Agenda Item 12

REPORT TO Planning Committee

DATE 7th May 2008

REPORT OF Director of Planning & Economic

Regeneration
CONTACT
OFFICERS Andy Wallis (934-3542)

TITLE Kirkby Town Centre – Neighbouring

Authority Consultation on Planning
Applications for Major Development

1. Background

Sefton Council has now been formally consulted by Knowsley Council on

proposals submitted by Tesco Stores Ltd for a major development in Kirkby
Town Centre. The key elements of the latest planning applications are:

§ a new 50,000-seat football stadium

§ new retail development comprising 72,221m2 gross (60,088m2
net).

In retail terms in particular this is, by any standards, a very significant

development. For comparison purposes it is almost as large as current retail
floorspace [convenience (food) and comparison] in Southport Town Centre
(90,000m2), is nearly half the size of Grosvenor’s Liverpool One scheme,
currently the single largest retail development scheme in Europe at 160,000m2
and is more than two and a half times the occupied retail floorspace of Bootle
Town Centre

The deadline for response is set at 7th May 2008, which is 21 days from receipt
of the consultation. It is understood that Knowsley Council is seeking to
convene a special meeting of its Planning Committee before the end of May to
determine this application, subject to referral to Government Office for the
North West

2. Proposal

The current scheme is different (and much larger) than the proposals consulted
on late last year. This proposed the same sized stadium for Everton Football
Club but a smaller amount of retailing totalling 47,000 sq m (gross), of which
Tesco were seeking 15,188 sq m (gross) for a new supermarket. At that point
and after taking WYG’s advice, we registered our concern about potential
detrimental implications for Sefton in terms of both retail and traffic impacts.

Since the public consultation exercise, the applicants have made some
significant changes to their proposals. The current proposal comprises two
planning applications 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

Page 127
Agenda Item 12
and service uses; new car parking, coach park and bus parks; new vehicular
and pedestrian access 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 park areas;
alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses and circulation;
alteration to existing public realm arrangements; alteration to existing boundary
treatments; and alterations to existing infrastructures.

Supporting documentation states ‘the proposed new stadium and the retail and
other uses proposed south of Cherryfield Drive are closely related and cannot
be separated’. In short, the scale of the commercial elements within the
scheme is driven by a need to provide sufficient cross subsidy to meet a
funding shortfall of £52m, this being the difference between the cost of the new
football stadium (£130m - at September 2007 prices) and Everton’s ability to
raise monies through naming rights, other sponsorship and borrowing.

3. Consultations

Retail consultants - Sefton has retained White Young Green to advise on the
scheme. Both St Helens and West Lancs DC (and Lancashire CC) have
concerns about the scheme and since we have many issues in common,
WYG’s commission has been extended in this case to help provide a combined
response on behalf of the three local authority areas involved. It is understood
that Liverpool is also concerned at retail impact and is taking advice from their
retail consultants.

WYG have significant concerns with regard to the analysis that has been
undertaken to support the planning application for the proposed development in
Kirkby. The approach taken to such a major development is too simplistic and
excludes important background information such as the household survey and
the application of numerous assumptions. To this aim we have significant
concerns about the validity of the conclusion reach with regard to ‘need’, the
appropriateness of scale and the likely future impact on established centres.

The Need for the Proposed Development

As highlighted as part of this assessment, WYG considers that a clear
quantitative and qualitative need for the level of new retail floorspace proposed
has not been demonstrated. The need assessment that has been submitted
not only relies on unrealistic levels of expenditure ‘claw back’ but it also ignores
important commitments that exist just outside the PCA. Effectively, DPP have
ignored current shopping patterns and the influence of other centres beyond
the PCA in reaching their conclusions. Also no consideration has been made
of any future plans for retail development within these centres including St
Helens and Skelmersdale which also seek to improve market share and ‘claw
back’ expenditure.

Page 128
 Agenda Item 12
In terms of qualitative need, it is WYG’s view that the proposed qualitative
improvements that DPP highlight could be achieved with a much smaller
scheme linked to what was previously planned as part of the UDP strategy for
Kirkby Town centre. Therefore, there is no justification as to why the scale of
development proposed is required to meet certain qualitative benefits or needs.

Appropriateness of Scale
It is evident that the scale of the proposed development is wholly inappropriate.
There has been no true assessment of the role and function of the three
centres within the Borough and what level of floorspace could be realistically
accommodated without dramatically changing this established network. In
addition, there has been no detailed assessment of the true impact of such a
large scale development on centres outside the catchment which are identified
by RSS to be centres where such development should be concentrated. On
this basis, it is evident that the scale of the development is in direct conflict with
the existing and emerging development plan.

Potential Impact and Trade Diversion

Given our concerns with the assumptions adopted by DPP in seeking to

demonstrate a need for the proposed development (most notably in terms of
clawback) it is considered that impact on established centres has been
underestimated.

In addition, DPP has assumed that the market share of existing centres within
the Study Area will remain constant despite increased competition elsewhere
(including the proposed development at Kirkby and Liverpool One). In addition,
the potential cumulative impact of the proposed development, together with
outstanding commitments just beyond the PCA, has not been taken into
account by DPP. Clearly, by taking these commitments into account the
potential impact would significantly increase.

Therefore, we question the robustness of the impact assessment that has been
prepared to date. This is further reinforced by the lack of survey evidence to
support the approach adopted and the fact that numerous commitments have
been excluded from the cumulative assessment. It is our view that the levels of
impact estimated by DPP are significantly underestimated and do not highlight
the true impact of the proposed development on key centres within Sefton, St
Helens and West Lancashire.

Summary
Based on the evidence that has been submitted to date, WYG do not believe
that the proposed development in Kirkby satisfies all of the key tests set out in
PPS6. We do not believe that the need for the proposed development has
adequately been demonstrated and as a result, the scale is clearly
inappropriate. More importantly, the potential impact of this scale of
development has not been properly assessed and therefore, the true effect of
this significant development on the vitality and viability of other established
centres within the study area is underestimated.

Page 129
Agenda Item 12

Technical Services - The proposal will generate significant concerns with

regard to trip generation and distribution across the existing network and also
its capacity. Of particular concern are the impacts on Maghull, Melling and
Waddicar. We have already discussed with Tesco’s consultants issues to do
with parking (the extent of and management of the matchday controlled parking
zone and other on-street parking) but we have not yet appraised the recently
submitted Traffic Assessment. However apart from the above there are not
expected to be any Sefton-specific traffic issues arising solely from the retail
elements of the scheme.

Aintree Parish Council - concerned about effect of increased traffic on Aintree

Lane, School Lane, Bull Bridge Lane and Wango Lane.

4. Policy

PPS6 -town centres

Adopted RSS - Policy SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area - Regional
Poles and Surrounding Areas
Policy SD2 Other Settlements within the North West Metropolitan Area

Emerging RSS Policy W5 - Retail Development

5. Comments

This is a proposal of sub-regional significance and is clearly of great

importance to Knowsley. In the spirit of our sub-regional partnership we have
considered the potential contribution of this scheme to agreed sub-regional and
regional strategies. However in its present form it is contrary to advice
contained in PPS6 and Regional Spatial Strategy .in that the scale of
development proposed is disproportionate to Kirkby's existing role and status
and could therefore seriously prejudice the vitality and viability of other centres.

The Spatial Development Framework set in adopted RSS and, in particular,

Policies SD1 and SD2 do not identify Kirkby as an area of major regeneration
at the scale proposed.

More significantly, emerging RSS establishes a clear retail hierarchy for the
North West through Policy W5 where in addition to the Regional Centres of
Manchester and Liverpool, 25 other retail centres are identified, excluding
Kirkby, where comparison retailing should be enhanced. In other centres,
which by implication include Kirkby, investment will be encouraged in order to
maintain and enhance the vitality and viability, including investment to underpin
wider regeneration initiatives, to ensure that the centre meets the needs of the
local community. In this regard, what is currently proposed in Kirkby in terms of
the scale of retail development must be regarded as of sub regional in scale
and cannot therefore satisfy the requirements of emerging RSS, and especially
Policy W5, which is now at a very advanced stage in terms of the weight that
can be attached to it. In short, what is proposed in Kirkby by virtue of the very
large scale of retail development proposed is clearly not in conformity with
emerging RSS.

Whilst the impact of the food elements within the scheme are thought to be
minimal (it is unlikely to affect, for example, plans for Lanstar), the comparison
retail impact of the proposed scheme on existing centres is potentially very

Page 130
 Agenda Item 12
significant. From the applicant’s own assessments it is suggested that the
largest trade diversion will be from Southport (11%), with St Helens (9%),
Skelmersdale (8.6%) and Liverpool City Centre (7%). The trading impact from
Bootle is estimated at 10%Such assessments on behalf of the applicant tend,
by nature, to be cautious (or optimistic) as they will seek to support the
application. sensitive given other development pressures. This, the current
status of Kirkby as a Local Centre, and conflict with existing national (PPS6)
and regional (RSS) policies, all strongly suggest the scheme is seriously out of
scale. Its justification – or mitigation - rests entirely upon the alleged
regeneration benefit the new stadium and its associated investment will bring to
this part of Knowsley.

In understanding the retail impact of the development it would be helpful to

have access to the report prepared for Knowsley by Roger Tym & Partners.
This has not, however, be made available. In this regard, it is important to note
that the applicants at para 10.17 of their Planning Statement make the
following point:

'Since the application was made the Council has (very recently) appointed retail
consultants to advise on the retail policy case offered by the applicant in
support of the planning application. Following an initial meeting and feedback
to the Council, it is the applicants understanding that the Council consultant is
of the view that less convenience and comparison retail floorspace can be
supported than the applicant's case contends. Nevertheless, the initial view
offered is that a substantial amount of new convenience and comparison retail
floorspace can still be supported.'

It would have been helpful to know what the ‘substantial’ scale of retail
development Knowsley’s retail consultants are able to support. Hopefully this
will emerge as Knowsley consider this application further.

A scheme of this size must be referred to GONW as a departure from

Knowsley’s Development Plan and as required by the Shopping Directive.
Under normal circumstances I would fully expect GONW to ‘call-in’ the scheme
for consideration at Public Inquiry by the Secretary of State at which all these
issues would be considered. It is worth noting that failure to ‘call-in’ a scheme
of this magnitude is likely to prompt a challenge through judicial review from
affected parties. In Sefton these could include the owners of the Strand and
also Aintree Retail Park.

5 Recommendation

That Knowsley Council be advised that Sefton Council objects to the proposed
development on the grounds that it is contrary to advice contained in PPS6 and
Regional Spatial Strategy in that the scale is disproportionate to Kirkby's
existing role and status and would seriously prejudice the vitality and viability of
other centres. In this regard we would be especially concerned about the
impacts on Bootle and Southport which are shown to be included in the Kirkby
Catchment Area.

Page 131
This page is intentionally left blank

Page 132