LAST week, you may recall, I said I would address in a bit more detail the “cash for covenant” kerfuffle that seemed to surround word of National Museums Liverpool paying £750,000 to lift a restrictive covenant that would have prohibited the building of the magnificent Museum of Liverpool, now taking shape as part of the 21st-century waterfront.

As often said, a week is a long time and, in our digital world, the pace is getting ever faster, which is why I have something else on my mind this week. But, first, the kerfuffle.

The simple facts are still that a covenant existed attached to a neighbouring building; that had a commercial value to its owner; the museum needed that owner’s agreement to build; that had to be gained before a certain date in order to access the public funds necessary to support the overall project. Inconvenient facts. Inconvenient laws.

Remembering that NML, like all public bodies, has to act, work and operate under the ever-watchful eyes of the National Audit Office and HM Treasury, the intriguing bit is not the price paid, or to who, but why the covenant existed in the first place.

Originally it was because the waterfront buildings we know and love wanted, or needed, to retain unrestricted views of the traffic on the river. Of course, it may also have had something to do with the row their own construction caused, as they didn’t want anyone doing to them, what they did to the then original waterfront buildings on The Strand!

As times changed, along with the use and ownership of the buildings, the views themselves became part of the asset value of the buildings. As estate agents are fond of saying: location, location, location. It is a mantra everyone who buys a property endorses, which is why parts of Wirral and Southport are a lot more expensive than parts of Liverpool and why, lest we forget, that some local councils are still threatening to slap a “view tax” on people with a nicer view from their bedroom windows than their neighbours.

The difficulty the councils will face, of course, is exactly the issue NML appeared to face; how do you value a view? It’s too easy for any of us to go back and pick over the bones of such decisions, especially in the midst of a recession, but what is still abundantly clear is that an investment of £750k meant the project could proceed to the deadlines that funding bodies required that led to approximately £72m being invested in Liverpool. A simple case of needs must?