Appendix 2 – The Case against ‘Destination Kirkby’

This was an earlier individual submission to the Public Enquiry on proposals to

move Everton Football Club to Kirkby, in conjunction with a large shopping
development, under the following main headings: [1] Who am I? [2] Four Areas of
Concern, [3] Five Inner City Options, [4] Conclusions.

1. Who am I?

1.1. I am an architect and urban designer with wide experience of major developments. In
the 1990s, I was City Architect in Newcastle and then Head of Architecture in
Birmingham. For the last five years, I have been working as a consultant to Liverpool
City Council on city centre developments, notably Grosvenor’s Liverpool One project.

1.2. I have been an Everton supporter all my life, and have attended matches regularly
since 1962. To me, Everton is part of the heart and soul of the inner city and has acted
like a beacon, representing the City of Liverpool to me, and my family and friends, not
least whilst we have been living and working elsewhere.

1.3. My architectural experience includes work on the planning of major commercial

developments, as well as work on the design of sports facilities and stadia. In the late
1990s, I was involved in discussions on developments at Aston Villa and Birmingham
City. Earlier, in Newcastle, I produced a series of feasibility studies demonstrating the
potential for the club to develop St James’ Park, rather than move ‘out of town’.

2. Four Areas of Concern:

2.1. The proposal for a major retail development on the edge of Liverpool.

This argument will be put by neighbouring local authorities, and developers with a direct
interest in supporting the existing planning policies with respect to retail development.

2.2. The transport implications of a large stadium in a peripheral location.

This argument will be put by others, who recognise that the public transport provision is
woefully inadequate for this type of stadium development and that the road system will
not be able to cater for the projected use by private cars. Evidence from smaller stadia
next to comparable infrastructure, such as those in Bolton and Reading, will illustrate the
problem.

2.3. The removal of one of Liverpool’s main cultural icons from the inner city.

The two football clubs [Everton and Liverpool] are part of Liverpool’s established offer
as a cultural centre. The relationship between the two is a historic rivalry unlike any
other, in that both clubs sprang from the same roots in inner city North Liverpool. It is a
consequence of this particular rivalry that Liverpool is the only city which has had at
least one team in the top flight in every season since the foundation of the Football
League. The removal of one of the protagonists from this environment will damage this
historic relationship irrevocably. This is a matter that should be of interest to any body
that is interested in planning within the Liverpool City Region. It is a cultural issue, but
one which will have a profound effect on economic and social conditions within the
conurbation. Supporters of the proposal point to potential benefits to Kirkby, without
giving serious consideration to the detrimental effects on the City of Liverpool in general
and the inner city communities of North Liverpool in particular.

2.4. Lack of consideration given to the regional benefits of a city centre site.

Liverpool City Centre is an established regional focus for 4.9 million people in the North-
West of England and North Wales [figures from Grosvenor, quoted with respect to the
Liverpool One development, approximating to the regional population with the exclusion
of Greater Manchester]. The transport infrastructure supports this focus. The major
established regional cultural facilities are located in or close to the centre, including
theatres, museums, the arena and conference centre, the Philharmonic, the Cathedrals,
and the two Premier League Football Clubs. I submit that they all benefit from, if not
depend on, their respective central locations.

Evidence from cities in Europe and the USA shows that the older model of the out-of-
town development, with the stadium as a ‘space eater’ rather than a contributor to city
life, has now been discredited.

3. Five Inner City Options:

3.1. Redevelopment of Goodison Park

This offers the option for Everton to develop a stage-by-stage approach, linked to the
incremental delivery of a long-term business plan. This is seen as a healthier and more
sustainable option than the ‘quick fix’ of a development [such as Kirkby], which is based
on a one-off injection of capital based on exploiting a loophole in the planning system;
there is no long-term synergy between a major football stadium and a shopping complex.
On the contrary, there are many conflicts in terms of times of peak use and strain on the
infrastructure.
The above sketches give an indication of how a phased development would work in
principle. Most construction would be behind the existing structures, allowing the initial
48,000 capacity to be maintained as a minimum during subsequent phases of
construction, up to an eventual maximum of 62,000, subject to appropriate transport
arrangements being made, in conjunction with the development of the New Anfield.

3.2. Development on Scotland Road

The Loop Site, off Scotland Road by the Wallasey Tunnel Approach, was identified as
one of six potential sites in North Liverpool, in a detailed paper, which I posted on
‘Toffeeweb’ in January 2007. Despite subsequent support by both the site owners,
Bestway, and Liverpool City Council, Everton Football Club have not taken this proposal
seriously; they have refused to engage in proper discussions with the interested parties,
hiding behind the cloak of an ‘exclusivity agreement’ between themselves, Tesco and
Knowsley Council.
The Loop Site is capable of holding a straightforward football stadium with a capacity of
[at least] 50,000. Further expansion, by bridging the link road in the direction of Great
Homer Street in conjunction with a tower hotel, could bring the capacity up to 62,000.
The club [through the previous Chief Executive Officer] casually dismissed this, stating
that the club would require an ultimate potential capacity of 75,000. I believe that, even a
large capacity such as this, could be achieved on the site, given appropriate investment in
infrastructure and enabling works. In terms of site constraints and location, direct
comparisons can be made with the 74,000-capacity Millennium Stadium in Cardiff.

An early concept sketch for the Tunnel Trumpet site, with Scotland Road to the left and
Great Homer Street to the right, and a new plaza built across the link road between the
two to provide a fitting main entrance to the stadium and a suitable relocation for the
statue of Dixie Dean. There is a vehicle concourse at ground level and two levels of car
parking, with a pedestrian concourse at pitch level above. Sky-galleries underneath the
roofs and accessed by lifts and stairs in the South corners provide views over the city as
well as down onto the pitch, and would be open 7 days a week. Double-decker stands on
three sides provide capacities as follows: Lower South Stand 5,000 / Upper South Stand
6,000 / Lower Scotland Road Stand 8,000 / Upper Scotland Road Stand 8,000 / Lower
Main Stand 8,000 / Upper Main Stand 8,000 / North Stand Phase 1 4,000 / North Stand
Phase 2 12,000 / Sky Galleries 3,600. This gives a total of 50,600 for Phase 1 and 62,600
for the combined Phase 1 and 2, linked to a 28-storey ‘Hotel 1878’.

The architects of the Millennium Stadium, HOK, were commissioned by Bestway to

report on the suitability of the Loop Site. They confirmed that a large stadium
development [55,000-seat] would be possible in this location.

3.3. Development at Clarence Dock

This is another favoured site; it is in the ownership of Peel Holdings. Up to now, Peel
have not given any indication that they would support a ‘football stadium’, but there is
clear scope for discussion, if Everton were prepared to take part. The advantages of this
central site are similar to those offered by the Loop, and a major social/community
building [such as a high-quality multiple-use stadium] would be a appropriate focal point
for Peel’s projected Liverpool Waters development.

3.4. Development at Kings Dock

Everton came very near to progressing with a world-class stadium proposal in

conjunction with the City Council. Faced with the countdown to the city’s year as
European Capital of Culture, the public authorities ran out of patience when Everton
failed to come up with their [relatively modest] contribution to the cost. Everton missed
out on the ‘deal of the century’ and the City Council went on to develop the Arena and
Conference Centre, without the benefit of a private sector partner. The potential for a
stadium on the residual land at the Kings Dock, working in conjunction with the Arena
and Exhibition Centre, was put forward to Everton at a recent Extraordinary General
Meeting. However, the exclusivity agreement seems to preclude discussion of such
obvious opportunities, as they come forward in a rapidly changing commercial world.

3.5. Potential to share with Liverpool FC

Over recent months, I have come to accept that there is the potential to develop a shared
stadium, with Liverpool Football Club and a third partner [possibly the public sector or
another events-based organisation]. This could be developed on any of the three central
sites described above. Key factors would be the provision of separate sliding pitches [as
well as a sliding roof] for each club, and the development being provided free of any
capital charge, allowing the clubs to focus their entire resources onto football matters.
The stadium company would have to guarantee the equal interests of all three parties and
would control capital funding through such devices as reserved corporate hospitality,
debentures and stadium naming rights. Such a development would rely on the high-value
‘enabling’ and ‘partnership’ potential of a city-centre site. I cannot envisage a
development of this kind in a peripheral location such as Kirkby.
An early concept sketch showing the potential of a shared stadium on the Clarence Dock
site, close to Liverpool city Centre, with separate commercial ‘villages’ built around
sliding pitches for both Everton and Liverpool Football Clubs, the stadium itself being a
neutral multi-purpose facility seating 80,000 people, a quarter of them in a top balcony
which could be hidden from view when the extra capacity was not needed.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Objection to current proposals

I wish to register my firm objection to the proposed relocation of Everton Football Club
to Kirkby. My objection is made, firstly, as an architect and urban designer with an
interest in the future of the Liverpool City Region and, secondly, as a long-standing
supporter of Everton Football Club.

4.2. The Way Forward for Everton

It is my considered opinion that there are alternatives that are better for the long-term
development of Everton Football Club, which would also be in the interest of [a] the City
Region, [b] the established local community in north Liverpool and [c] the many
supporters who travel from throughout the region and beyond. I believe that the
exclusivity agreement between Everton Football Club, Tesco and Knowsley Council has
acted to frustrate proper consideration of these alternatives.

….Trevor Skempton, 16th September 2008