Kirkby Land Sale - Council Report

Agenda Item 3 METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KNOWSLEY To:

The Chairman and Members of the Appeals Committee

Meeting:

20 October 2009

Wards Affected:

All Kirkby Wards

Portfolio Areas:

Regeneration, Economy and Skills

Non-Key Decision

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE RESOURCES

APPROPRIATION AND DISPOSAL OF OPEN SPACE LAND TO THE EAST OF VALLEY ROAD AND THE SOUTH OF CHERRYFIELD DRIVE, KIRKBY

1.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1

The purpose of this report is to advise the Appeals Committee of objections received following the public advertisement of the Council’s intention to appropriate open space land in Kirkby Town Centre for planning purposes pursuant to Section 122 (2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, and then to dispose of that land for planning purposes pursuant to Section 233 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1.2

The report requests the Appeals Committee to determine whether or not the appropriation and subsequent disposal of the relevant open space land should be approved as publicly advertised, after taking account of the representations made by the objectors and the Executive Director for Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children and Family Services, and the Executive Director for Neighbourhood Services.

2.

RECOMMENDATIONS Members of the Appeals Committee are recommended to:(a)

determine whether or not to consider objections received after the deadline set out in the public advertisement (as discussed in paragraph 3.9 of this report);

(b)

subject to the outcome of (a) above, consider the responses from objectors alongside the comments of the Executive

Page 3

Director for Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children and Family Services, and the Executive Director for Neighbourhood Services following the public advertisement of the Council’s intention to appropriate open space land in Kirkby Town Centre as set out in the report for planning purposes pursuant to Section 122 (2A) of the Local Government Act 1972; (c)

in the light of (b) above, determine whether or not the appropriation of the open space land in Kirkby Town Centre as set out in the report should be made as publicly advertised;

(d)

(only if the Appeals Committee determines to approve the appropriation), consider the comments of the objectors and the Executive Director for Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children and Family Services, and the Executive Director for Neighbourhood Services on the public advertisement of the Council’s intention to dispose of the open space land in Kirkby Town Centre as set out in the report pursuant to Section 233 of the Town and Country Act 1990; and,

(e)

in the light of (d) above, determine whether or not the disposal of the open space land in Kirkby Town Centre as set out in the report should be made as publicly advertised.

3.

BACKGROUND

3.1

The Planning Committee’s June 2008 decision on the application from Tesco and Everton Football Club with regard to the potential redevelopment of Kirkby Town Centre was ‘called in’ by the Secretary of State. As a result of this decision, a Public Inquiry was held earlier in 2009 and a decision from the Secretary of State is awaited.

3.2

The Council has entered into conditional arrangements for the disposal of the site, which will enable the site to be disposed of on a phased basis subject to the satisfactory progress of works on the previous phases. Part of the land included within the conditional disposal arrangements is open space land. In order for the Council to actually dispose of this part of the site to Tesco and Everton, further statutory legal processes must be undertaken relating to the appropriation of this land for planning purposes and its subsequent disposal.

3.3

The part of the site shown edged red on the plan attached at Appendix B is open space land in the ownership of the Council. Section 122 (1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (the 1972 Act) (Appendix A) provides that land held by the Council for one purpose may be appropriated for another purpose if immediately before the appropriation the land is no longer required for the purpose for which it is held. In addition, Section 122 (2A) of the 1972 Act provides that a

Page 4

local authority may not appropriate under Section 122 (1) any land forming open space unless before appropriating the land it gives notice of its intention to do so by placing an advertisement for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. The Council must thereafter consider any objections to the proposed appropriation. 3.4

Under planning legislation, “planning purposes” means “the land is suitable for and required in order to secure the best use of that or other land including the carrying out of development, redevelopment/improvement or that it is required to achieve the proper planning of the area”.

3.5

In the circumstances, it is therefore necessary for the land to be appropriated for planning purposes so that, in the event that planning permission is granted by the Secretary of State, the proposed development can be carried out.

3.6

The Council’s intention to appropriate for planning purposes the open space land edged red on the plan attached was advertised for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper to comply with the requirements of Section 122 (2A) of the Act. The advertisements were placed in the Liverpool Daily Post on 1 July 2009 and 8 July 2009, and objections were invited to be returned to the Council’s Head of Legal Services by 5 August 2009 (see Appendix B).

3.7

Appropriating the land for planning purposes would enable a disposal to take place to the proposed developer, and this would secure the carrying out of the proposed development works to be implemented should planning permission be granted in due course. Section 233 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) (Appendix A) provides that land appropriated for planning purposes may be disposed of by an authority in order to secure the best use of the land or the construction of buildings or the carrying out of works that are needed for the proper planning of the area. This enables the provisions of Section 237 of the 1990 Act to apply so that any private rights (such as restrictive covenants and easements) affecting the use of the land are overridden on land held for planning purposes where later development is carried out in accordance with a planning permission.

3.8

The Council is required under Section 233 (4) of the 1990 Act to give notice of its intention to dispose of land which consists of or forms part of an open space under these provisions by placing an advertisement for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. The Council must thereafter consider any objections to the proposed disposal. Again, the necessary advertisements were placed in the Liverpool Daily Post on 1 July 2009 and 8 July 2009, and objections were invited to be returned to the Council’s Head of Legal Services by 5 August 2009 (see Appendix B).

Page 5

3.9

Following the publication of these advertisements, the Council received objections both to the proposed appropriation and also to the proposed disposal. Under the Council’s Constitution, such objections must be referred to the Council’s Appeals Committee for determination. There were a total of 213 objections received. Three objections were posted before the deadline but were not received until the day after the deadline, but it is recommended that the Appeals Committee should still take these objections into account in its considerations. Three further objections were posted after the deadline and it is therefore recommended that these should not be considered by the Appeals Committee (although, should the Committee resolve to consider these letters, they will be available at the meeting). Of the objections received, 210 were in the same format (see the specimen at Appendix C) and three others were sent separately and are attached at Appendices D to E. From the standard format objections, four persons have contacted the Council in response to an acknowledgment letter to advise that they did not submit an objection and did not want them to be considered. This leaves a total of 209 objections for Members to consider.

3.10

The Committee should first consider the objections to the intention to appropriate the open space land pursuant to Section 122 (1) of the 1972 Act. Only after considering these objections, and in the event that the Committee determines to approve the appropriation, should Members then continue to consider the disposal objections and determine whether or not the land should be disposed of pursuant to Section 233 of the 1990 Act. In the event that the Appeals Committee determined not to approve the appropriation, there would be no need to continue to consider objections to the proposed disposal. Although the Committee has to consider the appropriation and disposal separately, the objections submitted do not make any distinction between them so that they are effectively based on the same grounds of objection on both issues. Therefore, rather then rehearse the basis or the objections twice, they are included once in this report for consideration by Members on each of the two issues.

4.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

4.1

The comments of the Executive Directors of Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children’s and Family Services, and the Executive Director of Neighbourhood Services in response to each of the main points raised within the objections are as set out below. In terms of format, each objection is set out first and is then followed in italics by the relevant responses from the Executive Directors.

Page 6

4.1.1 The standard objection received from 206 persons (see Appendix C) state the following grounds of objection:(i)

The site is within the Kirkby Community Area where there is already a deficit of 7.99 hectares of outdoor sports green space and the appropriation and disposal will add to this leaving a deficit of 14.8 hectares contrary to paragraph 10 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG 17);

(ii)

The appropriation and disposal will be in conflict with paragraph 15 of PPG 17 and points (i) to (iv) of paragraph 15 cannot be satisfied;

(iii)

The last open space assessment in 2005 is not up to date and PPG 17 therefore requires consultation with residents by the developer to show that the land is surplus to requirements and supported by the public. No such assessment has been undertaken and the developer has failed to show that the proposals have wide public support demonstrated by the report to the Planning Committee which advised that 134 objections had been received on the grounds of loss of amenity greenspace with only one person in support;

(iv)

The disposal of the land would destroy the right of way which runs through the land from Cherryfield Drive to Valley Road and links up with the Valley Corridor contrary to the Council’s Green Space Strategy and paragraph 32 of PPG 17; and,

(v)

The appropriation and disposal is contrary to policies OS1, OS2, OS4 and CP2 of the Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan as evidenced by the report to the Council’s Planning Committee on the planning application. These policies have recently been saved.

4.1.2 With regard to these grounds of objection, the Executive Director of Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children and Family Services, and the Executive Director for Neighbourhood Services comment as follows:(i)

The first point of objection suggests that the appropriation and disposal of the land edged red would increase an existing deficit of outdoor sports land in Kirkby, contrary to paragraph 10 of PPG 17. It is correct that within Kirkby there is a 7.99 hectare deficit of outdoor sports green space when current provision is measured against the 1.85 hectare per thousand population standard set in the Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan. 7.81 hectares of the land edged red has been categorised for planning purposes as ‘land used for outdoor sport’. This area comprises the two football pitches and associated circulation space forming the playing fields of All Saints School

Page 7

incorporating part of a former running track. Whilst this land would be lost, the Tesco/Everton proposal would secure (via legal agreement) the re-provision of the two football pitches on other open space in Kirkby (one at Charlotte’s Pagsy and the other at Copthorne Walk). The two new pitches would be no smaller than the existing pitches. However, as the circulation space around the new pitches would be less than that around the existing pitches, there would still be an overall net loss of outdoor sports land in Kirkby. The former running track has already been replaced by the Council separately at the nearby Kirkby Sports College with a new facility which has a special “mondo” surface which makes it accessible to disabled people. PPG 17 sets out Government guidance on planning for open space, sport and recreation. Paragraph 10 of PPG 17 states that open space should not be built on, unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the space to be surplus to requirements. As there is a recognised deficit of outdoor sports land in Kirkby, it is clearly arguable that there is conflict with this paragraph of PPG 17. However, any reduction in the overall amount of land classified for outdoor sports must be weighed against the wider benefits of the scheme. The economic benefits of the Kirkby Town Centre scheme are anticipated to include a 1,600 net gain in permanent employment within Knowsley, construction employment reaching 670 per year, a net gain in visitor spending in the region of £7.6m and an impact on Gross Value Added (GVA) of approximately £55m (approximately 3% of the total for the Borough). In addition, physical improvements would include a refurbished Kirkby Market, clearance of the site of the vacant Kirkby Baths, potential improvements to public buildings and improvements to public transport facilities, as well as overall improvements to the public realm. Such improvements far outweigh any policy conflict with the advice in PPG 17 relating to development of open space and sports facilities; (ii)

The second point of objection suggests the appropriation and disposal would be in conflict with paragraph 15 of PPG 17. Paragraph 15 of PPG 17 is concerned specifically with the development of open space currently in use as playing fields. A playing field is the whole of a site which encompasses at least one playing pitch. In this case, this again equates to the area of land classified as outdoor sports land i.e. the football pitches and their circulation space. Paragraph 15 advises that, where there is no up to date assessment of need, local authorities should give very careful consideration to the development of playing fields only allowing development where one of four criteria are met:-

Page 8

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

where the development is ancillary to a playing field; where the development is on land incapable of forming a playing pitch; where any loss of playing fields would be replaced by playing fields of an equivalent quantity, quality and location; or, where the proposed development would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the loss of the playing field.

Whilst the first two criteria above are clearly not applicable in this case, the proposed replacement of the two playing pitches elsewhere would go some way to meet the third criterion even if the net reduction in circulation area around the pitches means that criterion is technically not entirely satisfied. In addition, the proposal would also go some way to meet the fourth criterion in that it would bring benefits to sporting interests by affecting positively the profile and awareness of sport and the associated heath benefits through the work of Everton in the Community. Taken together, these two factors prevent significant conflict with paragraph 15. This view is supported by the fact that Sport England (the Government body responsible for delivering the Government’s sporting objectives) has raised no objections to the proposals provided the sporting facilities on the site are reprovided. Although the objection suggests that as the outdoor sports land on the site would be developed for retail and car parking purposes no benefits to sporting interests would result, this fails to acknowledge that the stadium development and the associated benefits to sporting interests would not occur without the associated retail development and parking. In reality, the overall development would benefit sport and these benefits should be taken into account; (iii)

The third point of objection suggests that the last open space assessment in 2005 is not up to date and PPG 17 therefore requires consultation with residents by the developer to show that the land is surplus to requirements and supported by the public. It is suggested that, as no such assessment has been undertaken and as 134 objections were reported to the Planning Committee on open space issues, there is again a conflict with PPG 17. Although the open space audit for the Borough was undertaken in 2005, changes are recorded on the database of open space as developments occur and open space is either developed or newly created. In this manner, the records of current provision are kept up to date. It is not therefore considered necessary for the developer to have undertaken an independent assessment or to have demonstrated community support for the development proposals;

Page 9

(iv)

The fourth point of objection alleges the loss of rights of way through the site contrary to both paragraph 32 of PPG 17 and the Council’s Green Space Strategy. Paragraph 32 of PPG 17 recognises that rights of way are an important recreational facility which local authorities should generally protect and enhance. Although there are a number of footpaths crossing the area edged red, none of these footpaths are rights of way as shown on the Definitive Map (rights of way records). The Council acknowledged during the Public Inquiry relating to the Tesco/Everton proposal that these footpaths nevertheless provide a recreational facility and, although alternative routes across the site would be formed as part of the development proposals, they would not have the same recreational potential for dog walking, etc. However, as the Tesco/Everton proposals provide for additional landscaping to the west of Valley Road where a number of alternative recreational paths exist, this would at least reduce any negative impacts caused. The Knowsley Green Space Strategy has not yet been adopted. The draft strategy of June 2009 identifies ‘Valley Corridor’ as one of four ‘Green Corridors’ running through the Borough. Green Corridors are open spaces which link together to form a linear route for sustainable forms of transport, whether for leisure use or essential journeys. Green Corridors can offer cyclists and pedestrians safe routes away from traffic. The draft strategy sets no quantitative standards for green corridors as these are made up of open spaces of many different types. Instead, the draft strategy highlights that, due to the linked nature of these areas, they can provide sustainable transport benefits in addition to general recreational and visual benefits. As such, the draft strategy identifies that open land forming part of a Green Corridor should be protected as part of a sustainable transport network. The Valley Corridor is identified within the draft Green Space Strategy as comprising Valley Meadow, St Chad’s Park, Millbrook Park Millennium Green, and Mill Dam. None of these areas are within the site edged red; ‘Valley Meadow’ is the land to the west of Valley Road. Other areas of amenity green space to the east and west of the corridor within the site edged red are not included within the area of Valley Corridor. The appropriation and disposal of the area is therefore not contrary to the draft Green Space Strategy; and,

(v)

The fifth and final point of objection suggests that the appropriation and disposal of the land would be in conflict with policies in the Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan, in particular OS1, OS2, OS4 and CP2. Clearly these are planning policies relevant to consideration of the planning

Page 10

application for the development and were considered in detail as part of the planning application process. With any development of the scale proposed by Tesco and Everton, a degree of conflict with elements of what can be very detailed and specific policies is to be expected and the fact that the proposal is not in strict compliance with every detail of every policy has been accepted by the Council both when the planning application was considered by the Planning Committee and at the subsequent Public Inquiry. However, the proposed development is considered to be broadly compliant with the development plan comprising the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 and the Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan, adopted June 2006. 4.1.3 The objection received from Knowsley Constituency Liberal Democrats states the following grounds:(i)

The proposals are contrary to UDP policies OS2, OS3, OS4 and OS7, and it would not be appropriate to dispose of the land unless planning permission is granted; and,

(ii)

The Council needs to comply with Circular 06/03 and the European State Aid Rules.

4.1.4 With regard to these grounds of objection, the Executive Director of Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children and Family Services, and the Executive Director for Neighbourhood Services comment as follows:(i)

All relevant policies of the Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan, including these policies which relate to open space protection, have already been considered in detail at the Public Inquiry into the Tesco/Everton proposals. As set out in response to the standard objection letter, the proposed development is considered to be broadly compliant with the Development Plan. The Council has acknowledged that there are arguably certain conflicts with elements of open space policies, but these are far outweighed by the significant benefits of the scheme. The disposal of the land would only occur in the event of planning permission being granted for the site’s development after full consideration of these detailed planning policies by the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State; and,

(ii)

The Council is satisfied that it is achieving “best consideration” from the development arrangements. This has been confirmed by appropriate valuations from a leading national firm of surveyors well versed in valuing this type of transaction. As there is a disposal of land for best consideration, Circular 06/03: Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent

Page 11

(England) 2003 – disposal of land at less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained - has no relevance, as this deals with disposals of land for less than the best consideration that can be achieved. In addition, a disposal pursuant to Section 233 of the 1990 Act falls outside the scope of Circular 06/03 and the Circular should not be considered in this instance in any event. In addition, the Council is satisfied that the development arrangements are all procurement compliant including compliant with State Aid regulations. This position has been confirmed by appropriate advice from a leading law firm in procurement law and Leading Counsel. In particular, as the arrangements involve a disposal of land for best consideration, there is no element of State Aid and therefore the State Aid regulations are not relevant. 4.1.5 A letter of objection received from Mr Peter Ross states in greater detail the same grounds of objection as the standard format objection and also outlines in detail suggested conflicts with UDP policies as follows (in summary):– (i)

Policy OS1 – the disposal fails to comply on every count with the requirements of OS1 as only 1 hectare of the near 19 hectares lost will be replaced;

(ii)

Policy OS2 - the Tesco/Everton proposal would result in harm to all the qualitative benefits of greenspace set out in OS2. None of the circumstances allowing development of green space listed in OS2 paragraph 2 apply. In addition, the development would sever links between adjoining green spaces and would therefore conflict with OS2 paragraph 3; and,

(iii)

Policy OS4 – the development of this land is in conflict with policy OS4 as none of the criteria allowing development on sports land in paragraph 1 are met. Additionally, as there is an acknowledged deficit of outdoor sports space in Kirkby, the development of both the outdoor sports land and areas of the amenity green space are contrary to OS4 paragraphs 2 and 3.

4.1.6 With regard to these grounds of objection, the Executive Director of Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children and Family Services, and the Executive Director for Neighbourhood Services comment as follows:(i)

Policy OS1 of the Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan sets out the Council’s general approach to planning for green space, sport and recreation. It states that development should protect open space needed to provide for local needs, that deficiencies should be addressed either through the creation of new sites or improved quality of sites and that links between sites should be protected. The current deficiency in

Page 12

outdoor sports space in Kirkby has been acknowledged, as has the fact that - despite the planned re-provision - there will be a net increase in that deficit. For this reason, the appropriation and disposal of the site does not sit comfortably with policy OS1. However, any conflict with the development plan will be weighed in the balance by the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State. If planning permission is granted for the development, it will be because the Council’s view that the benefits of the development significantly outweigh such matters has been accepted; (ii)

Policy OS2 seeks to ensure special qualities of open space such as wildlife and environmental benefits, cultural and community benefits, recreational benefits, recreation and health benefits, residential amenity and visual amenity benefits and strategic benefits are protected and requires that, if any harm is caused to such benefits, mitigation is secured. Furthermore, the policy requires that links between open spaces are protected. The objection suggests that the appropriation and disposal of this site would be harmful to all of the above mentioned benefits which this open space currently provides. It is suggested that the harm cannot be adequately mitigated since the quantity of land lost will not be replaced elsewhere. The issue of the net reduction in overall open space has already been addressed. However, policy OS2 is not specifically concerned with quantitative issues but focuses instead on the qualitative benefits of open space. Without mitigation, the development of the site would have negative impacts on these qualities. However, the Tesco/Everton proposals incorporate mitigation for planting to be lost in the form of new landscaping on the west side of Valley Road, in addition to providing for the replacement of the two football pitches. This would help to minimise any adverse impacts on (for example) visual amenity and wildlife. The proposals also allow for the re-alignment of Kirkby Brook in a manner which safeguards wildlife interests. In this respect, the proposal does not significantly conflict with OS2. With regard to the suggestion that the disposal of the land would sever existing linkages within the Valley Corridor, although linkages would arguably be weakened, the proposal would not sever linkages between adjoining open spaces. The Valley Meadows would remain on the west of Valley Road providing a north south link between the open land to the south of Bewley Drive and Millbrook Park Millennium Green to the north. In addition, new landscaping would be provided within the site such as around the realigned Kirkby Brook to ‘green’ the Valley Road Corridor; and,

Page 13

(iii)

OS4 sets the quantitative standards for outdoor sport land and states that such land should not be developed unless that land is either surplus to requirements or specific criteria are met. These criteria are broadly the same as those contained in paragraph 15 of PPG 17 as already discussed. Policy OS4 introduces a further requirement to protect any green space which could be used to help make good a deficiency in outdoor sports land. In as much as parts of the land are used for outdoor sport and others currently in use as amenity greenspace could be used for sport, there is a conflict with this policy. Any harm caused by this conflict is however far outweighed by the many and significant benefits of the redevelopment proposals.

4.1.7 In addition, a further letter submitted by Mr Ross states the following additional grounds of objection:– (i)

the Trustees of Millbrook Park Millennium Green opposed the reclassification of the Green by the Council from parkland to playing fields and therefore a full application to the Department of Children, Schools and Families is required under Section 77 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (the 1998 Act); and,

(ii)

information supplied to the Department of Children, Schools and Families by the Council could have mislead that Department and therefore a full application to the Department under Section 77 of the 1998 Act is required.

4.1.8 With regard to these grounds of objection, the Executive Director of Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children and Family Services, and the Executive Director for Neighbourhood Services comment as follows:(i)

The Council sought guidance/approval from the Department for Children, Schools and Families in May 2008 to the use of The School Playing Fields General Disposal and Change of Use Consent (No 3) 2004 Order (“the Consent Order”) regarding the All Saints Catholic High School playing fields. This is an alternative to the use of the full disposal consent under Section 77 of the 1998 Act and allows instead for the Council to propose a package of alternative replacement provision. The terms of Section 77 of the 1998 Act require no such re-provision. On this basis alone, the Council considers that the use of the Consent Order is the preferable approach as it means that in overall terms there will be no net deficit in playing fields area within Kirkby. The first alternative area of green space measures 31,500m2 located at Copthorne Walk in Westvale, Kirkby. It is intended that a senior football pitch will be laid out on this land to be used by local schools. The second area of green space, which

Page 14

measures 34,300m2 is located at Charlotte’s Pagsy in Tower Hill. A further senior pitch would be laid out on this land, again available for school use. The new pitches at Copthorne Walk and Charlotte’s Pagsy would replace the two pitches currently at All Saints School. In order to meet with the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ requirements, a further area of land was required to ensure that the full area of the existing school playing fields was re-provided. Initially, a third area of green space was identified at Millbrook Park Millennium Green. The Millennium Green is 13,900m2 located at Kirkby Row and is currently classed as semi-natural space. It has areas of mown grassland, less formal areas of longer grass, seating, a pond and areas of rough scrubland. The area is used for a variety of general outdoor activities and events. This area was chosen due to its central location and proximity to local schools and the opportunities the site offers for environmental education. Consequently, approaches were made to the Trustees of the Millbrook Park to outline the Council’s proposed improvements. However, the Trustees expressed some concerns regarding these proposals as they would require the Millbrook Park to be re-classified as “school playing fields”. Consequently, although officers felt that the proposals at the Millennium Green would provide benefits to the community, it was considered necessary to identify an alternative piece of land to ensure that the Council could meet with the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ requirements. This further alternative piece of land measures 64,100m2 and is located at Old Rough in Northwood (see attached map). This area is currently used for general amenity purposes but has a relatively formal feel with formal footpaths, access points and mature trees. This site also has significant areas of wild flower planting. It is intended that this area would be enhanced for environmental education by the provision of diversified species, the provision of site interpretation information to locate and describe different habitat areas, and the provision of site specific educational resource packs for primary or secondary pupils, enabling local schools to deliver elements of the curriculum by utilising the space. As stated previously the Council is entitled to use the Consent Order and in accordance with usual practice has advised the Department for Children, Schools and Families of the identification of Old Rough as the alternative to the Millennium Green; and, (ii)

In terms of the condition of the land at Copthorne Walk, this land is currently uneven open grass land used for general amenity purposes, such as dog walking. As stated previously, it is

Page 15

intended that a senior football pitch will be laid out on this land to be used both by local schools and the Kirkby community. With regard to Charlotte’s Pagsy, this land is currently open, poorly drained grassland and is again currently used for general amenity purposes, such as dog walking. A further senior pitch would be laid out on this land and would be available for school use and these new pitches at Copthorne Walk and Charlotte’s Pagsy would effectively replace the two pitches currently at All Saints School. The Council considers that the current condition of these areas is relatively poor and would benefit from the substantial upgrade arising from the provision of formal pitches. The Council entirely refutes any suggestion that it has in any way misled the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Furthermore, as the Department for Children, Schools and Families has confirmed its consent to the approach proposed by the Council, there are no grounds for full consent being required under Section 77 of the 1998 Act.

5.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

5.1

Financial There are no financial implications arising from this report. The Appeals Committee is only considering objections to the statutory advertisement of the intention to appropriate and dispose. The actual appropriation and disposal would be the subject of separate reports in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

5.2

Human There are no human resource implications for the Council arising from the issues in this report.

5.3

Information Technology There are no information technology implications arising from the issues in this report.

5.4

Physical Assets In the event that the Appeals Committee confirms the appropriation and disposal of the open space land as described in this report, there may in due course be a reduction in the amount of land in the Council’s ownership in Kirkby Town Centre, i.e. in the event that the appropriations and disposal actually take place. However, there are no direct physical asset implications arising out of the recommendations in this report at this stage.

Page 16

6.

RISK ASSESSMENT In determining whether or not to authorise the appropriation and disposal as advertised, Members must take into account the objections made, failing which the decision of the Council would be open to challenge. Only after considering the objections to the appropriation and in the event that it determines to approve the appropriation, should the Appeals Committee then consider the disposal objections and determine whether or not the land should be disposed of pursuant to section 233 of the 1990 Act. Officers consider that there are legitimate and sound reasons for recommending approval of both the appropriation and disposal of the open space land set out in the report and believe they have adequately and thoroughly dealt with all the issues raised by the content of the objection letters.

7.

IMPACT ON POPULATION GROUPS As the proposed development on this site would make adequate reprovision for the existing outdoor sport facilities lost from the site, and the area has a surplus of amenity green space, the proposed appropriation and disposal of open space would not impact unacceptably on the local population. The proposed development on the site will have significant benefits for the local population in terms of employment opportunities, an improved physical environment and improved range of shopping opportunities, and it is considered therefore that the overall benefits to the Borough and the Kirkby area would be significant.

8.

COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES The Council has complied with its statutory obligations to advertise its intention to appropriate and dispose of the open space. As a result of this process, objections have been received which should be considered by the Appeals Committee. The decisions reached by the Appeals Committee will be communicated to the key stakeholders with an interest in the matter through the usual channels including the press and media.

Page 17

9.

CONCLUSION Following consideration of the objections and the comments of the Executive Director of Regeneration, Economy and Skills, the Executive Director for Children’s and Family Services and the Executive Director of Neighbourhood Services, the Appeals Committee is requested to determine whether or not to approve the proposals to appropriate and dispose of the open space as advertised and set out in this report.

MIKE HARDEN Executive Director of Corporate Resources Contact Officer:-

Appendices:Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

Nigel Fagan

0151-443 3564

Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 and Section 233 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Advertisement and Site Plan ‘Standard Format’ Letter of Objection (209 received) Letter of Objection from Knowsley Constituency Liberal Democrats Two Letters of Objection from Mr Peter Ross

Background Papers:Knowsley Unitary Development Plan Planning Application No. 08/0001/HYB Report to Planning Committee - 9 June 2008 Minutes of Planning Committee - 9 June 2008 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 Planning Policy Guidance 15 and 17

Page 18