cd 1.1.3 planning statement revised

8/8/2019 CD 1.1.3 Planning Statement Revised

1/116

Manchester 40 Barton Arcade, Manchester M3 2BH

Tel: 0161 839 0150 Fax: 0161 839 0151 Email: [email protected]

Revised Planning Statement

(Document 18)

On behalf of:

Tesco Stores Ltd

In respect of:

Proposed Mixed Use Development Comprising Stadium,

Foodstore, Comparison Retailing, Leisure Uses, Commercial

Uses, Car Parking, New Access and Infrastructure and Public

Realm

At:

Town Centre and Land South of Cherryfield Drive, Kirkby,

Knowsley, Merseyside

www.dppllp.com

Bedford

Belfast

Cardiff

Dublin

Glasgow

Leeds

London

Manchester

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Date:

April 2008

Reference:

589904/Reports/PA/Revplanstatement Final


2/116

Tesco Stores Ltd, Kirkby www.dppllp.com

Reference: 589904/ Reports/PA/PlannningstatementV7 Page 1 of 115

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 22. THE APPLICANT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB 93. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED STADIUM AND RETAIL AND

OTHER USES 114. THE REGENERATION NEEDS OF KIRKBY AND ITS TOWN CENTRE 155. THE NEED FOR A NEW STADIUM FOR EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB 246. HOW THE NEW STADIUM WOULD BE FUNDED 337. THE APPLICATION SITE AND ITS HINTERLAND 368. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND PROPOSED PHASING 429. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 7110. COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING POLICY 9511. REGENERATION BENEFITS THE APPLICATION PROPOSALS WOULD

DELIVER 10712. THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION 11213. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 115

APPENDICES

1.0 Appendix 1 - Plan showing character areas2.0 Appendix 2 - Plans showing development zones


3/116



1. INTRODUCTION1.1 This revised planning statement is submitted in support of Tesco Stores Ltds (Tesco)

planning application for a major mixed use development in and to the south of Kirkby

town centre. Kirkby is in Knowsley, Merseyside.

1.2 A revised planning statement has been prepared to reflect a number of changes to

the proposed development following the making of the application, the submission of

additional information following consultation on the application, and as a

consequence of discussions with Knowsley MBC (the Council) on the application and

the case that is being made in its support.

1.3 The description of the proposed development when the planning application was

made was as follows:

(i) Detailed planning application for the erection of a stadium and ancillary facilities

for football and related uses; new convenience retailing, new comparison retailing,

new leisure uses, new food and drink uses, new offices and service uses; new car

parking, coach park and bus park; new vehicular and pedestrian accesses and

circulation and related highway and footpath works; new public realm; new tree

planting and landscaping; substation; new boundary treatments; and related new

infrastructure and engineering works.

(ii) Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for the erection of

development for new retailing; new leisure uses; new library; new hotel; new food

and drink uses; new offices and commercial uses; new residential; new PCT facility;

substation and energy centre; new car parking; new public realm; new tree plantingand landscaping; new boundary treatments; and related new infrastructure and

works; alterations to existing retail and other town centre uses; alterations to

existing car parking areas; alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses

and circulation; alteration to existing public realm; alteration to existing boundary

treatments; alterations to existing infrastructure; substation, energy centre and PCT.

1.4 The proposed minor changes involve the removal of the proposed petrol filling

station and proposed residential from the detailed elements of the application. Allresidential will now be dealt with under the outline elements of the scheme.


4/116



Although the detailed element confirms that a coach and bus park is proposed, this

should have in fact been in the plural as two such facilities are proposed. As a

consequence of these minor changes the description of development is amended to:

(i) Detailed planning application for the erection of a stadium and ancillary facilities

for football and related uses; new convenience retailing, new comparison retailing,

new leisure uses, new food and drink uses, new offices and service uses; new car

parking, coach and bus parks; new vehicular and pedestrian accesses and circulation

and related highway and footpath works; new public realm; new tree planting and

landscaping; substations and energy centre; new boundary treatments; and related

new infrastructure and engineering works.

(ii) Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for the erection of

development for new retailing; new leisure uses; new library; new hotel; new food

and drink uses; new offices and commercial uses; new residential; new car parking;

new public realm; new tree planting and landscaping; new boundary treatments; and

related new infrastructure and works; alterations to existing retail and other town

centre uses; alterations to existing car parking areas; alterations to existing vehicular

and pedestrian accesses and circulation; alteration to existing public realm; alteration

to existing boundary treatments; and alterations to existing infrastructure.

1.5 The full address of the site for the purposes of the planning application is as follows:

Kirkby Town Centre and Land to South of the Town Centre Bounded by Cherryfield

Drive (north and east), Bewley Drive (excluding Whinberry Drive Housing Estate) and

Valley Road (including the Car Park of former Kirkby Stadium and excluding all but

eastern and southern Fringes of Kirkby Community College) at Kirkby, Knowsley,

Merseyside.

1.6 When made the planning application was supported by a number of statutory and

other support documents as follows:

Planning application forms, certificates and copies of notices and fee

(50,000 (TBC)).

Covering letter by DPP dated 13th December 2007 incorporating a short

statement by Tesco and Everton Football Club (EFC) confirming their


5/116



relationship and support for the application proposals (Document 1).

Full set of planning application drawings and other illustrative material in

support of the planning application by Broadway Malyan and Barr Technical

Services.

Register of Application Drawings by DPP. This lists all drawings and their

status (Document 2).

Summary of Planning and Application Proposals by DPP. This summarises

the application proposals, other relevant information and the overall case in

their support (Document 3).

Planning Statement by DPP (Document 4).

Design and Access Statement by DPP. This describes the overall design and

accessibility of the application proposals, including the evolution of the

design and key principles that have been followed (Document 5). Masterplan Statement by Broadway Malyan. This complements Document 5

and tells in greater detail the story of the evolution of the masterplan that

underpins the overall development proposals (Document 6).

Statement of Community Involvement by DPP. This provides details of pre-

application discussions and consultation (Document 7).

Retail Assessment by DPP. This is a detailed assessment of the retail

elements of the overall scheme against relevant planning policy tests

(Document 8.1). It includes a detailed sequential assessment(Document 8.2) and alternative site for a new stadium assessment

(Document 8.2).

Transport Assessment by Steer Davies Gleave. This is a full blown

transportation assessment of all elements of the overall scheme (Document

9.1), which also includes a detailed travel plan (Document 9.2).

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) coordinated by DPP but multi-

authorship. This is in 3 volumes Non-technical Summary (Volume 1

(Document 10.1)), Environmental Assessment (Volume 2 (Document

10.2)), and Technical Appendices (Volume 3 (Document 10.3)).

Sustainability Statement by DPP. This provides a summary of the

sustainability credentials of the overall scheme (Document 11).

Regeneration Benefits Statement by DPP. This provides a summary of the

regeneration benefits of the overall proposals (Document 12).

Proposed Stadium for EFC Report by DPP. This draws on a number of other

documents by Savills, KSS Design Group and Franklin Sports Business

(Document 13).

Flood Risk Assessment by Buro Happold (Document 14).


6/116



Renewable Energy Statement by Buro Happold (Document 15).

Legal Agreement Statement by Berwin Leighton Paisner. This document

sets out proposed draft heads of terms etc. for the Section 106 Agreement

that will be required to facilitate permission being granted (Document 16).

1.7 As has been confirmed earlier, following consultation and discussions on the

application, the Council has requested additional information in its support. This is

set out below and includes the revised planning statement:

Schedule of proposed floorspace by Broadway Malyan (Document 17).

Revised Planning Statement by DPP (Document 18).

Revised Design and Access Statement by DPP (Document 19).

Addendum Transport Assessment by Steer Davies Gleave (Document 20). Addendum Environmental Impact Assessment coordinated by DPP (EIA)

(Document 21) and Technical Appendices to it (Document 22).

Crime and Disorder Report by Hunt Dobson Stringer (Document 24).

Financial statement by DTZ with contributions from other parties

(Document 26).

Regeneration Benefits Statement Prepared by DTZ (Document 26)

Stadium management plan (Document 27).

Case statement (statement setting out case in support of the application) byDPP (Document 28).

Stadium usage statement (Document 29).

s106 Document (Document 30).

Addendum to the Retail Assessment (Document 31).

Case Summary (Document 32).

Health Impact Assessment prepared by Impact (Document 33)

1.8 As was confirmed in the original planning statement, the development proposals are

complex and there are a number of relevant reasons why they have been made in

the form they have and at the location they are proposed to be developed, all of

which are material considerations in support of the planning application. The

revised planning statement and the case statement (document 26) sets out these

reasons and sets out the planning case in support of the overall proposals. Where

helpful to illustrate or clarify a point both documents draw on the other documents

listed above.


7/116



1.9 As the revised description of proposed development (at paragraph 1.4) confirms, the

application is a hybrid, i.e., parts of it are in detailed form and parts in outline form.

In relation to the outline elements of the application, all matters are reserved.

1.10 The overall application proposals represent a Schedule 2 Development (Town and

Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)

Regulations 1999) and because of this the application is supported by an

environmental statement (document 10.2) and an addendum environmental

statement (document 21). Although all matters are reserved in relation to the

outline elements of the application, they have nevertheless been fixed through a

combination of a development zone plan, development schedule and parameter

plans. The combination of the plans and schedule fix the following:

Type of use or uses and user.

Floorspace of the development.

Layout of the development.

Minimum and maximum massing of the development.

Minimum and maximum height of the development.

Vehicular access to the development and circulation.

Pedestrian access to the development and circulation.

Public realm.

Landscaping and tree planting.

Phasing.

1.11 Detailed layout and elavational drawings fix detailed elements of the overall scheme.

To complement this information, a masterplan has been prepared to show how all

elements of the overall scheme fit together. The revised masterplan is Rev Y. As is

described in greater detail in the Section 8 of this statement and Documents 5 and 6,

the original and latest masterplans have been evolved through a series of designorientated stages, and assessed to see whether they have the potential to support

the ongoing growth and development of the town centre in future years.

1.12 The scope of the revised planning statement is as follows:

Section 2 provides information on the applicant and its relationship with EFC;

Section 3 describes the relationship between the proposed stadium and retail

development;


8/116



Section 4 investigates the issues that have for many years affected the

profile and social and economic status of the town and Kirkby and which

seriously affect the vitality and viability of its town centre, including an

overview of why previous attempts at regenerating the centre have largely

failed;

Section 5 provides an overview of the reasons why EFC need to relocate to a

new stadium, including why redeveloping in situ is not a viable option, what

off-site options have been considered and why none have succeeded, and

why Kirkby offers the best opportunity for the Club to realise its ambitions

within the necessary time frame;

Section 6 complements the previous section by providing an overview of how

the new stadium would be funded, including the role of enabling

development. It also confirms the importance of the Club developing a newstadium in the near future. This section links to other documents which

provide financial information to back up these assumptions;

Section 7 describes the application site and its environs;

Section 8 describes the evolution and composition of the development

proposals (as proposed to be revised through minor changes). Unlike the

original version of the planning statement the revised statement relies on

other documents, principally the delivery strategy (document 25), to describe

how the overall development proposal will be phased, which party will takeresponsibility for implementing proposed phases of development, when the

phases will be implemented, and which mechanisms are proposed to control

implementation. A summary of key points is however provided in this

statement;

Section 9 provides a summary of planning policy affecting the application

site and of relevance to the proposed uses;

Section 10 follows on from the previous section and provides an overview of

whether in the applicants view the development proposals comply with

relevant policy;

Section 11 provides a summary of the full range of regeneration benefits the

overall development proposals would result in, and links to a more detailed

report on the same topic (document 12) and a recently prepared

additionality report (document 23). This attempts to place a financial /

economic value on the many benefits the application will result in. In

addition, the section also links to the delivery strategy as this highlights

which of the tangible benefits of the overall proposals is in the gift of the

applicant to deliver;


9/116



In the original version of the planning statement, Section 12 provided a

relatively detailed overview of the case in support of the application

proposals. As this is now set out in greater detail in the case statement

(document 26), all that is provided is a short summary of the key elements

of the overall case as presented in this statement; and

In Section 13 we set out our overall conclusions of the topics covered in the

revised planning statement.


10/116



2. THE APPLICANT AND ITS RELATIONSHIPWITH EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB

2.1 Tesco is the UKs largest and most successful grocery retailer operating nationwide

and internationally through a chain of different store formats. It currently operates

a number of foodstores throughout Merseyside of which its best known outlets are

probably those in Southport, Prescot, St Helens and Liverpool (in Old Swan, Woolton,

Allerton and Deysbrook). It hopes to add to those in future years through its new

store development programme.

2.2 The company has experience of promoting major mixed used developments which

include a new stadium, the best known of which are The Ricoh Stadium and related

Retail Park in Coventry (for Coventry City FC) and the Halliwell Jones Stadium and

Tesco Foodstore at Warrington (for Warrington Rugby League Football Club). It is

also associated with a current proposal by Langtree Group plc to develop a new

stadium for St Helens Rugby League Club (in St Helens), which involves the

redevelopment of the companys existing store.

2.3 EFC was formed in 1878 and has been at the forefront of English football ever since.

In the early years of its life the Club was known as St Domingos Football Club. A

decision was taken in 1879 to change the Clubs name to Everton Football Club.

The Club has played its home games at Goodison Park in Liverpool since 1892 and

enjoyed great success in the mid 1920s, late 1930s, early and mid 1960s and mid

1980s. The Clubs nickname, The Toffees, derives from locally produced

confectionary known as Everton Mints. The Club has very strong links with the local

community and is known as the The Peoples Club. Related to this the club operate

an innovative football in the community initiative designed to benefit local schools,

community groups and charities. This is known as Everton in the Community (EITC).

The Club currently plays in the Barclays Premiership and at the time of writing the

team were doing well, lying in fifth position.

2.4 Although the planning application was made by Tesco, EFC is fully committed to the

overall application proposal and should planning permission be granted the Club will

move to the new stadium. In addition, a planning application will shortly be lodged

with Liverpool City Council seeking outline planning permission to redevelop the


11/116



existing ground for housing. The form and content of this scheme is described in

greater detail in Section 8.


12/116



3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSEDSTADIUM AND RETAIL AND OTHER USES

3.1 The proposed stadium and the retail and other uses proposed south of Cherryfield

Drive are closely related and cannot be separated. This also applies, albeit to a

lesser degree with regard to those elements of the overall application that are

proposed within the existing town centre. The reasons for this are covered below.

3.2 It is not easy to change the profile of a town / town centre that has for many years

been in decline and is a poor quality, uninviting centre which lacks good quality,

modern retailing and other town centre uses. One way to do this is through a highquality, profile building development, which through its use and operation has the

potential to attract large numbers of people, and create positive publicity for itself

and the location where it is located. With the right sort of development it might be

possible to attract publicity from beyond Merseyside into the remainder of the North

West Region and potentially from other parts of the UK and possibly also Europe too.

3.3 In the applicants view, looking at available options, the best and probably most

deliverable use is a new football stadium for a high profile Club playing in the topflight.

3.4 In the context of the desperate need to achieve the transformational regeneration of

Kirkby town centre as soon as possible, it is helpful that EFC is itself desperate for a

new, purpose built, larger stadium (the reasons for which are covered in detail in

section 5). Introducing this use in Kirkby, given that EFC play in the Barclays

Premiership and, if qualifying as they have in recent years for European cup

competitions, will bring a considerable number of people to the town from the

Region and other parts of the UK and Europe, and with it profile building publicity

and for the town.

3.5 The issue for EFC however, is that the cost of the stadium is such that it can only

proceed if it is enabled through new development, i.e., forms part of a larger mixed

use development where the other uses by virtue of their worth / value release

funding to effectively cross subsidise that part of the new stadium the Club cannot

fund itself. How this works in the context of this proposals is covered in section 6,


13/116



linking to the case statement (document 28) and financial statement (document 26).

3.6 It is also accepted that the town cannot be regenerated until the quantum and

quality of its retailing offer, and the same with regard to other town centre uses, is

radically improved. This is despite many years of trying to achieve this objective,

and helpful policies and a positive town centre strategy which support the

regeneration of the centre. This is because of the size, configuration, state and

reputation of the existing centre, along with land ownership and other constraints.

3.7 There is therefore the opportunity in Kirkby to promote a new football stadium for

EFC, as this would change the profile of the town and town centre, and at the same

time to complement and support this use with new retailing and other town centre

uses. Support in this instance meaning to partially enable the new stadium. This

represents something of a bolder more ambitious strategy for the town centre, but it

would seem that there is agreement between the applicant and Council that this is

what is needed if the town centre is ever to be transformationally regenerated.

Indeed, this is a conclusion the Council recently arrived at and which triggered its

decision to formulate a new town centre strategy for Kirkby. The most recent

strategy advocates a bolder, more ambitious approach to secure its regeneration.

These and related points are covered in greater detail in Sections 4 and 9 of the

statement retail assessment (document 8.1).

3.8 The issue with this approach however, is the amount of new retail and other town

centre uses that are required to enable the stadium. The applicant considers that a

considerable amount of new retailing can be supported by reference to relevant retail

planning policy tests. This would however alter the towns current position in the

regional settlement / retail hierarchy is used as a benchmark as to how big and

influential the centre should be.

3.9 This represents something of a catch-22 situation the benefits of the stadium can

only be delivered if the potential disbenefits of it needing to be supported by a

considerable amount of new retail development are accepted. Potential disbenefits is

an appropriate phrase to use, as the applicant does not share the Councils view

(based on advice from its advisors) on how much new retail development is

supportable and its possible effects on other centres and retail outlets. In essence, if

it is accepted that the town cannot be successfully and quickly regenerated unless a

profile building development like a football stadium is introduced, new enabling


14/116



development to pay for it of the broad level proposed has to be supported. Although

in saying this there is the prospect that there will be support by the Council for much

of the new floorspace proposed, and as has been confirmed earlier, the new

floorspace would contribute considerably towards making the town centre vital and

viable and through this its successful regeneration.

3.10 A key point which is necessary to make at this stage though, is that the applicant

fully understands the Councils expectations that any proposal that is intended to

regenerate the town centre and which seeks to do so through the expansion of the

existing centre, must also include proposals for improving and accommodating new

retail and other town centre uses in the existing designated town centre, and the

area planned to accommodate its expansion must fully integrate with the existing

centre. Accordingly, it is for this reason that Tescos application includes proposals

to reconfigure, improve and introduce new retailing, leisure and other town centre

uses in the existing town centre, and proposals for integrating this area with the area

that will be proposed to accommodate the stadium and enabling retailing

development.

3.11 In essence, therefore, the stadium and enabling development are interrelated and

cannot and should not be separated. The stadium cannot proceed without this

development. Without the stadium the town would not get the profile building use

it so badly needs, and chances of successfully regenerating the town centre in the

short term would be substantially reduced. To assist this process the application

proposes to reconfigure, improve and introduce new retailing and other town centre

uses in the existing town centre. Any concerns about the scale of retailing proposed

should be considered in the context of the needs of the town, competition it has to

cope with, the level of capacity that exists to support new retail development there,

the scale of investment that is required to facilitate regeneration, the form and type

of settlement that Kirkby is, its scope and potential to be successfully grown, and the

settlement hierarchy of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), all of which are

addressed in greater detail later on in this statement and related documents, which

are referred to as relevant.

3.12 As a consequence of this and setting aside funding issues for the time being, it is

necessary to address why EFC require a new football stadium and funding issues,

which are considered in Section 5 and 6 of this statement and in greater detail in the

Stadium Report (Document 13) and case statement (document 26); and, secondly,


15/116


16/116



4. THE REGENERATION NEEDS OF KIRKBY ANDITS TOWN CENTRE

Context

4.1 The Borough of Knowsley comprises a large part of the Liverpool conurbation,

including the town of Kirkby and townships of Huyton and Prescot, and related

suburbs; and countryside directly to the east of the City of Liverpool.

4.2 At the present time the population of the Borough is approximately 150,000. Its

main urban areas are Kirkby, Huyton, Prescot, Whiston and Halewood, the largest of

which are Kirkby, Huyton and Prescot. Each of the Boroughs communities has a

different historical background and particular characteristics, although it is clear that

much of the Borough is fully urbanised and forms part of the wider Liverpool

conurbation.

4.3 Indeed, the communities within Knowsley are probably more so than almost any

other metropolitan area a creation of the 20th Century. With the exception of

Prescot and a few smaller settlements, the majority of the existing urban area was

created between the 1920s and 1970s. Much of this expansion was as a result of

Liverpool overspill development, and this is particularly prevalent in the context of

Kirkby, which has the full characteristics of a fully planned, free standing new town

although it never had official new town status.

Onset of Decline

4.4 The expansion of the Boroughs population ceased in the early 1970s, coinciding with

the economic recession of the 1970s and early 1980s. Knowsley was hit very hard,

particularly Kirkby. In the same period over 20,000 jobs were lost from within

Kirkbys Knowsley Industrial park alone, which resulted in many thousands of local

people becoming unemployed and having to face and deal with economic hardship.

4.5 A related issue that affected the Borough but particularly Kirkby was the relatively

poor choice of housing - very high social rented sector combined with very low


17/116



owner-occupied sector at a time of unprecedented growth in the demand for owner-

occupation properties. This coincided with the economic crisis to create one of the

Countrys highest rates of population out-movement and social and economic

decline. Between 1971 and 1991, Knowsleys population declined to 156,850, a

decrease of almost 40,000, and this was particularly prevalent in Kirkby.

4.6 This hampered the regeneration of many local communities as services such as

schools and health facilities became less viable, and many had to close. It also

made it very difficult to attract new investment to places like Kirkby and this was

particularly the case with regard to investment in new retail and leisure facilities and

the upgrading of existing facilities.

The Start of Regenerating Kirkby

4.7 In order to address the key reasons for population decline in Kirkby and the Borough

the Council embarked upon an ambitious stabilisation strategy in 1991. Since then

and as a consequence of the strategy:

The Merseyside Objective 1 programme has invested hundreds of millions of

pounds of European Union money into 8 Strategic Investment Areas (SIAs)

across Merseyside. One of the SIAs known as Approach 580 includes

Kirkbys Knowsley Industrial and Business Parks. These have seen a series

of major inward investments.

Neighbourhood Renewal and Single Regeneration budget (SRB) funding have

been used to promote economic development, and improve the

environment, leisure and community facilities. Employability and skills

training has also been addressed through the Jobs Employment Training

(JET) and Objective 1 Pathways programmes.

In the 10 years up to 2002 over 6,000 new, mostly owner occupied,

dwellings were built, mainly in Kirkby, which has had the effect of radically

changing the profiles of parts of the Borough.

4.8 As a consequence the rate of population decline throughout the Borough but

particularly in Kirkby has been slowed but it has not halted.


18/116



4.9 At the same time the Council identified poor economic performance as being a key

driver for out-migration and population loss, and as a consequence since 1995 it has

been able to secure a number of major inward investment deals which have resulted

in over 4,500 new jobs being created, many of them in Kirkby. Subsequently,

between 1999 and 2003, percentage economic growth was faster in Knowsley than

in any other Borough in the North West. Unemployment over the Borough as a

whole has been reduced from over 20% in the 1980s to 4.6% in 2007.

Ongoing Issues

4.10 Despite considerable progress over the last 15 years, Kirkby still faces a number of

fundamental challenges. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) assesses overall

levels of deprivation in relation to income, employment, the living environment,

crime, education and health provision. The 2004 IMD results show that Kirkby

consists of 25 lower level super output areas (SOAs) of which 19 are with the most

deprived 10% in the country and 23 are in the most deprived 20%. The two SOAs

in which the application site is located are within the most deprived 1.8% in the

Country.

4.11 Kirkby as a whole continues to suffer from low rates of employment and economic

activity; relatively low proportions of houses in owner occupation; a high proportion

of lone parent households; low levels of education qualification and achievement and

economic activity rates; high numbers of persons with a limiting long-term illness;

and low rates of skilled occupational employment.

4.12 Audit Commission surveys of local quality of life indicators reveals that Knowsley is in

the bottom quartile of local authorities nationally for a number of key indicators,

including:

Job densitythe number of jobs per head of population;

Quality of the built environmentlevels of dereliction, graffiti and fly posting;

Percentage of residents feeling safe outside during the daytime and at night;

and

Resident satisfaction with cultural, sporting and open space provision.


19/116



4.13 One of the sustainability issues affecting Kirkby is the large amount of in-commuting

from other areas for higher skilled jobs. The 2006 Annual Survey of Hours and

Earnings (ONS) shows that the average wage for Kirkby residents is the lowest on

Merseyside (362-90) while the average wage for people who work in the rest of

Knowsley is the highest on Merseyside (426-70).

4.14 Reflecting these challenges the Council and partners continue to invest heavily in

regeneration activities. Key current activities include:

Building Schools for the Future Programme this will involve the

replacement of 11 secondary schools with seven new learning centres

providing education for all ages, two of which will be constructed in Kirkby at

the current sites of Roughwood and Brookfield schools. All Saints Roman

Catholic school, which is within the planning application area, will be

redeveloped.

In Tower Hill (about 1 km to the north of the town centre) a preferred

developer has been identified to deliver proposals which will transform the

layout of this 1960s housing estate and provide about 300 high quality new

homes.

The Knowsley Primary Care Trust (PCT) has constructed a new health centre

in Tower Hill and a further centre (financed under the LIFT programme) is

proposed in the town centre, which this application covers.

A new rail station is planned at Headbolt Lane, Kirkby and a new bus

interchange is planned in the town centre.

Key Challenges - The Town Centre

4.15 It is encouraging that successes have been achieved in the regeneration of Boroughs

housing and employment sectors, including in Kirkby. However, a key and

increasing area of concern for the Council and one that underpins the Knowsley

Replacement Unitary Development Plans (KRUDP) strategy for the Boroughs

retailing sector, is the need to regenerate Kirkby town centre. This is a reflection of

the paucity of the towns retail and leisure offer, its poor environmental condition and

visual quality, lack of true vitality and viability, and generally poor profile and

reputation.

4.16 Major investment in new retail and other town centre uses has been secured in the


20/116



Boroughs other town centres, Huyton and Prescot, but for several reasons, covered

in the retail assessment (Document 8.1), this has not occurred in Kirkby. Indeed,

the investment in Huyton and Prescot has done little more than exacerbate problems

in Kirkby because its community is attracted to these centres to shop as its centres

are far more vital and viable and offer superior shopping facilities. Added to which

other larger centres in the wider hinterland of Kirkby, which are known to be used by

Kirkby residents for shopping, have and continue to strengthen their retailing offers.

This is covered in also greater detail in the retail assessment (Document 8.1).

4.17 As a consequence it has become apparent that the full potential of the improving

town of Kirkby and the ongoing quest to fully regenerate the town cannot and will

not be fully achieved until the town has a vital and viable town centre with a positive

profile that meets the needs of the local and wider community who need to use it.

Problems with Kirkby Town Centre

4.18 This is covered in detail in the retail assessment (Document 8.1), but in summary the

town centre fell into decline at the onset of the economic recession in the early

1970s and it has never recovered, despite a number of attempts by the Council to

kick start its regeneration.

4.19 A recent survey of shopping trends by DPP and as is reflected in a recent Interim

Planning Statement (IPS) for the town centre and adjoining land produced by the

Council (covered later and in Section 9), confirms that the centre does not attract a

high level of shopping trips, and a large amount of locally generated expenditure

intended for convenience and comparison shopping trips is directed to other centres

and outlets.

4.20 The current town centre was, in common with the rest of the town, developed in the

post World War II period and was designed to provide shops, leisure uses,

commercial uses, service uses, a market, and municipal and civic uses, mostly for

use by local residents. The town centre has experienced difficulties since the onset

of the economic recession in the early 1970s. Its main anchor retailer for many

years was Asda and the retailer occupied an important store in the centre from the

early 1970s but trading conditions became too difficult and it vacated the store, and

centre, in the late 1970s. Since then the centre has operated unsuccessfully without


21/116



a foodstore anchor.

4.21 DPP has carried out a health check of the town centre as part of the retail

assessment exercise (in Document 8.1). The health checks reveal a tightly

constrained and seriously outdated centre in terms of its physical profile and range of

facilities, particularly the quality and quantum of its retail offer, added to which it

offers a poor general amenity and environmental quality. It also has a poor

reputation. The implication of this is that there is a significant amount of leakage of

expenditure to centres and outlets outside of the catchment, thus inhibiting the

potential to attract new retailers and investment in the centre.

4.22 Although the centre has an apparent low vacancy rate it is clear that retail demand

extends only to retail operations that can at best be described as low order /

discounter type operations, many of which are operated by independent or sub-

regional operators. Whilst work by Javelin Group (in support of the retail

assessment (Document 8.1)) confirms that many higher order / regional and national

multiple retailers are interested in the principle of investing in Kirkby, this would

only be once the centre is at least well on the way to being regenerated. Even then

interest would be dependent upon the right form and quality of unit being available

(which would be the case through the application proposals). As matters stand at

present this is unlikely as all the centre offers is a poor quality 1960s Soviet style

new town environment offering a limited number of small, constrained, outdated and

poor quality retail units.

4.23 Given the recent investment in housing and the encouragement of the private owner

occupied sector to achieve a more balanced socio-economic mix, it is clear that the

towns retail offer is not and cannot meet the needs of the target residential market

until and unless it is substantially regenerated. Indeed, this recurring issue impacts

on the ability of the Council and investors in new housing in Kirkby to attract this

type of buyer, since the importance of access to good quality local retail and leisure

facilities is part of the quality of life packages buyers are seeking.

4.24 As a consequence the centre needs significant investment in terms of its layout and

quality and range of retail, leisure and other town centre facilities if it is to ever be

regenerated and fulfil the role that was envisaged for it. Significant investment is

also required in the centres public realm. In essence the centre needs

comprehensive renewal which will require significant amounts of redevelopment as


22/116


23/116



its store would trade.

4.27 This is symptomatic of the key issues affecting the centre and unless its general

profile and reputation is somehow changed, it will be very difficult to attract the

necessary interest and investment required to deliver improvements in the existing

town centre. As a consequence of its strong commitment to regenerate the whole

of the town but in recognition of the fact that this cannot be achieved until such time

as Kirkby has a vital and viable centre that meets the shopping and services etc.

needs of all sections of its community, and acknowledging that the KUDP strategy

has failed, the Council has recently formulated a new regeneration strategy for the

town centre. This is set out in the draft IPS referred to earlier.

4.28 The draft IPS strategy for the town centre is underpinned by the principle that the

existing shopping core of the town centre cannot be substantially improved unless

the entire town centre is re-profiled and expanded, potentially through a major

development like the one proposed through this planning application.

4.29 This progression in strategy corresponded with early discussions between the

applicant and the Council on the potential of that part of the application site south of

Cherryfield Drive to accommodate a new stadium for EFC and new enabling

development. Ironically, the form of enabling development proposed had in any

case been identified as being absolutely necessary if the existing town centre was to

ever be satisfactorily regenerated, but which cannot easily or readily be

accommodated within it. Although the land the Council see as having potential to

accommodate the expansion of the town centre is outside of it, it directly adjoins it

(it is edge-of-centre to it) and good quality linkages between the two can be

achieved. Plus a number of existing uses found there can be satisfactorily relocated.

This land reflects the southern half of the application site.

4.30 As a consequence the Council sees and accepts the potential of a high profile,

comprehensive development proposal to achieve the re-profiling of the town and

secure the regeneration of its town centre, and sees this to represent the best and

most appropriate strategy for regenerating the town centre. For these reasons this

is the strategy approach that has been adopted by the draft IPS.

4.31 Another important point in favour of this approach (and Tescos proposals) is that


24/116



they provide the potential for the town centre to continue to grow and develop even

further in future years. Tesco accept that even if its development proposals were to

be implemented in full, there would still be the need for further developments in

future years to reflect what it envisages will be the increasing success and natural

incremental evolution of the centre. To assist in the understanding of where this

might take Kirkby town centre in, say, 20 years time, Tescos masterplanners have

carried out an exercise to plot the development potential of the town over the next

10, 15 and 20 years. This is depicted through a series of complementary

masterplans to the one that supports this planning application. They are described

in the masterplan statement (Document 6). They show that the current proposals

could be successfully grown to make the town centre an even more successful and

complete centre in 20 years time than the current proposals envisage.


25/116



5. THE NEED FOR A NEW STADIUM FOREVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB

Introduction

5.1 There are a number of reasons why EFC need to develop a new stadium and there

are a number of potential options available to the Club to achieve this objective, each

of which is influenced by a number of factors. Key factors which have a bearing on

whether any of the options might succeed is the Clubs ability to fund a new stadium

and timing, which are related. A detailed report has been prepared by DPP on the

new stadium needs of EFC and related issues which draws on reports prepared by

Savills, KSS Deign Group and Franklin Sports Business (Document 13). This section

represents a summary of its key findings and conclusions.

The History of EFC at Goodison Park

5.2 EFC moved to what soon became known as Goodison Park in late 1891 following a

rent dispute with the owner of its previous ground. Within a matter of months the

ground was transformed into a new stadium which opened in 1892. At the time it

was regarded as the finest ground in the country. The ground has staged more top

flight games than any other ground in England, and the grounds record attendance

of 78,299 came against Liverpool FC in 1948, although this was before the

requirement for stadia to be all seated. The stadium also hosted 5 games of the

1966 World Cup Finals.

Problems with Goodison Park

5.3 The stadium sits on a 3.5 hectare site to the north west of Stanley Park in Liverpool.

It is bounded by Goodison Road, Gwladys Street, Bullens Road and Walton Hall

Avenue. The stadium site is set in a predominantly residential area developed during

Victorian times, and is built tight to site boundaries. It is directly adjacent adopted

highways on each of the west, east and north sides. The overall licensed capacity

for the stadium is 40,170 seats, broken down as follows: Goodison Road Stand

(West) - 12,472 seats; Bullens Road Stand (East) - 11,024 seats; Gwladys Street


26/116



Stand (North) - 10,764 seats; and Park End Stand (South) - 5,910 seats.

Wheelchair spectator facilities are located at pitch level in front of the Park End

stand, Bullens Road stand and North West corner of Gwladys Street stand.

Executive hospitality suites and boxes are mainly located in the Goodison Road

Stand. With the exception of the relatively new Park End Stand, each stand has had

to be adapted and refurbished over the many years of their life to meet new design

legislation / standard, albeit in the context of what could be achieved within the

limitations of the existing structure. The club has to spend a considerable amount

on basic maintenance each year (typically 200k but last year this included an

additional 500k on emergency repairs to the roof). In summary the stadium and

its pitch are deficient for the following reasons:

The stadium can only accommodate 40,170 supporters. Based on an

assessment of demand EFC needs at least 50,000 seats.

Age, quality and adaptability of the construction of the stadium many parts

of the ground are in a poor condition and run down and require regular

maintenance.

Poor visual and architectural quality which does little to herald the

appearance of one of the Premierships oldest and most respected sides or

improve the character and appearance of this part of Liverpool.

Original tight urban setting affects residential amenity and the ground can

only operate on match days if the roads which surround it, with the

exception of Walton Hall Avenue, are closed to vehicular traffic.

Orthogonal configuration with individual stands and no corner infill's

Goodison Park is in reality a very makeshift stadium that better reflects the

design characteristics and available materials of the period just before and

after the last war.

Small number of hospitality seats and boxes. There are currently 1,650

executive / hospitality seats and 13 hospitality boxes behind glass. Put intocontext Old Trafford, Manchester Utds ground, has 204.

Spectator facilities are largely non-compliant with current Green Guide

standards, and parts of the ground offer restricted views of the pitch. This

applies to a high percentage of all of the grounds seats.

No dedicated exterior concourse for marshalling and managing crowds and

surrounding roads have to be used for this purpose

Limited on site coach and car parking facilities

Poor Car Parking facilities within the vicinity of the stadium.

There is no lateral movement within the stadium


27/116



Poor facilities for team and coaching staff (Dressing rooms, Tunnel, Doping

room, Interview areas, Players Lounge).

No remote ticket collection point and ticket collection point is too close to

visiting supporters collection point which can causes clashes and requires an

added police presence.

Small Concourse area, poor ground bar areas, poor toilet facilities.

The stadium structure needs constant maintenance, painting and roof repair

work required annually.

Limited facilities for the disabled.

Limited TV / Press facilities, (Gantry, TV commentary area, Press Box, Sky

Box, interview areas, no press mixed zone area, poor camera positions).

Lack of office space for the administration staff, staff detached from each

other in different areas within the stadium and within the vicinity. Small ticket Office / Contact Centre area, poor queuing and enquiries setup.

Dugout area is small, with lack of space surrounding for overflow of staff,

medical staff, press and players.

Inadequate entertainment facilities.

Lack of commercial opportunities.

The pitch currently measures 102.4m x 66.7m. Whilst it exceeds the

acceptable minimum size for Premiership League football (100m x 64m), it is

below FIFA / UEFAs preferred optimum size (105m x 68m). A pitch ofthese dimensions cannot be accommodated within the current ground.

Options Available to Achieve Improvements and their

Feasibility

5.4 The need for an improved ground is an issue that has become an increasing priority

for the Club in recent years. Around the early 1990s EFC identified three possible

options to achieve a new ground:

Option 1 - Full or partial redevelopment of Goodison Park through a series of

distinct phases of work.

Option 2 - Full redevelopment of Goodison Park through a single phase of

works (which would require a temporary relocation / ground share).

Option 3 - Development of a new stadium elsewhere probably through a

single phase of works.


28/116



5.5 Setting aside feasibility considerations it would seem reasonable to suggest that the

two options which involve the Club staying at Goodison Park would be EFCs

preferences. Goodison Park is the Clubs spiritual home and is inextricably linked

with the Clubs long and distinguished history. In terms of practicality, these options

raise questions about deliverability as both involve substantial redevelopment. These

options cannot be considered if they dont work from a general feasibility

perspective. The key issue that influences this is whether the site upon which the

existing stadium sits is large enough to accommodate the type and size of new

stadium the club aspires to.

5.6 To assist this process the Club has defined the type (in design terms), size (in

capacity terms) and nature (in terms of facilities) of new stadium it aspires to, which

is as follows:

Contemporary and striking in terms of its architectural style and materials to

present an image commensurate with the clubs standing, along with an

appropriate setting and concourse area around the stadium to facilitate

access and crowd management.

Minimum capacity of 50,000.

2 - 3,000 hospitality / executive / box seats, 60 or more hospitality boxes (8

- 10 person)

Top quality player and team staff facilities.

Unimpeded views of the pitch from to all seating positions.

On site car parking for players, staff and corporate guests.

Full compliance with Green Guide standards, compliance with what then the

latest ADM / DDA regulations, the potential to comply with Champions

League requirements.

Comprehensive match day travel plan.

5.7 A new stadium of this type, size and nature would require a site of at least 6-8 ha.

Based on this brief, the Club has investigated whether this brief could be met by an

on-site redevelopment.

5.8 The site of Goodison Park extends to 3.5 ha. It is too small for the type of stadium

the club require, and in reality is too small for the existing stadium when modern

planning and building control standards are applied.


29/116



5.9 Another key factor that works against the two on-site redevelopment options is the

fact that the site is surrounded by a combination of roads and residential (on three

sides at least), and a new stadium in this location would simply be regarded as

unacceptable because of its potential to impact on residential amenity. Indeed,

beyond the existing residential are further areas of densely developed residential

with grid square access roads, meaning that even if it the size of the site were to be

extended, the same adjoining uses profile would still apply.

5.10 Overall neither of the stay at Goodison Park options are practical or feasible and can

be discounted. The option to develop a new stadium off-site is therefore the only

practical option. It offers a number of benefits, as follows:

Ability to start afresh as there would be no Goodison Park restrictions and

limitations to deal with;

A site of the right size, profile and location could be targeted;

If the site has the right profile, it provides the potential to create a high

quality iconic modern stadium which would assist I promoting the Clubs

image and profile;

The new stadium could be as big or as small as the Club wanted. It could

also be designed to have extendibility in future;

The new stadium could include the range and amount of corporate

hospitality boxes and facilities etc. the Club needs, plus extendibility;

The site, if in the right location, might be more accessible than Goodison

Park;

The new ground could be designed to have much better facilities for away

fans; and

There might be the potential for additional developments that could

contribute towards the overall cost of the stadium.

Funding Issues

5.11 Whilst the on site replacement options were discounted for reasons of practically and

feasibility, had one or both been acceptable (which is unlikely without a material

increase in capacity) there would still have been the issue of how the necessary

improvements would be funded. This is a key consideration in the context of the

third and only option open available to the club. This is because not only would the

cost of the new stadium have to be borne by the club, but so would the cost of the


30/116



new site, although there is the potential to off set the cost of this through the sale of

the existing ground. There is also the potential to secure funding for the new

stadium through enabling development.

Alternative Site Options

5.12 Including a stadium as part of a larger mixed use scheme to benefit from enabling

development is an approach that has appealed to EFC for some time. It realised

though that it would be setting a difficult brief for itself if its site searches only

focused on the area immediately around Goodison Park, as the club knew that few

potential development options existed. Accordingly, the club accepted that it would

have to look at a wider area.

5.13 This raises the question of just where does Liverpool start and finish? Whilst

Liverpool is a relatively large city in terms of its urban area, much of the Liverpool

conurbation falls outside of the City of Liverpools administrative area, spilling into

Sefton to the north and north east and Knowsley to the east and south east.

Accordingly, in committing to stay in the City, the Club were not ruling out the

possibility of moving to a new stadium that was in either Sefton or Knowsley.

5.14 Since the late 1990s the club has been formally associated or informally linked to a

number of possible relocation sites, and it has assessed many others in Liverpool (in

its widest sense as described above). Most sites had very little potential because of

a combination of site related constraints and planning policy designations. A site

that did appeal to EFC was Kings Dock. In 2001 a consortium including EFC was

appointed as preferred developer of this site, which is next to Albert Dock. The

scheme failed in 2003 for a number of reasons, the main one of which was rising

costs.

5.15 The possibility of ground sharing has been discussed in the past, however, for a

number of reasons the option has not been progressed. Everton FC and Liverpool FC

have each made independent decisions to pursue their own plans for separate new

grounds.

5.16 In 2000 Liverpool FC announced its intentions to secure a new stadium off site (from

Anfield its current home). And in 2003 it promoted a planning application for a new


31/116



60,000 seat stadium with ancillary facilities for itself in nearby Stanley Park, with the

full agreement of the City Council which is the owner. Permission was granted in

2006. Prior to the site being selected LFC undertook a review of possible alternative

sites across the City. The list of sites to be assessed (in terms of their potential)

was agreed with the City Council in September 2000, following extensive consultation

with officers from Liverpool, Sefton and Knowsley Councils, local agents and land

owners and a detailed review of the development plan. The exercise was repeated

and updated in January 2004 in the context of LFCs initial planning application.

5.17 The combined exercises carried out in 2000 and 2004 in connection with this

application reviewed a considerable number of sites, of which only Stanley park was

considered suitable for a new modern football stadium, a view which the City Council

accepted, and presumably GONW as it didnt recover the application. More recently

LFC has made a further planning application to modify the consented stadium, which

was also supported by a further review of the alternative sites previously considered.

The key conclusion remained the same, namely, the only suitable site throughout the

area assessed, which included Knowsley and Sefton, was Stanley Park. This view

was accepted by Liverpool City Council as recently as November 2007 when the most

recent application received a resolution to grant subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

5.18 As part of its review of possible suitable alternative sites, EFC has reviewed this list,

but like LFC and its advisers and the City Council, it came to the view that none of

the sites reviewed offered any serious potential for a new stadium development.

More recently, Liverpool City Council has looked to identify other sites that might

tempt EFC to reconsider its position. The most recent ones being the Bestway Site,

Edge lane Retail Park and Aintree Retail Park / Long Lane Industrial Estate. All can

be discounted for a number of reasons and have been by EFC. DPP has carried out

its own comprehensive assessment of possible alternative sites in and around the

City of Liverpool, taking into account the work carried out by LFCs advisors and the

more recent sites promoted to EFC by the City Council. The assessment (Document

8.3) forms part of the PPS6 sequential assessment which is an appendix of the retail

assessment (Document 8.1). The conclusions are that for a number of planning

policy and land use related reasons, the site which is the subject of this planning

application offers the best potential for a new stadium for EFC for the following

reasons:

The site is not that far from Goodison Park;


32/116



Many EFC fans live in the town;

The site is large enough to accommodate a major new stadium;

The site is highly accessible by different forms of travel;

The planning policy designation does not preclude this form of development;

The site is closely related to a range of town centre, retail and leisure

facilities;

The site is close to a new sports and leisure facility which would benefit

both;

The site has a profile that would benefit a new stadium;

The site is directly adjacent to a town centre that is in significant need of

investment and regeneration and which serves one of the most socially and

economically deprived towns in Merseyside;

The site is large enough to accommodate additional development that isneeded to assist in the regeneration of the adjoining town centre and would

fund a proportion of the overall cost of the stadium ;

Overall the site is suitable, available and would be viable for the type and

size of new stadium that EFC need; and finally

The site is considered acceptable by the majority of EFCs core fan base.

This matter is covered in greater detail later on in the stadium report

(Document 13).

5.19 In conclusion, it is our view that EFC has a genuine and pressing need for a new

stadium given the age and condition of its existing ground and this is certainly the

case if it is to maintain its position and reputation as one of the Premierships leading

clubs. Following an assessment, it has been found that the site of the existing

ground is too small and constrained to facilitate improvements through a series of

phased redevelopments of existing stands or a complete new stadium through a

single phase redevelopment. Indeed, the site in reality is too small and unhelpfully

profiled to satisfactorily accommodate even the current stadium should it be

promoted now. Of all of the alternative sites assessed, the application site offers

the best potential for a number of genuine planning reasons, four of which are

significant:

A large element of the overall cost of the new stadium would be enabled.

A large element of the overall scheme, including the new stadium and key

retailing units, would be delivered as part of early phases of development by

the UKs leading retailer.

The new stadium would contribute significantly to increasing the positive


33/116


34/116



6. HOW THE NEW STADIUM WOULD BE FUNDED6.1 A key point to bear in mind when considering funding issues associated with

developing a new stadium off site, setting aside land acquisition costs etc. for the

time being, is that the club is not seeking to develop a direct, like for like

replacement for Goodison Park. The club wish to develop a larger stadium with

increased hospitality suites and better facilities for spectators, players, officials and

the press and media. The range of facilities is not excessive and reflects those

generally found at other Premiership stadia and would in profile terms be a mid-level

stadium, but even then it would still represent a significant investment.

6.2 The high cost of new stadia is a well known issue and there have been some well

publicised examples of how spiralling development costs and construction issues can

seriously affect the viability of such ventures. For example, the spiralling costs of

the new Wembley Stadium brought the project to a halt on several occasions and

eventually contributed to the construction company going into its receivership (total

stadium costs in the order of 757m). Closer to home there has been considerable

press coverage of the cost issues associated with LFCs most recent stadium

proposal. Current costs are estimated to be close on 400m.

6.3 EFC is a company limited by guarantee (Everton Football Club Company Ltd). The

Clubs operating profits over the last five years have been modest average of

4.7m, in part due to the strengthening of the squad, but is linked to the operational

challenges and limitations of playing at Goodison Park. The Directors of the club

recognise the need to strengthen the balance sheet in the short term and see the

best and potentially valuable option to achieve this is to move to a larger, more

modern stadium. This will increase the profile of the club, enable it to attract world

class players and more supporters and generally drive revenues upwards. This is

directly confirmed in the financial statement (document 26), as are other financial

considerations and points covered in this section.

6.4 The typical cost of the type and capacity of a new stadium that would broadly meet

EFCs aspirations would at todays prices be 130m. This would cover the cost of

stadium seating, basic facilities, some corporate entertainment facilities and IT

networks etc. to enable necessary operating licences to be secured.


35/116



6.5 When the club was considering relocating to Kings Dock, the clubs agents and

planning advisors confirmed that the existing ground could probably be successfully

promoted and marketed for new residential. The club also knew that it needed new

training facilities to replace its aging and inadequate facilities at Bellefield (in

Liverpool). The sale of both would have raised the club several millions of pounds

to reinvest in a new stadium, although the final amount would have been reduced

when the need to provide some funding to reinvest in new training facilities was

taken into account. In addition, the club also hoped to secure some grant

assistance, albeit a small amount, from the likes of the North West Development

Agency. The final piece of the funding jigsaw was new stadium naming rights and

other sponsorship type deals (catering for example). The club had hoped, based on

experience of other football clubs, that this could generate a significant revenue

stream. The shortfall would have been met through increasing its existing debt,which was probably unrealistic given the amounts in question.

6.6 As a consequence of its previous associations with EFC in connection with Goodison

Park (Tesco previously considered redeveloping the stadium for a new foodstore

when EFC were considering relocating to Kings Dock), and Tescos more recent

experiences in gaining planning permissions for new stadia partially enabled by

foodstore and complementary comparison retailing at Coventry and Warrington,

Tesco investigated a number of options for a mixed use development comprising a

new stadium for the club and new foodstore and comparison retailing. As the

alternative site assessment exercise confirms, the only option that works from a site

constraints and planning policy perspective is the one that is the subject of this

planning application. The site of the new ground is acceptable to EFC and it can

also manage the proposed funding package.

6.7 The cost of the proposed new stadium that is the subject of this planning application

is 130m at September 2007 prices (see financial statement for a detailed

breakdown), including basic facilities, initial phases of corporate entertainment

facilities and IT networks etc. required to achieve appropriate operating licences.

This would deliver what can be regarded as an iconic and attractive, well specified,

mid-level football stadium. Further information on this is provided in the financial

statement which forms part of the case statement (document 26).

6.8 In terms of funding the new stadium taking a worse case scenario which assumes no

grant assistance can be secured by the Club, the only likely source of funding the


36/116



Club would be able to generate in the short term would be a combination of naming

rights and sponsorship deals relating to elements of the fit out along with debt.

Early discussions that the club has had with some interested parties suggest that

naming rights and sponsorship could potentially raise a significant contribution

towards the costs of the new stadium. This would leave a shortfall of approximately

52m. EFC is clearly reluctant to take on so much debt, which may not be

sustainable and would create a level of gearing which would not be appropriate

although a much lower amount would be manageable. Further information on this is

provided in the financial statement which forms part of the case statement

(document 26).

6.9 The Clubs agreement with Tesco provides the opportunity for the shortfall to be met

through enabling development. 52m of the shortfall is met from the proposed

developments south of Cherryfield Drive through the increase in the value of the land

that would occur once planning permission has been granted for the enabling

developments (Tesco is buying the land at current use value). Further information

on how this works in development appraisal terms is provided in the financial

statement which forms part of the case statement (document 26).

6.10 A further point that is of relevance to any debate on the options that might be

available to the Club to fund a new stadium, is the willingness and abilities of the

Clubs directors to sell some or al of their interests in the Club in order to attract an

investor who or which might have the ability in financial terms to fund a new stadium

in its entirety or at the very least fund the shortfall that exists in the context of this

proposals. As is pointed out in greater detail in the financial statement which

(document 26), this is not an option as the current directors have no intention of

selling any of their interests in the Club.

6.11 This proposed funding package guarantees that a combination of naming rights and

sponsorship deals plus a small increase in debt along with enabling development

would enable a mid-level stadium to be delivered. This means that the Club would

be able to move to and operate the new stadium upon completion which is ideally

estimated at being for the start of the 2010 season.


37/116



7. THE APPLICATION SITE AND ITS HINTERLAND7.1 The application site extends to 54.58 ha. It comprises all of the designated town

centre (bounded by Hall Lane, County Road, Webster Drive and Cherryfield Drive and

land south of the town centre bounded by Cherryfield Drive, Bewley Drive, and Valley

Road.

7.2 The definitive description of the site forms part of the EIA (Document 10.2). What

follows is a summary of that description. A plan showing the location and extent of

the character areas referred to below forms Appendix 1.

Inner Character Areas

Inner Character Area 1 - Central Core and Northern Fringes of Town

Centre

7.3 This is the heart of the existing town centre. It comprises the original shopping mall

and associated retail units aligned in a terrace alongside the mall and associated off

shoots (it should be noted there is a limited amount of leisure in some of the units),

the existing market square, the indoor In-store unit, the old Asda store which has

been vacant since 1979, and a free standing unit accommodating a bank. North of

the main retail area is a large area dedicated to car parking. Element of this are

effectively areas of wasteland whereas other parts are properly laid out. Further to

the north, at the very pinnacle of the centre, is a MacDonald's drive-thru restaurant.

The area also includes the existing bus station. The various uses are linked by

pedestrian only walkways. Access to vehicular traffic is off Irlam Drive, which runs

into North Parade.

Inner Character Area 2 - Main Civic and Municipal Zone of Town Centre

7.4 This area is on the north eastern fringes of the town centre. It comprises a range of

civic and municipal uses including a clinic, Merseyside Fire Service Fire Station,

Merseyside Police, Police Station, Merseyside Ambulance Service Ambulance Station

and the Magistrates Court. The area also includes an area of wasteland which is

used for car parking. Vehicular access is off Irlam Drive and St Chads Drive.


38/116



Inner Character Area 3 - South Eastern Corner of Town Centre

7.5 This area forms the south eastern corner of the town centre. It comprises the

existing Library building, Post Office, Job Centre, Government Offices and a bank.

Vehicular access is off Webster Drive, although this only serves the rear service areas

of the buildings in question and small areas of car parking. There is also a limited

access of Cherryfield Drive for the Library.

Inner Character Area 4 - Green Space

7.6 As the title of this character area suggests this area is designated as green space in

the form of grassland. It is fully contained by other character areas and uses.Access to it is from Valley Road, Cherryfield Drive and Bewley Drive, and it is criss-

crossed by a number of unofficial footpaths.

Inner Character Area 5 - Western Zone of Town Centre

7.7 This area contains Civic buildings and Kirkby Suite, which also includes a PCT. The

civic buildings and Kirkby suite are operated by the Council and include a

combination of a one-stop-shop and related offices. Other uses include the former

Kirkby Swimming Baths, an office operated by Barclays, and multi-storey and surface

level car park. Pedestrian access and circulation is via a series of pedestrian only

walkways and links. Vehicular access is off Cherryfield Drive and Hall Lane.

Inner Character Area 6 - Residential and Other Uses

7.8 This area lies directly to the south of the town centre below Cherryfield Drive, whichruns along its northern edge. The area accommodates mainly residential properties

operated by a housing association and housing cooperative. In addition are an ex-

servicemens club, former petrol filling station, bank, hotel / public house, nursing

home and RSPCA centre. Access into the areas of housing is via Cherryfield

Crescent and Eagles Court which are off Cherryfield Drive. It should be noted that

the non-residential uses generally front Cherryfield Drive as do a of the few of the

residential properties.


39/116



Inner Character Area 7 - Kirkby Leisure Centre

7.9 This area is effectively fully occupied by the very recently opened new Kirkby Leisure

Centre. The leisure centre comprises a swimming pool, gym and other indoor

sporting facilities along with changing rooms and other ancillary facilities. Vehicular

access is off Cherryfield Drive (east) and this serves a car parking area.

Inner Character Area 8 - All Saints Catholic High School and Playing Field

7.10 This is an extensive school complex comprising a series of linked mainly single storey

buildings used for classrooms and other educational related use along with back up

facilities. The school benefits from an extensive playing field and a number ofseparate playground areas. Vehicular access is from Cherryfield Drive. There are a

number of pedestrian accesses into the school off Cherryfield Drive, Bewley Avenue

and from the surrounding informal footpath network. The school is currently in use

but is planned to close in future following a comprehensive review of educational

facilities in the town through the Schools for the Future Programme.

Inner Character Area 9 - Former Waste Disposal Site

7.11 This area was in use in the late 1950s / early 1960s as a household waste disposal

site. It was subsequently reinstated and landscaped. It also includes a section of

Kirkby Brook, one of the areas main drainage water courses which runs roughly

north to south. The Brook eventually flows into the River Alt just to the south of

Kirkby prior to the river discharging into the Mersey Estuary north of Liverpool at

Great Altcar.

Inner Character Area 10 - Kirkby Community College Campus

7.12 The area is fully occupied by the campus of Kirkby Community College. The site

accommodates a number of educational, training and back up facilities along with a

car parking area. A substantial amount of investment has been made in the college

in recent years and it contributes significantly towards the area.


40/116



Outer Character Areas

Outer Character Area 1 - Kirkby Stadium

7.13 This character area is to the south west of the inner character areas. It lies

approximately 1,000 m from the designated town centre (as the crow flies). It was

decided to plan for the ultimate closure of Kirkby Stadium in the late 1990s as a

consequence of its age and condition and range of facilities it provided, plus the level

of investment that would be required to keep it operational, a decision that was

linked to the requirement to also invest substantial sums of money into the towns

existing swimming baths (in Character Area 4). Subsequently a decision was made

to consolidate a large number of the existing facilities found at both of these sites

into a single, purpose designed and built leisure centre, which has subsequently

opened (in Character Area 7). The stadium comprises a purpose built outdoor

banked velodrome (the only one Merseyside), athletics track and area for track and

field events and squash courts and other indoor facilities. It is supported by a large

surface car park and is accessed off Whitefield Road (off the north western side of

Valley Road). The stadium form part of the Westvale neighbourhood of the town

Outer Character Area 2 - Residential and School to South of Bewley Drive

7.14 This area lies to the south of the inner character areas. It is approximately 700 m

from the designated town centre. This area comprises St Joseph the Worker

Catholic Primary School and its playing fields, and a mix of social rented and private

housing, and beyond this are further schools and greenspaces prior to the M57 being

reached (it runs from the north west towards the south east). This area forms part

of the Southdene neighbourhood of the town.

Outer Character Area 3 - Whinberry Drive Estate

7.15 This area lies to the south of the inner character areas. It is approximately 500 m

from the designated town centre. It comprises a relatively recently constructed small

enclave of private houses that are accessed off Whinberry Drive which runs

northwards off Bewley Drive. This area forms part of the Southdene neighbourhood

of the town.


41/116



Outer Character Area 4 - Residential to East of Cherryfield Drive

7.16 This area lies to the east of the inner character areas. It is 500 m from the

designated town centre. It mainly comprises private semi-detached housing built in

the early 1960s, of which a large number face onto Cherryfield Drive. This area

forms part of the Southdene neighbourhood of the town.

Outer Character Area 5 - Webster Park and Adjoining Residential

7.17 This area lies to the east of the inner character areas. It is 150 m from the

designated town centre. The area comprises Webster park, which fronts directly

onto Cherryfield Drive and runs alongside Wellfield Avenue, which runs eastwards offCherryfield Drive; and areas of mainly social rented housing behind the park of which

a small amount fronts onto Cherryfield Drive. This area forms part of the

Southdene neighbourhood of the town.

Outer Character Area 6 - Residential to North East of County Road

7.18 This area lies to the north east of the inner character areas beyond County Road. It

is 50 m from the designated town centre. This area is largely in use for housing

(mainly social rented accommodation with some privately owned units), along with a

school. Further to the east, alongside the northern edge of County Road is the

David Lloyd Tennis Centre and LFCs football academy. The area forms part of the

Northdene neighbourhood of the town.

Outer Character Area 7 - Ruffwood Commu