Keioc Proof Of Evidence (alternative Sites & Design)

Public Inquiry into application for: mixed-use development including a new football stadium, retail, residential and leisure uses on land in Kirkby

Proof of Evidence of KEIOC Campaign (Alternative Sites & Design)

Reference: KEIOC/P/1 Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/V4305/V/08/1203375

December 2008

Contents Page 1.0

2.0

3.0

Introduction & Scope of Evidence 1.1

Introduction

3

1.7

Scope of Evidence

4

Alternative Sites for Everton F.C 2.1

Introduction

5

2.2

Assessment Criteria

5

2.3

The Thirty-Nine Potential Sites

10

Design of the Stadium 3.1

Introduction 3.2

4.0

29

Goodison Park

29

3.2

Redevelopment on the Existing Site

32

3.3

Alternative Proposals for Goodison Park

32

3.4

The Proposals for Kirkby

36

3.5

Urban Design & Green Issues

39

3.6

The Potential of a New Stadium to be a Theatre

40

Design Policy Requirements 4.1

Introduction

44

4.2

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

44

4.3

By Design

45

4.4

Regional Spatial Strategy

46

4.5

Knowsley Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

47

4.6

Conclusion

48

Appendices

1.0 Introduction & Scope of Evidence 2

1.1

Introduction

1.2

We, KEIOC are a pressure group especially created to campaign for Everton F.C to stay within the Liverpool City boundaries either by way of redeveloping their existing ground (Goodison Park) or my means of a new stadium.

1.3

The overall aims of the group are the following: •

Promote alternative sites within the city that would enable Everton Football Club to maintain its historic presence in Liverpool.

•

Enable all Evertonians to access a worldwide resource on information relating specifically to the proposed ground move.

•

Facilitate and encourage all Evertonians to participate in the wider stadium debate from an informed standpoint.

•

Inform the fans of the off field activities of the board which directly affect the on field performance of the club.

•

Be the voice of the many match going Evertonians that were unable to voice their opinion in the 2007 ballot on relocating the club.

1.4

KEIOC’s evidence will cover a range of issues including; •

Alternative Sites for the proposed Stadium;

•

Transport Issues Specific to the Stadium;

•

The Design of the Stadium;

•

The Finances of Everton F.C as detailed in the planning application

•

The 2007 Ground Move Ballot conducted by the Electoral Reform Services on behalf of Everton F.C.

1.5 The above will be raised through four separate proofs, all of these proofs have been formulated by a number of KEIOC members, and all four proofs will be presented at the inquiry by separate individuals. 1.6 It should be noted that all proofs should be read in conjunction as they all form the main objections of KEIOC.

1.7

Scope of Evidence

3

1.8

This proof provides detailed information on 39 alternative sites for the possible relocation of Everton Football Club, this has been produced by Trevor Skempton on behalf of KEIOC. This proof then goes on to look at the Design of Goodison Park and a number of alternatives for redevelopment on the existing site.

1.9

Trevor Skempton then provides a detailed account of the Kirkby Proposal relating to the Stadium while also commenting on green and urban Issues.

1.10

The proof then concludes with a detailed evaluation of the proposed stadium scheme against National, Regional and Local design policy; concluding that the current proposal should be refused permission by the Secretary of State.

1.11

A number of appendices referred in the document are supplied as a separate appendix.

2.0

Alternative Sites 4

2.1

Introduction

This report is a response to the potential 35 sites listed in the ‘Alternative Sites for a Stadium Assessment’, prepared by DPP [Document 8.3.] for the Kirkby Public Enquiry. It makes use of selected plans and information from that document, together with other material, with the objective of demonstrating that there are multiple options for an appropriate stadium development for Everton within the heart of Liverpool. This report adds four further sites as follows: [36] The triangle of railway land between Kirkdale and Bank Hall Stations [37] Central Birkenhead, close to Hamilton Square and Woodside Ferry [38] Eastern extension of the Goodison Park site to Walton Lane [39] Conservation and expansion of Everton’s historic ground, Goodison Park There are five sites, which we believe to provide practical alternatives for development. These are: Goodison Park [39], Tunnel Loop Bestway [20], Kirkdale Bank Hall [36], Everton Park [6] and Walton Hall Park [18]. There are four other sites which we believe provide very exciting prospects, subject to the type of further investigation and negotiation that, up to now, has been impossible because of the longstanding ‘exclusivity agreement’ with Knowsley Borough Council. These are: Central Docks [3], Kings Dock [12], Stanley Dock [16] and Stanley Park [17]. Of the 39 sites considered, ten are outside the Liverpool city boundary and are therefore considered by KEIOC to be inappropriate. Many of the other sites have potential and, we think, have been dismissed too lightly in order to buttress the Kirkby proposal. We have commented on all the sites in order to put our objections to Kirkby into perspective. 2.2

Assessment Criteria

Each site is assessed under the following six criteria, together with a conclusion, which will take into account factors such as potential income and cost, which relate to the six criteria, but are otherwise outside the scope of this exercise. Up to three ticks or crosses are added to each of the criteria, to allow each site to be summed-up at a glance. The methodology assumes that every site has some problems, but that these should not be used to reject sites just to promote one particular plan. The notion that there are no sites at all available for a stadium development within the city is unscientific and ridiculous. [A] Location [B] History/Landmark:

5

[C] Accessibility: [D] Partners: [E] Constraints: [F] Availability: A. Location: A.1. The historic home of Everton is in inner-city North Liverpool. For a few years, Everton played at Anfield, before moving across the park to a new stadium, subsequently named as Goodison Park. When Everton moved out in 1892, a rival club, to be named Liverpool, was formed and this unique rivalry, between two major clubs only half a mile apart, has ensured that Liverpool is the only city to have been represented in the top flight of English football in every season since the foundation of the Football League. A.2. The second factor is the position of football within the context of Liverpool as a regional centre. There are three definitions of Greater Liverpool. These are: [1] the County of Merseyside, with a population within its five boroughs of 1.4 million people, [2] the Liverpool City Region [defined in various official documents as including Merseyside plus West Lancashire, Halton, West Cheshire, and parts of North-East Wales, with a combined population of 2.4 million, and [3] the Liverpool One catchment area [a re-statement of Liverpool City Centre’s historic regional influence, as defined by Grosvenor], with a population of 4.9 million. This ‘region’ includes much of North-West England [excluding Greater Manchester] together with North Wales, and also recognises the city’s important links to Dublin, Belfast and the Isle of Man. A.3. Cultural organisations operating at a regional level place themselves in Liverpool City Centre, to take advantage of its unique profile and accessibility. These include Grosvenor [Liverpool One], National Museums Liverpool, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, the Empire, Playhouse and Everyman Theatres, the Tate Gallery and the Arena and Conference Centre. In remarks at the premeeting to the Kirkby Public Inquiry, Mr Clarkson, for the applicants, said that “…an Opera House has nothing whatsoever to do with a Football Club”. We beg to differ. We think that there are many similarities. Just as an Opera House would be unlikely to move to the edge of the city, so we believe that Everton should stay close to the city centre, at the heart of the city-region. A.4. Everton should be looking at partners for its stadium development, those who would benefit from and contribute to a seven-days-a-week operation. These, including hotels, leisure and events organisations, are more likely to be found in or near the city centre. The notion that a stadium is a ‘sterile space-eater’ that should be placed beyond the city limits was a feature of post-war planning, particularly in America. However, that view is now thoroughly discredited and many modern stadia are being sited close to city centres. Examples in the UK include Cardiff and Newcastle, where serious consideration was given to moving to the edge of town, but the final decision in both cases was to stay and re-develop within the city centre.

6

A.5. Merseyrail can be seen as the central nervous system of the city, particularly when considering the movement of large numbers of people. The map below shows the 39 sites considered in this paper distributed across the network map. The yellow shading indicates the Merseyside County. Blue dots indicate sites that are recommended by KEIOC for further detailed investigation, green dots indicate other sites with some factors in their favour, and red dots indicate unacceptable sites. Both Kirkby and Goodison Park are just 15 minutes walk from a Merseyrail station, but Kirkdale [for Goodison Park] is much better situated within the network than Kirkby, and has hence has much greater capacity. The city centre sites benefit to an even greater degree.

B. History/Landmark: B.1. Football clubs are an expression of their historic roots in the hearts of cities. They are an established part of the iconography of the heart of the city, as well as a source of employment and an attraction to tourists. Sometimes, newer communities try to produce their own instant iconography, by

7

transplanting a club from somewhere else. This is a feature of the franchise system that operates in the USA, but it is unusual in England. An obvious example is that of Wimbledon, whose removal to Milton Keynes caused a great deal of upset and bitterness. Although the journey from Walton to Kirkby is only a few miles, it must be remembered that it crosses a significant local authority boundary and one community’s gain is likely to be another community’s loss, on many different levels, not just financial. We think that this is an issue that should be considered as part of the planning process, and therefore is relevant to this Inquiry. C. Accessibility: C.1. The focus of both regional and inter-city transport is the city centre. This applies particularly to public transport, local and long-range, but also to private cars. C.2. There is a complex web of transportation and movement on foot that has been established around the existing grounds, both Goodison and nearby Anfield. Both clubs, particularly Everton, have a large proportion of supporters who walk to the matches. For them, the club moving away from the heart of the city will make it much less accessible [to put it mildly]. Once again, we suggest that the needs of the substantial existing community in Walton and the inner-city are relevant to this Inquiry. D. Partners: D.1. There has been a great deal of talk about ‘enabling’. This has been concerned with ways of subsidising the capital cost of a stadium through the granting of planning permission in conjunction with a major retail development. D.2. Of far more relevance to Everton Football Club, its supporters and the community to which it belongs, is the prospect of ongoing partnerships to ensure that the stadium makes a healthy sevendays-a-week contribution to urban life as well as sustaining the club and its development in the years ahead. D.3. Some businesses are compatible with football, others less so. Entertainment, leisure and hospitality [hotels and restaurants] are compatible, contributing to each other’s activities. Offices and weekday uses are compatible, if they make their parking and infrastructure available to football as an out-of-hours activity. However, there is little or no compatibility between football and shopping; they tend to get in each other’s way.

E. Constraints: E.1. One person’s constraint is another person’s opportunity. In evaluating sites, most surveyors and many planners will look at area, zoning and usage. Architects and engineers are more likely to look at the special opportunities created by particular constraints, such as a sloping site or the presence of some historic fabric.

8

E.2. A feature of many of the site assessments carried out, particularly those produced to justify Liverpool’s proposed move into Stanley Park, is that constraints were seen as excuses for dismissing a site rather than as challenges to be overcome. Other sites, although clearly unsuitable, seem to have been brought forward as Aunt Sallys, easily knocked over, but included to give the impression that the search has been exhaustive. F. Availability: F.1. Availability of a site is rarely a straightforward issue. There is a need for thorough investigation and negotiation, and there are questions of commercial sensitivity. In addition to this, the longstanding ‘exclusivity agreements’, between Everton, Tesco and Knowsley Council in support of a single option [Kirkby], has made this investigation process difficult if not impossible. This is particularly true in the fast-changing world of the city centre, because most of the assessments rely on information gathered some time ago, including many with respect to the potential relocation of Liverpool Football Club. We have endeavoured to add a more up-to-date commentary, wherever this is applicable.

2.3

The thirty-nine Potential Sites

1. Existing Anfield Site Location: Within inner-city North Liverpool History/Landmark: Early home of Everton, but now associated with Liverpool Accessibility: Network of inner-city streets, but no current access to Merseyrail. Partners: Theoretical potential for Everton to share with Liverpool FC

√√ √xx √x √ 9

Constraints: Similar to Goodison Park. Potential incremental expansion. Availability: Integral with envisaged New Anfield. Therefore currently unavailable

√√ xx

Conclusion: The theoretical possibility of a ground-share of Anfield could see Everton providing a high-profile new development at the Anfield Road end, coupled with a joint remodelling and expansion of the Main Stand. Although the site is unavailable at present, progress on the New Anfield project is faltering and this option should be kept under review as one of several options for a potential ground-share.

2. Atlantic and Netherton Industrial Estates Location: Within the North Liverpool built-up area, but outside city boundary History/Landmark: Prominent site on approaches to North Liverpool and docks Accessibility: Merseyrail [Aintree Station] and multiple road links Partners: Hotel and leisure Constraints: Planning policy and other users Availability: Apparently not available

√xx √ √√ √ xx xx

Conclusion: One of the better suburban sites, with good transport links and visibility. However, it is apparently unavailable. It is also outside the city boundary. 3. Central Docks Location: Within inner-city north Liverpool and close to city centre History/Landmark: Dramatic riverside site. Potential focus of new development Accessibility: Merseyrail [from proposed new Vauxhall Station] and City Centre Partners: Potential for major events, hotels, leisure and ground-share Constraints: Adjoining World Heritage Site. Sensitive design necessary Availability: No recent negotiations. Likely to be supported by LCC Planners

√√√ √√√ √√ √√√ √√x x√√ 10

Conclusion: This would be a superb site for a new stadium development, providing that the plans contribute to a high quality of environment and 7-days-a-week activity. This could make it a suitable focal point for Peel’s ambitious proposals for ‘Liverpool Waters’ and, as such, it would be welcomed by the City Council, who are anxious to avoid the creation of an enclave consisting of little but high-rise offices and luxury apartments. At present, Peel [as owners of the site] seem to be unconvinced that Everton would provide the level of quality that they seek; it has been suggested that they [Peel] would be more interested in a joint stadium proposal. However, the Kirkby ‘exclusivity agreement’ has prevented serious discussions on one of the most obvious opportunities within the city.

4. Former Dunlop Site, near Airport Location: Within city boundary but remote from city centre History/Landmark: High visibility for air travellers, but little otherwise. Accessibility: Poor, but could be catalyst for improved transport to airport Partners: Hotel Constraints: Potential conflict with airport operations Availability: Required for future airport expansion. Not available

√xx √xx √xx √ xxx xxx 11

Conclusion: Not a serious contender. 5. Dunnings Bridge Road Location: Within North Liverpool built-up area, but outside city boundary History/Landmark: Prominent site on approaches to North Liverpool and docks Accessibility: Merseyrail [Aintree Station] and multiple road links Partners: Hotel and leisure Constraints: Contaminated land Availability: Apparently available

√xx √ √√ √ x √√

Conclusion: As Site 2, one of the better suburban sites, with good transport links and visibility. However, it is outside the city boundary. 6. Everton Park Location: In the heart of Everton History/Landmark: Prominent sloping site below St George’s Church Accessibility: Merseyrail [Sandhills]. Fairly close to city centre and existing ground Partners: Hotel, leisure and sports centre Constraints: Sloping site provides opportunity. Need to incorporate sports centre Availability: Modern under-used park on cleared land, owned by City Council.

√√√ √√√ √√√ √√ √x √

The historic tower in Everton Park is depicted on the badge of Everton Football Club

12

Conclusion: The North end of Everton Park, incorporating the sports centre, could be a superb site for a 60,000-seat stadium in the heart of Everton, with dramatic use being made of the sloping site and potential for access at different levels. The site was identified in the same document, circulated early in 2007 [see Appendix 1], which identified the Tunnel Loop [Bestway] and Kirkdale sites. 7. Garden Festival Site Location: Within city boundary, but in the South End, beyond the inner-city History/Landmark: Riverside festival site, could be deemed appropriate for a stadium Accessibility: Merseyrail [St Michael’s]. Road access would need to be improved Partners: Hotel and leisure, facing river and restored gardens Constraints: Relatively straightforward improved site with appropriate history Availability: Current planning approval for housing and restored parkland

√x √ √√x √√ √√ xx

Conclusion: Could be appropriate and accessible, given its designation as a festival site, but it is not in the traditional heart of the city. There are current proposals for housing and a restoration of the festival gardens, and the site may be no longer available.

8. Garston Docks 13

Location: Within city boundary, but in the South End, beyond the inner-city History/Landmark: Possible landmark on southern approach from the airport Accessibility: Potential Merseyrail [Cressington Park], but road access limited Partners; Hotel and leisure Constraints: Main constraints are availability and road access Availability: Much of site is unavailable or proposed for residential development

√x √ √x √ xx xx

Conclusion: There may be a potential site close to Cressington Park station, but road access for a large stadium would be a problem, and some land has already been earmarked for residential development. This part of South Liverpool is a long way from both the historic community of Everton and the city centre. 9. Gilmoss 1A Location: Within city boundary, but remote from the heart of the city History/Landmark: Prominent on the approach from the East Lancs Road and M57 Accessibility: No rail access and limited local road network Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city Constraints: No serious development constraints, other than need to improve access Availability: Apparently available

√x √√ xx √√ √√ √√

Conclusion: There are severe access problems, which probably rule this out, although in most respects it is a better proposition than the nearby Kirkby sites. 10. Gilmoss 1B Location: Within city boundary, but remote from the heart of the city History/Landmark: Prominent on approach from the East Lancs Road Accessibility: No rail access and limited local road network Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city Constraints: Few constraints. Potential contamination. Need to improve access Availability: Multiple tenures. Availability questionable

√x √ xx √√ √x x

Conclusion: There are severe access problems, which probably rule this out, although in some respects it is a better proposition than the nearby Kirkby sites. 11. John Moores [Edge Lane] Conclusion: Part of the Wavertree Technology Park, which is being developed as a valuable centre for employment. Not available, therefore not a serious contender. 12. Kings Dock Location: City Centre, next to new Arena and Conference Centre. History/Landmark: Compatible with adjoining facilities, adding to landmark effect Accessibility: Close to city centre transport, parking and other facilities Partners: Major events, working with Arena and Conference Centre management Constraints: Remaining site suitable for a 60,000-seat stadium with sliding pitch

√√√ √√ √√ √√√ √√

Availability: Maybe not just yet, but economic downturn is leading to re-appraisal x√√

14

Conclusion: The site could be even more attractive now than it was at the time of the original Kings Dock proposal in 2003. But the Kirkby ‘exclusivity agreement’ has acted to block active consideration of the fast-changing circumstances and opportunities in the city centre. There is the potential for joint management of the stadium and existing exhibition facilities and arena. Serious consideration should again be given to this site, given the recent change in circumstances.

13. Prescot Road 15

Location: Within inner-city and not far from Everton History/Landmark: Close to Newsham Park Accessibility: Inner-city networks. Potential Merseyrail link [as New Anfield] Partners: Hotel and leisure overlooking park. Major events, subject to rail link Constraints: Brownfield site with no serious constraints Availability: Apparently available, although various tenancies

√√ √ x√ √√ √√ √

Conclusion: This could be an attractive and practical possibility, especially if the rail link could be re-opened [as has been suggested, to serve the New Anfield]. 14. Land at Speke Boulevard Location: South Liverpool, within city boundary but remote from city centre History/Landmark: Potential landmark on southern approach to city from airport Accessibility: Between road and railway, but poor local street network Partners: Hotel and leisure Constraints: Few physical constraints Availability: Apparently available

√x √ √x √ √√ √√

Conclusion: This is the wrong part of town for Everton and, although within the city boundaries, it has many of the same disadvantages as the Kirkby proposal. 15. Speke Northern Airfield Location: Within city boundary but remote from city centre History/Landmark: Little opportunity to create landmark. No historical links Accessibility: Poor Partners: Hotel and leisure Constraints: Industrial site with few constraints Availability: Apparently available

√xx xx xx √ √ √√

Conclusion: Although within the city, the isolated location and lack of accessibility would seem to rule this out as a serious contender. 16. Stanley Dock Location: Within inner-city north Liverpool and reasonably close to city centre History/Landmark: Dramatic riverside site. Potential focus of new development Accessibility: Merseyrail [from proposed new Vauxhall Station] and City Centre Partners: Potential for major events, hotel and leisure Constraints: Within World Heritage Site. Exceptionally good design necessary Availability: Possible, but subject to negotiation with many stakeholders

√√√ √√√ √√ √√√ √xx xx√

16

Conclusion: This site has been quickly dismissed as ‘too small’ and unsuitable ‘…within the context of heritage and conservation…’ This exemplifies the problem of leaving site assessment to organisations and people who are unable or unwilling to recognise that constraints can also be opportunities, always preferring a cleared site that is bigger than necessary. Developing Stanley Dock would be a serious challenge, but the result could be inspirational. It would need to win the support of the many bodies interested in the heritage and the wider future of the city. This would not be easy, but there is no easy way of bringing these huge historic structures back to real life in the 21st century. Engaging in this kind of collective exercise in the heart of the city could push Everton to a leading position in Stadium development. At this moment, Chelsea are giving consideration to proposals that they move into a new arena at the former Battersea Power Station. Their move may never happen, but at least they are prepared to consider it as an imaginative possibility.

17

17. Stanley Park Location: Established home of both clubs History/Landmark: Few sites in World football have such historic resonance Accessibility: Established access arrangements, with scope for Merseyrail extension Partners: Hotels, leisure and major events, but slightly less potential than city centre Constraints: Few physical constraints on site. Lack of current access by Merseyrail Availability: Established as suitable for Liverpool FC, but new permission needed

√√ √√√ √√ √√ √x √√x

Conclusion: It has already been accepted as an appropriate site for Liverpool FC. Therefore, it is logical that it could be an appropriate site for a shared stadium. In this scenario, the suggestion would be to place the stadium alongside Priory Road, away from residential properties, with two retractable pitches, one surrounded by an Everton Village at the North-West end, the other by a Liverpool Village at the South-East end. The main stadium would thus be available [with a concrete floor and a retractable roof] for major events and concerts. The sites of both existing stadia would become extensions to the revitalised park, retaining the historic pitches and elements of the old grounds. 18

18. Walton Hall Park Location: Outside inner-city, but within walking distance of Goodison Park √√ History/Landmark: Highly visible on one of the main approaches to the city Accessibility: No nearby Merseyrail Stations [at present] and limited road network Partners: Hotel and leisure. Could be centrepiece of revitalised park Constraints: Established green space, but comparable with New Anfield Availability: City Council would have to agree [as New Anfield]

√√ xx √√ x√ x√

Conclusion: This seems to be an obvious choice to many supporters, despite the relatively poor accessibility. It is close to Goodison Park, and there are natural comparisons with the projected move of Liverpool FC into Stanley Park. Whilst a new stadium, designed in the manner of a large ‘pavilion’ could be a wonderful centrepiece of a revitalised park, appropriate access would require extensive new infrastructure. The ‘pavilion’ approach would exclude large-scale enabling development, such as retail, but a hotel and leisure uses could be accommodated as an integral part of the pavilion/stadium structure.

19. Wavertree Playground 19

Location: South Liverpool, but inner-city History/Landmark: Visible on approaches by road and rail Accessibility: Potential railway access. Reasonable road links Partners: Hotel and leisure. Potential for major events Constraints: Long established and valued city park Availability: Unlikely

x√ √ √ √√ xx xx

Conclusion: This could be an exciting prospect, although there are other sites in the city that have better links with the club’s historical community in the North End. This park is wellused, but a ‘pavilion’ approach as described for Walton Hall Park [above] could be appropriate. Improved accessibility could make it suitable as a venue for major events. 20. Tunnel Loop [Bestway] Site Location: Close to city centre, below Everton Park History/Landmark: Very prominent site in Scotland Road, in Everton Accessibility: Short walk from city centre stations, car parks and infrastructure Partners: Hotel and leisure. Major Events Constraints: Few other than need to construct deck over the tunnel approach road. Availability: Owner willing to negotiate. City owns land to south

√√√ √√√ √√√ √√√ x√ √√√

The Tunnel Loop site has been promoted by KEIOC, Liverpool City Council and the site owners, Bestway. The ‘exclusivity agreement has prevented Everton from taking part in serious discussions. These sketches show phasing and a potential share with Liverpool.

20

Conclusions: This is a remarkable opportunity, which has not been able to be taken seriously by Everton because of their ‘exclusivity agreement’. The site is less constrained than the 74,000-seat Millennium Stadium in Cardiff and could offer comparable benefits, with a retractable roof and the additional possibility of a retractable pitch [in Cardiff, the pitch is removed in small sections by forklift trucks]. A report by HOK Sport [architects of the Millennium Stadium] confirms that the Loop site could accommodate a 55,000-seat stadium. The HOK Report has been submitted as a separate document. 21. Edge Lane Retail Park Location: Prominent site on edge of inner-city History/Landmark: Potentially dramatic landmark site at gateway to city Accessibility: Good, by both road, rail and local street network Partners: Hotel, leisure and major events Constraints: Currently designated as a retail park Availability: The potential is there, and the Local Authority may be supportive

√ √√√ √√√ √√ x √

Conclusion: Whereas the neighbouring Technology Park is unavailable, the position with respect to the retail park is much more promising. The potential of this site to become a major city landmark is there and the accessibility is very good. We still prefer the options in the city centre, but this site is worthy of further consideration. 22. Aintree Retail Park / long Lane Industrial Estate 21

Location: North Liverpool suburbs, within city boundary History/Landmark: Beyond inner-city and hidden away from general view Accessibility: Potential Merseyrail access to North. Road network limited Partners: Hotel and leisure Constraints: Few constraints Availability: Potentially available

√√ x √x √ √ √

Conclusion: These are two industrial sites in North Liverpool and may be suitable and available, but they have few other advantages. The Northern site is the better of the two, because of the potential of direct rail access. 23. Stonebridge Cross Location: Within city boundary, but remote from the heart of the city History/Landmark: Prominent on approach from the East Lancs Road Accessibility: No rail access and limited local road network Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city Constraints: Few constraints. Availability: Apparently available

√x √ xx √√ √ √√

Conclusion: There are severe access problems, which probably rule this out, although insome respects it is a better proposition than the nearby Kirkby sites. 24. Stanley Market Location: Within inner-city and not far from Everton. History/Landmark: Interesting local history as wholesale market Accessibility: Good inner-city networks. Potential Merseyrail link [as New Anfield] Partners: Hotel and leisure overlooking park. Major events, subject to rail link Constraints: Restricted site with interesting and distinctive design potential Availability: Present use as a market but may become available

√√ √ √√ √√ √√ x√

Conclusion: This could be an attractive and practical possibility, especially if the rail link could be re-opened [as has been suggested to serve the New Anfield]. 25. Calderstones Park Conclusion: This is one of Liverpool’s historic parks, with no historic links to the city’s football clubs and no particular advantages in terms of accessibility for either football or other major events. As such, it is deemed to be unavailable and not a serious contender.

26. Sefton Park Conclusion: This is one of Liverpool’s historic parks, with no historic links to the city’s football clubs and no particular advantages in terms of accessibility for either football or other major events. As such, it is deemed to be unavailable and not a serious contender.

27. Newsham Park 22

Conclusion: This is one of Liverpool’s historic parks, with no historic links to the city’s football clubs and no particular advantages in terms of accessibility for either football or other major events. As such, it is deemed to be unavailable and not a serious contender. 28. Sparrow Hall Playing Fields Location: Within city boundary, in suburban area of North Liverpool History/Landmark: Prominent on approach along Townsend Avenue and East Lancs Accessibility: Merseyrail not too far [Fazakerley]. Limited road network Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city Constraints: Few constraints. Need to improve access Availability: City playing fields. Could be compatible with stadium

√ √ √x √√ √x √

Conclusion: There access problems, but these seem capable of solution. This is a much better proposition than the Kirkby sites. 29. North Shore Location: Close to club’s historic community History/Landmark: Potential to be highly visible, within North end of city Accessibility: Accessible by Merseyrail. Good road links Partners: Major events potential, hotel and leisure Constraints: Industrial area close to docks, similar to downtown Birkenhead Availability: Multiple tenures, but no doubt a suitable site could be identified

√√ √√ √√ √√ x√ x√

Conclusion: There are no doubt suitable sites that could be identified within this large area, but there are better prospects nearby, especially Site 36 [Kirkdale Bank Hall]. 30 Land off Speke Boulevard Location: Just outside city boundary, at furthest extremity from city centre History/Landmark: Prominent gateway to city Accessibility: Potential railway station. Limited road network Partners: Hotel and leisure at gateway to the city Constraints: Need for major infrastructure work to secure rail and road access Availability: Apparently available

xx √ √x √√ xx √√

Conclusion: Although a potential gateway landmark, the site is remote from the city centre. The need for major new infrastructure probably rules it out. 31. Huyton Business Park Location: Remote from city centre and outside boundary History/Landmark: No apparent relationship with city or club’s traditions Accessibility: No rail access and limited road network

xxx xxx xxx

Conclusion: Completely unacceptable on first three criteria. Not a serious contender.

32. Kirkby Stadium Location: Outside the city boundary and remote from the city centre

xxx 23

History/Landmark: Could be local focal point within satellite town, home of Z-cars Accessibility: Poor by public transport. Roads and parking will be big problems Partners: Hotel and leisure, easily accessible by road on non-match days Constraints: Established sporting use. Constrained access for large events Availability: Probable

√ xxx √ √x √

Conclusions: Major problems are location and accessibility. These factors alone should rule this out as a serious contender. 33. Knowsley Industrial Estate Location: Remote from city centre and outside boundary History/Landmark: No apparent relationship with city or club’s traditions Accessibility: No rail access and limited road network

xxx xxx xxx

Conclusion: Completely unacceptable on first three criteria. Not a serious contender. 34. Aintree Race Course Location: Outside the city boundary, but closely linked to North Liverpool History/Landmark: Historic sporting venue Accessibility: Merseyrail station, but suburban location with some difficulties Partners: Established sporting venue, hotels, leisure, major events Constraints: Need to make compatible with revitalised use as racecourse Availability: Subject to demonstrating the above compatibility, may be possible

xx√ √√ √√x √√ x √

Conclusion: Not acceptable to KEIOC, as outside the city boundary. It was the site of a previous proposal, for a joint Mersey Stadium with a 67,000 capacity. The established racecourse use suggests there could be a synergy with stadium development. 35. Land South of Kirkby Town Centre Location: Outside the city boundary and remote from the city centre History/Landmark: Could be local focal point within satellite town, home of Z-cars Accessibility: Poor by public transport. Roads and parking will be big problems Partners: Proposed enabling development will not be helpful as long-term partner Constraints: Made-up ground, planning restrictions on future use and/or expansion Availability: Planning permission granted, but contentious Public Inquiry

xxx √ xxx √x xx √x

Conclusions: Major problems are location, accessibility and restrictions on future expansion. These three factors alone should rule this out as a serious contender.

36. Kirkdale-Bank Hall Location: Within traditional heartland of North Liverpool, not far from Goodison

√√ 24

History/Landmark: Potential landmark on approaches to city from the North Accessibility: Superb access to Merseyrail, close to traditional local community Partners: Major events, hotel and leisure, park and ride facility for city centre access Constraints: Tight site needs deck over railway lines. Opportunity for clever design Availability: Subject to agreement with railway authorities

√√√ √√√ √√ xx√ √

Conclusion: This is an exciting proposition within the traditional heartland of North Liverpool. Many supporters already use Kirkdale Merseyrail Station to get to Goodison Park. There are many precedents for decking over railway lines, for example the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham and the Vålerengen Stadium in Oslo. The site is tight and would require a bespoke design to achieve the target of 60,000 seats. The transport links would make it suitable as a venue for major events [although without scope for a sliding pitch] and its car parks could provide a week-day park-and-ride facility. The site was first identified in the same paper that identified the Tunnel Loop Site, in February 2007 [see Appendix 1].

37. Central Birkenhead Location: Outside city boundary but accessible and close to city centre

xx√ 25

History/Landmark: Potential to be highly visible, opposite the Pier Head Accessibility: Accessible from city centre by rail, ferry and road tunnels Partners: Major events, hotel and leisure, park and ride for city centre Constraints: Psychological barrier for Liverpool-based supporters Availability: Unspecified potential sites within under-utilised grid-iron streets

√√ √√ √√√ xx x√

Conclusion: This is obviously unacceptable to KEIOC, as it lies outside the present city boundary. However, despite the psychological barrier of the river, it scores higher on accessibility and other issues than many of the alternatives, including Kirkby. There are a number of potential development sites within the grid-iron of streets leading out from Hamilton Square. It is comparable in scope to the large area included by the applicants as ‘North Shore’. There is potential for an imaginative scheme next to Woodside Ferry.

38. Eastern Expansion of Goodison Park to Walton Lane Location: In the built-up area of Walton, Liverpool 4, the club’s home since 1892 History/Landmark: The combination of the ground and surrounding streets is iconic Accessibility: Accessible via a network of city streets, two miles from city centre Partners: Potential for hotel and leisure. Transport and tourism links with LFC Constraints: Need to enlarge footprint. LCC may be prepared to support Availability: Part owned. Need for large-scale Compulsory Purchase Order

√√√ √√√ √√ √√√ √x √xx

Conclusion: This has been proposed on several occasions and would provide the opportunity to rebuild the stadium without serious disruption to the present structure, possibly turning the pitch through 90 degrees. We believe that this proposal ignores the advantages of preserving significant elements of the existing historic structure and atmosphere of Goodison Park. We also believe that the land required from the surrounding community is larger than necessary. Therefore, we prefer Site 39, which has the additional benefit of allowing incremental development.

39. Conservation and Expansion of Goodison Park Location: In the built-up area of Walton, Liverpool 4, the club’s home since 1892 History/Landmark: The combination of the ground and surrounding streets is iconic

√√√ √√√ 26

Accessibility: Accessible via a network of city streets, two miles from city centre Partners: Potential for hotel and leisure. Transport and tourism links with LFC Constraints: Need to enlarge footprint on two sides. LCC may well support this Availability: Owners. May need Compulsory Purchase for long-term expansion

√√ √√√ x√ √√x

Conclusion: The plan above shows the footprint [dark blue] that we consider is needed to expand Goodison Park, without destroying its close relationship with the surrounding community. The strip alongside Walton Lane would allow for non-retail enabling development overlooking Stanley Park. The pale blue shading indicates the area of surrounding townscape that we argue should be given Conservation Area status, in conjunction with the conservation of historic elements of the stadium structure. This is KEIOC’s ‘Plan A’. An earlier study by architects Ward McHugh looked into rebuilding the stadium within the current footprint, and other studies have been carried out on this basis. However, we think that it is important that Everton faces its long-term future without the constraint of the present footprint. Nevertheless, we consider it equally important that Everton give due consideration to the importance of the built heritage of Goodison Park, in particular the two remaining Archibald Leitchdesigned stands. We recognise Goodison Park’s potential to be the ‘Albert Dock of World Football’. Our recommendation is that Everton enter into serious discussions with the City Council and the local community to determine what is the appropriate long-term footprint for Goodison Park [no more than is necessary and no less]. These discussions should also seek to establish a partnership between the

27

club and the local community, to investigate not only the stadium development, but the improvement and ongoing maintenance of the surrounding streets as a Conservation Area [like that in Kensington Fields, Liverpool 7].

Trevor Skempton / for KEIOC / 1st December 2008

3.0

Design Response

3.1

Introduction

28

3.1.1

Football is an emotional business. In remarks at the pre-meeting to the Kirkby Public Inquiry, Mr Clarkson, for the applicants, said that “…an Opera House has nothing whatsoever to do with a Football Club”. As already stated in the document on the choice of location, so with design issues, we beg to differ.

3.1.2

There may be differences in the social make-up of the spectators [although since the formation and marketing of the Premier League, these differences have been diminishing, for better or worse]. Football contains a greater element of improvisation, and possibly of the unexpected, but in terms of colour, drama, sound and larger-than-life entertainment, the similarities between opera and football are surely greater than the differences. The point is this: the stadium is a grand theatre and should be judged as such.

3.1.3

This response to the design issues is in four sections: 1. An assessment of Goodison Park

2. An assessment of the Kirkby Stadium as proposed 3. Urban Design and Green Issues 4. The theatrical potential of a new stadium

3.2

Goodison Park

History and Overview 3.2.1

David Keirle describes the technical shortcomings inside the stadium accurately, in terms of obstructed views, cramped concourses, poor toilets and catering facilities. However, he makes two value-judgements about the location, which should be challenged:

[para 2.1.6. ] “The current stadium is set within a predominately residential area and is built tight to the site boundaries…. [on match days, there is] considerable disruption.” 3.2.2

This is an urban area. Most of the buildings, including the houses, are built to the back of pavement. This is what gives it its urban character. From time to time, the streets are busy, and lively. The traditional ensemble of Football Ground hemmed in by tightly by surrounding streets is similar to the ensemble of a Victorian Mill and the mill village. They both stem from the same origins, the genesis of modern social management in the nineteenth century. There is a case for preserving surviving examples of this relationship as Conservation Areas. For example, Saltaire village and mill, in West Yorkshire, is now a World Heritage Site. Its narrow terraced streets are reminiscent of Walton, but it is regarded as a desirable place to live. Some may prefer a suburban location or a landscaped ‘business park’, but many others will disagree. What should be beyond dispute is that the area and the streets around Goodison Park deserve some loving care and attention, from the both the Local Authority and the Football Club.

29

Disruption? One of many streets near Goodison decorated in 1966, when Everton won the FA Cup and Goodison Park staged five World Cup games, including the semi-final David Keirle, however, says that Goodison Park is a stadium with:

[2.1.7] “… little architectural merit, which makes no positive contribution to the immediate surrounding area.” 3.2.3

Similar judgements were made about the Liverpool’s famous Albert Dock [now also part of a World Heritage Site], before the warehouses were saved as the result of a long campaign. Liverpool and other cities have lost countless gems that were described by someone as being of ‘little architectural merit.’

3.2.4

Archibald Leitch was the greatest of the stadium designers of the first half of the twentieth century. Goodison Park has two of his surviving stands, with a connecting corner and a unique relationship with St. Luke’s Church. This powerful imagery of this ensemble has spread round the World, not least back in 1966 when Goodison was host to five World Cup matches, including the semi-final [and Everton won the FA Cup]. The surrounding streets held street parties and were decorated with bunting. Whatever maybe missing here, there is no lack of historical interest or ‘architectural merit.’

30

The junction of Archibald Leitch’s two surviving stands at Goodison Park. This is one of the iconic sights of World football, which David Keirle admits to having “….a certain historic charm” and which we argue could be preserved, reconfiguring the lower levels and extending the Upper Bullens under a big new roof, supported by a pitch-length truss 3.2.5

The more modern Main Stand and Park End are mean-spirited structures that inspire little affection in themselves, but at least they contribute to the essential sense of a tight theatrical enclosure. I remember reading a school essay, where a youngster described the ‘miracle’ of travelling from quiet suburbs, crossing on the ferry, getting a bus up to Walton, walking up the dark narrow streets with growing excitement, reaching the turnstiles, then coming suddenly into ‘a magical floodlit arena.’ Notwithstanding the romance of the above, the case for modernisation of the facilities is not disputed.

3.2.6

Nor, in a general sense, is the cost. Refurbishment and conservation is not necessarily a cheap option in the short-term, although this approach has the considerable advantage of being able to be carried out incrementally, managed and delivered in response to everchanging circumstances. It is also ‘green’ in that it involves the recycling of material, and continued use of the historical capital invested in these large structures. What is needed is something that Everton don’t seem to have [at least in stadium terms], a long-term plan.

3.3

Redevelopment on the Existing Site 31

David Keirle states that it is:

“….not possible to design or deliver a new stadium on the current site that would exceed a total capacity of 35,000.” 3.3.1

We think that, in his Option 1, he could have tried harder, for example by utilising the whole space at the Park End. Supporters groups, over the years, have worked on this particular problem with architects, and have come up with considerably higher figures.

3.3.2

Nevertheless, because we are all ambitious to secure a long-term future, we accept that the footprint of Goodison has to be enlarged, not to meet the immediate requirement of 50,000 seats, but to ensure that the club doesn’t find itself restricted in the future if it requires a stadium as large as those of its competitors in Liverpool and Manchester.

3.3.4

We think that his Option 2 imposes a suburban-style stadium with relatively wasteful space standards onto this neighbourhood, and would require more compulsory purchase than we think is justified. We are aware of his similar proposals for Tottenham, which at least recognise their overwhelming wish to stay in their local community.

3.3.5

Option 3 is a more interesting exercise, but it begs the question of why all the allocated budget was allocated to a new Bullens Road Stand, offering limited extra capacity, when a more effective first option would surely be to expand the Park End, in conjunction with enabling development, including a hotel overlooking the Park Lake. This plan does however illustrate the genuine potential for incremental growth in affordable phases.

3.3.6

Despite these reservations, the overlay of the symmetrical plans of the Emirates [60,000] and Kirkby [50,000] in David Keirle’s report are useful and seem to support the point that a more compact multi-tier design, such as Croke Park [80,000] or Millennium Stadium [74,000], designed in a bespoke assymetrical fashion, could be fitted onto the site with a relatively modest increase in the footprint. This is the scenario that is outlined below.

3.4

Alternative Proposals for Goodison Park

3.4.1

It is apparent that no-one at Everton Football Club has been prepared [since John Moores was Chairman, in the 1960s] to give serious consideration to the formulation of a long-term plan for incremental development. And yet, this is the path taken successfully by competitor clubs [Manchester United, Aston Villa, Tottenham Newcastle United, etc.], who have expanded their stadia, whilst also staying close to their inner-city roots.

3.4.2

It is not for us, as a group of supporters, to bring forward fully-worked out and costed schemes. As already stated, we don’t argue that the incremental process is cheaper than

32

building a brand-new structure. But we do argue that it is manageable and deliverable, whereas we doubt the wisdom of looking for a single ‘big-bang’ capital injection, funded either by a ‘sugar-daddy’ or the exploitation of a loophole in the planning process. 3.4.3

However, a number of exploratory studies have been carried out by architects and engineers. With this information in mind, the following phasing system is recommended in principle. This would be carried out over an extended period, in accordance with a long-term business and development plan and in consultation with supporters, the local community and the City Council.

Under the Chairmanship of the late John Moores, the old Main Stand was replaced in phases without any significant disruption in ground capacity or atmosphere, a process that could be repeated, but this time bringing back the appropriate style and grandeur

3.4.4

Phase One: An immediate increase of capacity to 48,000 by the replacement of the Park End Stand by a large new structure seating 14,000. Most of these would be premium seats and a series of large new lounges would be operated in conjunction with a new landmark hotel overlooking the park lake. Most construction would be carried out behind the existing stand, with no requirement to reduce capacity during this period. This large structure and the tower would be more than a match for the nearby ‘New Anfield’.

3.4.5

Phase Two: Re-modelling of the Gwladys Street Stand. This will demonstrate the conservation approach, by preserving Leitch’s basic structure and showcasing its positive

33

relationship with both the church and the houses in the street behind. The lower level seating would be reconfigured to remove the worst of the obstructed views, with the loss of about 600 seats, although there is no intention to otherwise ‘improve’ the ‘cramped’ seating standards in this part of the ground. The 600 seats would be replaced in the form of premium seats in a ‘sky gallery’ to be added as part of a new roof. The roof structure would allow the removal of the posts from the upper tier and would consist of a deep truss spanning the full width of the stand. As well as the ‘sky gallery’, this truss would support a single large video screen [with smaller screens at each side, facing backwards]. 3.4.6

The main structural work would be completed in consecutive close seasons. The Lower Gwladys Street would also be re-designed to be able to serve as the stage area for major events, providing appropriate technical and backstage areas, capable of being brought into use at any time of the year without disrupting the main business of football.

The first phase, the rebuilding of the Park End, together with a landmark hotel tower, would bring the capacity up to 48,000 and allow the club time to plan the next phases

34

Extracts from engineering and sight-line studies into the expansion and reconfiguration of the Bullens Road Stand and the corner where it meets the expanded Park End Stand

3.4.7

Phase Three: Rebuilding of the Bullens Road Stand, preserving Leitch’s basic structure and adding a new tier behind. The net increase in capacity will be only 4,000, but the entire seating will be converted to premium space standards. The back part of the Lower Bullens could become a spectacular combined long lounge and museum, potentially open seven days a week, showcasing the original features of the structure, with a continuous view of the pitch, albeit obstructed by columns and the overhanging tier above. The columns will be removed from the upper tier, which will then offer some of the best views in the ground. The new roof will be supported by a single long truss, echoing that on the new Gwladys Street, but above the roof to cater for the extra height of the seating below. Phase Three will require the extension of the site boundary to include part of the school and 30 houses in Diana Street and Muriel Street. The school could be redesigned around a courtyard and also be allowed further use of some of the indoor stadium facilities. The houses could be replaced by new accommodation on Walton Lane.

3.4.8

Phase Four: This is a major long-term step, but allowance for it should be made at the outset. Goodison Road is diverted to run parallel with the pitch from its junction with City Road. 40 houses would be removed [to be replaced by new accommodation facing Walton Lane or elsewhere within the surrounding community]. The businesses facing Goodison Road, including the Winslow Hotel, would be replaced by new structures facing the new road, the aim being to restore the general feel of the area in its heyday. A new corner stand would be built next to the Park End overlooking Spellow Lane. This would have a capacity of 6,000, and be opened when the first part of the Main Stand is demolished. At that point, the capacity will drop back temporarily to 48,000.

3.4.9

Phase Five: The first sub-phase of the Main Stand will bring the capacity up to 56,000 and the second sub-phase, the following year, will bring it up to 63,000.

The final phases require the re-alignment of Goodison Road and Bullens Road. This site expansion should be carried out in conjunction with the local community and creation of a Conservation Area covering the historic streets between County Road and Walton Lane

35

3.4.10 The ultimate objective would be to complete a stadium that incorporates its characteristic historic features, meets all the requirements of an ambitious business and its partners, meets the rising expectations of the supporters and, last but not least, is the celebrated centrepiece of a revived local community in Walton. The stadium should be designed to be an active centre seven-days-a-week; at the moment, supporters visiting the box office or the club shop cannot even get a cup of tea or coffee at the stadium.

3.5 3.5.1

The proposals for Kirkby If the brief was to provide a stadium that fitted in with an out-of-town retail park, then the design could be deemed to be appropriate. The proposal resembles the large blank-walled buildings that characterise edge-of-town retail centres.

3.5.2

On one side is a large surface car park [which will not be available for match-going supporters], on a second side is a coach park, on the third is a main road beyond a landscaped buffer-zone. Only on the fourth side is there an ‘urban’ street linking the stadium with the rest of the town centre, and this street has no active frontages. It is clear that this is a facility for football alone, at the end of a pedestrian cul-de-sac, that for most of the week will be a closed structure giving little to the surrounding community.

3.5.3

If this is indeed the brief, the technical solution is hard to fault. The straight lines and symmetrical layout symbolise economy and suggest a standardised rather than a bespoke design. The symmetrical layout also suggests a once-and-for-all solution, with no allowance for long-term greater ambitions. There is a reference to filling in the corners, to add a further 10,000 seats in the future, but the planning approval specifically rejects both expansion and also any broadening of stadium use to include major events.

36

3.5.4

The design is illustrated in the ‘2008 stadia brochure’ of the construction company, Barr. Two of these illustrations are reproduced below, and they show a large box-like structure which fails to express any sense of the theatrical drama of what will happen inside and sits in a landscape of car parks and large low sheds characteristic of an out-of town ‘retail park’ rather than a busy town or city.

Images taken from Barr’s ‘2008 stadia brochure’. On the left is the proposed view from Valley Road, on the right the stadium sits amongst low-rise retail sheds and car parks. 3.5.5

We have been asked many times whether this design would be acceptable if transposed to an inner-city or central site. The response is as follows:

[a] The structural economy, the straight lines and bevelled corners are not problems in themselves, but there should be a greater distinction between the different parts of the ground to encourage differentiation in atmosphere. For example, there are those who prefer a crowded convivial atmosphere with singing. There are others who put a premium on cinema-style comfort. There are, of course, big differences in what people are able or willing to pay and in their levels of expectation. In particular, the price-exclusion of a generation of young supporters is a growing problem across the English Premier League. [b] The stadium should be much more open to the streets around it and have a range of ground-level mixed-use activities, available to the public seven-days-a-week. This mixed-use approach is an essential feature of the modern urban-design agenda, in the same way as it has been applied in mixed-use developments such as Liverpool One. It leads to a safer and more sustainable environment. [c] The stadium should specifically allow for long-term improvement, expansion and development. This is not just good business practice, but it is also recognises the long-term dreams of supporters. Supporters dream of winning the European Cup [now known as the ‘Champions League’], as Aston

37

Villa, Glasgow Celtic, Nottingham Forest, Liverpool and Manchester United have done before, and surely no-one at Everton would say that this is not a realistic long-term objective and possibility. It is, therefore, perverse to physically restrict the club by moving into a stadium that cannot be expanded to compete with the stadia of our closest competitors [Old Trafford and New Anfield]. 3.5.6

Ongoing stadium development can be a source of great anticipation and excitement for supporters. The multi-phased development of St James’ Park, Newcastle, saw regular Sunday crowds around the construction site marvelling as their club seemed to be building up into the sky, season after season. Newcastle made effective use of the ongoing stadium construction, highly visible in the city centre, as a means of engaging with their supporters and building up the fan-base.

[d] Some of the potential city centre sites are tight and constrained, as are the sites of St James’ Park, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff and that of Croke Park in Dublin. This applies to Goodison Park, Bestway’s Tunnel Loop on Scotland Road, Kirkdale, Everton Park and the Kings Dock. These sites require bespoke solutions, but they offer much more opportunity for adding excitement and interest to this mass-entertainment business, in partnership with related commercial organisations and ongoing community activities. The success of the Millennium Stadium atmosphere is due, in a large part, to the compact three-tier arrangement necessitated by the site restrictions.

3.6

Urban design and green issues

3.6.1

It is worth looking again at the two grounds on either side of Stanley Park, within their respective networks of streets [see plans below]. Both have similar constraints. This has led

38

both clubs to the conclusion, advised by their respective developers, that ‘slash and burn’ is the best option – starting afresh on a cleared site, a blank canvas. The waste of resources that this implies is shocking. Some say that the solution is to pool resources in a shared stadium, pointing out that even Wembley could make money if it had two Premiership ‘franchises’; this argument re-surfaced recently and attracted wide support.

The left-hand plan shows the two stadia and Stanley Park, with the outline of Liverpool’s proposed ‘New Anfield’ dotted within the park. The right-hand plan shows the potential expansion of both existing stadia, each to accommodate 60,000, with a large rectangular communal [public sector] ‘events’ space within the park, over an underground car park, as part of a shared public transport infrastructure

3.6.2

Another view is to look at the advantages of expanding the two existing grounds and sharing a new transport infrastructure, with a large events space and underground car park in Stanley Park. This consolidates the traditional intense rivalry of the two clubs.

39

3.6.3

The new urban design agenda is critical of the suburban car-orientated planning and functional zoning of the post-war years, and promotes more intensive and sustainable mixeduse developments, usually based around public transport. It was formulated by Richard Rogers’ ‘Urban Task Force’, set up by the Government in1998, and codified by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment [CABE], particularly in their document ‘By Design [Urban Design in the Planning System]’.

3.6.4

CABE has been openly critical of the Kirkby proposals and similar out-of-town schemes.

3.6.5

CABE advocates revitalisation of inner-city and city centres, as exemplified by its support for Grosvenor’s recently-completed Liverpool One Development.

3.7

The potential of a new stadium to be a theatre

3.7.1

We see standardised stadia emerging all over the country. At first, it was the simple single-tier rectangle with some of the corners filled in [as at Derby, Middlesbrough, Leicester and Southampton] and later the symmetrical bowl [as at Bolton, City of Manchester, Arsenal and proposed for Tottenham].

3.7.2

This is the ‘commodification’ of football, expressed in steel; these new stadia have all the character of the inside of a bath-tub – or a supermarket. As the atmosphere dies, the product will become less attractive and the television companies won’t be slow to switch their attentions elsewhere. Perhaps some clubs will resist this trend.

3.7.3

We hope that Everton will learn from its own fabulous history, that stadium atmosphere can be – to use the language of business – a ‘unique selling point’, but we just can’t see this happening with these Kirkby proposals.

3.7.4

The several alternative city centre sites each offer the prospect of the stadium becoming a seven-days-a-week destination for visitors, in between the football matches, concerts and other major events. City centre land is, of course, precious and must be used carefully. This has the potential to add to the stadium’s character, by requiring a bespoke solution, which will express the individual characteristics of the site and location.

3.7.5

For example, the Tunnel Loop site, owned by Bestway, is large enough to build the first phase of the stadium completely within the Loop, fitting ‘like a glove’ to provide a first-phase capacity of 50,000. The development would include a plinth covering part of the access road. This would form an entrance plaza [a fitting site for the re-located statue of Dixie Dean] stretching between two major routes leading North from the City Centre, Scotland Road and St. Anne Street. This is our ‘Plan B’.

40

3.7.6

The ‘extra’ cost attributed to the need to build a deck over a section of the tunnel approach road would be more than offset by the ‘savings’ in transport infrastructure arising from the location on the edge of the city centre. A more recent study by HOK, architects of the Millennium Stadium, took a similar approach and concluded that a stadium with a capacity of 55,000 was possible. A copy of the preliminary report by HOK has been submitted to the Inquiry.

3.7.7

Each link from the city centre is a wide road, offering just fifteen minutes walk from Moorfields [Merseyrail] and Lime Street [Main Line and Underground] Stations respectively. The land between the two could be made available by Liverpool City Council for ‘enabling’ development, thus anchoring the scheme into city centre, with its car parks and other infrastructure, and providing a valuable new public square.

41

An early sketch suggesting a new stadium on the Tunnel Loop site. The dark blue area represents a first phase of 50,000 seats, the light blue a further phase of 12,000 seats, and the purple a 28-storey landmark ‘Hotel 1878’ [the year of Everton’s foundation]. 3.7.8

It has been suggested that such a development could be a non-retail equivalent of Liverpool One [a ‘Liverpool Two’ perhaps?]. Most significant would be the dramatic effect that this development would have on this part of town. The road has already defined a visuallypowerful circular structure and its position on Scotland Road below Everton Park would be a decisive signal that the long overdue regeneration of North Liverpool is well under way.

42

‘Liverpool One’, a large mixed-use retail-led development on the South side of the city centre. It has been suggested that a stadium development on the Loop site could be the heart of major leisure-led mixed-use development on the North side, a ‘Liverpool Two’. 3.7.9

This response opened by describing football as an emotional business. We lose sight of this magical parallel universe at our peril. In a fractured world, in which there are indefensible gulfs of income and life-chances, football clubs can allow us to express our underlying sense of community. Perhaps the football ground should be seen a Cathedral as well as an Opera House. Nil satis nisi optimum.

Trevor Skempton / for KEIOC / 1st December 2008

43

4.0

Design Policy Requirements

4.1

Introduction

4.1.1

This section will look at the design of the proposed new stadium and surrounding area in terms of design policy in relation to National, Regional and Local policy and guidance. It is not the intention of this section to evaluate the design of the stadium as Trevor Skempton on behalf of KEIOC has addressed this previously.

4.1.2

The wider context of the proposal including the retail element does not make up part of this section.

4.1.3

We feel the proposed stadium fails to meet the standards set out in a number of policy and guidance documents and fails to demonstrate in the application that the current proposal is of good design.

4.2

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

4.2.1

The Government has prepared guidance called Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development, which provides a full statement of Government policies for the Good Design on all new developments. Below we have emphasised where we feel the stadium fails to meet set criteria from PPS1: Para 3.5 High quality and inclusive design should create well-mixed and integrated developments which avoid segregation and have well-planned public spaces that bring people together and provide opportunities for physical activity and recreation.

4.2.2

PPS1 sets out that all new developments should be of high quality and inclusive design along with well planned public spaces. The stadium due to its nature as a design and build lacks high quality design as has been previously demonstrated by Trevor Skempton. The proposed stadium also fails to integrate with the surrounding development leaving a sterile and unattractive surrounding public space that is contrary to the guidance in PPS1. These in effect will stifle opportunities for physical activity and recreation in the surrounding public realm. Para 3.5 Good design should be integrated into the existing urban form and the natural and built environments;

44

4.2.3

It is clearly evident from the proposed Masterplan that the proposed new Stadium not only fails to integrate into the new development but ‘also’ fails to actively sit within the existing urban form due to a number of factors previously mentioned by Trevor Skempton.

4.3

By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System: towards better practice

4.3.1

PPS1 also sets out that all Local Authorities should have high regard to a number of design ‘guidances’ such as By Design. All Local Authorities should have high regard to the contents of By Design as it forms an important material consideration to planning decisions.

4.3.2

By Design clearly sets out the role of the planning system in terms of design;

“The planning system provides the means to encourage good design, not just in conservation areas and other attractive places, but everywhere. Securing good design is central to good planning. The appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are relevant to the consideration of a planning application and PPG1 makes it clear that local planning authorities should reject poor designs”. 4.3.3

As with PPS1 we have emphasised where we feel the proposed new stadium in Kirkby fails to meet the design requirements set out in By Design:

4.3.4

By Design sets out a number of select design criteria to be considered in the planning process. These are:

•

Character (A place with its own identity)

•

Continuity and Enclosure (A place where public and private spaces are clearly distinguished)

•

Quality of the Public Realm (A place with attractive and successful outdoor areas)

•

Ease of Movement (A place that is easy to get to and move through)

•

Legibility (A place that has a clear image and is easy to understand)

•

Adaptability (A place that can change easily)

•

Diversity (A place with variety and choice)

4.3.5

As we are just interested in the stadium side of the development it is obvious that not all the above principles can be applied to the stadium element in their entirety, but many of the principles can still be applied in certain aspects.

4.3.6

In this case when applying the above design principles it is evident that the stadium proposal fails to adequately meet a number of them as set out in By Design. Due to the design and construction methods, the proposed stadium lacks character and fails to create a sense of

45

identity for Kirkby. Secondly, the quality of public realm around the stadium lacks real cohesion and fails to act as an attractive outdoor area. 4.3.7

With this in mind it is clear that the current design of the proposed stadium fails to meet a number of criteria set out in By Design.

4.3.8

Along with By Design the proposed stadium also fails to meet a number of requirements outlined in English Heritage’s & CABE’s 2007 document titled “Guidance on tall buildings” (endorsed by Government on 26 July 2007). The definition of a 'tall-building' and one adopted by Government is;

“Any building which is significantly higher than its neighbours and/or which recognisably changes the skyline” 4.3.9

It should be made clear at this stage that KEIOC do not oppose the height of the Stadium, though it is clear that the structure should be defined as a tall building and with that should comply to this guidance in order to successfully achieve good design.

4.3.10 The complete document can be found in the appendices, some clear guidance that the stadium fails to meet is the following; 4.4 To be acceptable, any new tall building should be in an appropriate location, should be of excellent design quality in its own right and should enhance the qualities of its immediate location and wider setting. It should produce more benefits than costs to the lives of those affected by it. Failure on any of these grounds will make a proposal unacceptable to CABE and English Heritage. 5.1 Tall buildings should not be supported by local planning authorities unless it can be demonstrated through the submission of fully justified and worked-up proposals that they are of excellent architectural quality and in the appropriate location.

4.4

Regional Spatial Strategy

4.4.1

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was formally adopted in September 2008 and provides a framework for development and investment in the region over the next fifteen to twenty years, while also establishing policies to achieve sustainable development.

4.4.2

The RSS has a number of design requirements and at the same time states that developments should have regard to the North West Design Guide.

46

Policy DP7: Promote Environmental Quality, says; “Promoting good quality design in new development and ensuring that development respects its setting taking into account relevant design requirements, the NW Design Guide and other best practice; 4.4.3

As demonstrated throughout our proof we feel the proposed stadium is not of high quality and therefore the stadium is not complying with the RSS in promoting good quality design in a new development; furthermore, as demonstrated with regard to By Design, the stadium fails to comply with other best practice.

Para 4.10 Good design, creativity and innovation, are essential to improve the built environment and make better use of land to support sustainable patterns 4.4.4

The RSS rightly points out that good design along with creativity are essential in improving the built environment, however the proposed stadium for Everton F.C fails to represent a welldesigned stadium, and thus lacking the creativity to maximize better use of land it fails to support more sustainable patterns.

4.5

Knowsley Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

4.5.1

The Knowsley UDP was formally adopted in June 2006 and is the Council’s strategy for delivering physical development and protecting areas. The UDP will be in place for the foreseeable future until the Council produces its new Core Strategy as part of the Local Development Framework.

4.5.2

Chapter 11 of the UDP is entitled Development Quality and the Built Environment and addresses the need for good urban design in the Borough. The strategic objectives are:

4.5.3

To stimulate a high design quality in new development which will:

a) Help to create a sense of place and pride in Knowsley and its constituent communities b) Respond to and enhance the character of the townscape and landscape and c) Make the Borough a more attractive place to live and work.

4.5.4

Policy DQ1 is the Council’s policy on design that all new development should comply with.

47

4.5.5

DQ1 is a robust design policy that the proposed stadium fails to comply with: due to the poor architectural merit of the design of the stadium policy DQ1 has been ignored on a number of issues by the applicant.

4.5.6 •

For example it is evident that the stadium ignores the following from DQ1: Respond to and, where appropriate, enhance the characteristics of the immediate surrounding area through the use of appropriate scale, density, massing, height and building lines;

•

Protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers;

•

Preserve and manage any existing important natural features such as trees, hedgerows, greenspace, ponds, slopes and streams and where possible make use of these as design features;

•

Achieve good design quality in all new buildings and structures in terms of their scale, style, materials, detailing and their relationship with each other;

4.5.7

It could be argued the stadium fails to comply with Policy DQ1 in its entirety; the policy is supplied in full as an appendix at the end of the proof for information.

4.5.8

We believe the non-compliance with the Council’s UDP is further emphasised by the Council’s own officers in the committee report for the application:

“Officers are disappointed the design does not incorporate stronger urban form based on sound design principles. “Within the development, the design and quality of the landscaping and public realm, while creating some points of visual interest, disappoints when measured against sound urban design principles.” 4.6

Conclusion

4.6.1

We have shown how the proposed stadium fails to comply with design policy at a National, Regional and Local level. It has constant disregard for the number of adopted policy documents and best practice guidance. This is further backed up by CABE comments which said the following regarding the design of the stadium:

48

“We are concerned that the stadium design is being delivered by a Design and Build contractor. It is our view that Design and Build contracts can produce successful outcomes only when high quality design is embedded in the process; we do not feel that this has been achieved in this case. We are not convinced by this masterplan that there is a clear understanding of the space required for managing large crowds converging on the stadium. Also, we do not feel that an inspiring sense of arrival, as one would expect to have upon approaching a stadium of this size and significance, has been achieved. This stadium will be a prominent figure in the landscape in all directions, however, the pedestrian approaches to the stadium lack coherence, meandering from the railway station or drifting across car parks. On match days, the continued operation of all uses appears likely to be controlled by crude boundary treatments”.

4.6.2

KEIOC believe that the overall design of the stadium and surrounding area befits neither a Premier League club nor so the Town of Kirkby.

4.6.3

As a result, The Secretary of State is requested to refuse the application.

49