Liverpool FC has “completely destroyed any relationship they had with residents”, it has been claimed – despite plans for a controversial road closure being recommended for rejection. For the past five years, an area around Anfield Road between Alroy Road and Skerries Road has been closed. This was to allow for the expansion of the Anfield Road stand on the same side of the stadium. The work was completed in 2024 but while access was granted for pedestrians and cyclists, it was not reopened to cars.
As a plan for the closure to remain permanent went back before the city council for a fresh decision, local leaders have criticised the club for their approach. Planning committee members indicated they are minded to formally reject the scheme.
Community opposition and safety arguments
In June the proposals, which also included shifting the stadium’s respite window to allow concerts to take place in July, were heavily criticised by the committee. Consultations by way of surveys issued during the application indicated a lack of support from the community for the scheme, with 66% against the change in September 2024. This rose to 74% in March 2025 when a second questionnaire was issued. However the plans were recommended by officials to get the go-ahead.
Sam Ryan is a planning consultant who has represented LFC for many years. She said the area around the ground was owned by the club and a private highway had been constructed during the wider works. She added delayed construction works had led to the extended road closure. Ms Ryan said a safety audit concluded the road could be reopened for vehicles subject to signage and road markings being installed. However, given the high level of visitor numbers during the year, Ms Ryan said Anfield was designated as a tier one location with many using the closed section as a “safe pedestrian route.” She also cited the heightened terror threat, which was raised to “severe”, and increased use of hostile vehicles. Ms Ryan said the opening of Anfield Road would represent the “only weak point” around the stadium.
Councillors criticise terrorism justification
Cllr Richard Kemp said he found it “hard to believe terrorism is the real reason” for the closure to be sought. Cllr Billy Lake added: “I almost feel like the terrorism thing is a bit of a red herring here. On a matchday, there can be up to 60,000 people milling around that area. A terrorist attack of any kind, in any form, could happen in 100 different places around that ground so why we’re talking about this specific Anfield Road area, it’s almost a misnomer, that.” Cllr Joe Hanson said: “I really, really struggle with this definition of terrorism. Why would a terrorist arrive on a Wednesday on Anfield Road and decide to blow the building up?” He added: “I really, really think Liverpool Football Club are being completely disingenuous to the residents around there. They made promises through the planning process, they reneged on that, and they’re trying to change it. Liverpool Football Club are acting in an absolutely disgraceful manner.”
Residents’ disruption and broken promises
Cllr Lena Simic represents Anfield ward and had a statement read out on her behalf. It said the permanent closure was not the only “reasonable or proportionate solution” and that other options had not been fully considered. Cllr Simic’s statement added: “This is not about matchdays, this is not about concerts, this is about an ordinary Tuesday morning in February, a Wednesday afternoon in October or a Sunday in March where there is no event taking place. That distinction matters. Residents accepted years of disruption because they were assured the replacement road would reopen once construction was complete outside match and event days.”
Phil Smith, Liverpool Council’s head of building control, told the committee how changes to the set up around the ground could impact the safety certificate issued to LFC for operation of the stadium. He added it was his concern that the reintroduction of a road would “create a hazard that isn’t there at the moment.”
Impact on community and future decisions
Cllr Ellie Byrne told the committee how living close to the stadium meant accepting disruption, but there has “got to be a balance” which she felt had been lost. She added: “The permanent closure has forced more traffic onto surrounding and residential streets making life more difficult for the people who live there.” Cllr Byrne said the football club had “completely destroyed any relationship they had with residents because your commercial interests come before our safety.”
Ian Byrne MP, an LFC fan and former councillor who took part in discussions with the club, said it was with a “sense of sadness and betrayal” the matter was before members. He added: “Everyone in here will know I’m a massive Liverpool fan. I work with the club extensively on so many issues, I sit on the supporters’ board, I do many, many things with Liverpool Football Club, but when they’re wrong you’ve got to call them out and they’re wrong here.” Mr Byrne said the safety arguments “hold no water” and promises were not being delivered to reopen the road. The West Derby MP said relations had improved between the community and the club but a permanent road closure would “knock it back years.”
Members voted to indicate they would be minded to reject the proposals on the grounds of residential amenity, traffic flow and environmental nuisance. It will go before the committee for a third and final time when the council will be asked to formally indicate if it wishes to reject the proposal. The LDRS understands Liverpool FC is reserving any comment until procedures have been completed.
