination and weak enforcement. Developers and city officials dominated decision-making, while heritage agencies and communities were marginalised. The result was a pattern of symbolic recognition without substantive protection. These tensions contributed directly to the eventual loss of World Heritage status, revealing deep structural contradictions within the city's governance of heritage and urban development. Research limitations/implications The study focuses on a single case, which limits its broader applicability but allows in-depth exploration of complex governance dynamics. It relies on retrospective interviews and existing planning documents, which may reflect institutional justifications following the delisting. However, the triangulation of multiple data sources strengthens its reliability. The findings suggest a need for future comparative studies to examine similar urban contexts where heritage and development collide. They also underline the importance of stronger alignment between international conservation guidelines and local planning frameworks to avoid symbolic compliance and ensure meaningful preservation of heritage in regeneration processes. Practical implications The findings highlight the need for clear legal mechanisms to embed heritage conservation within urban planning systems. Planning authorities should be required to integrate international conservation standards into statutory frameworks rather than treat them as optional. Heritage bodies must be engaged at the early stages of development proposals with meaningful decision-making power. Community participation should move beyond consultation towards shared authority. The Liverpool case demonstrates that without binding coordination and transparency, heritage frameworks may fail in the face of economic pressure, resulting in irreversible damage to cultural assets and reputational costs at both local and international levels. Social implications The research reveals how urban regeneration in Liverpool reinforced social exclusion by marginalising community voices in heritage planning. While public benefit was repeatedly claimed, local residents had little influence on decisions that reshaped their environment. Heritage narratives focused on visual appeal and investment value, erasing working-class and culturally embedded histories. The exclusion of communities weakened trust in planning processes and deepened perceptions of inequality. The study shows the need for participatory heritage governance that values diverse identities and local memory, ensuring that regeneration processes are socially inclusive and culturally responsive rather than driven solely by market logic. Originality/value This study offers an original contribution by linking critical discourse analysis with governance theory to examine heritage as a contested space shaped by economic and political interests. It reveals how symbolic heritage designations can be co-opted for development agendas and disconnected from conservation practice. The research moves beyond technical planning analysis by foregrounding power, inequality and institutional disjunction. It demonstrates that heritage governance must be understood not as neutral management but as a site of negotiation, conflict and meaning-making. The study provides valuable insights for cities facing similar tensions between international heritage frameworks and urban growth pressures.