TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 - SECTION 77APPLICATION BY TESCO STORES LIMITED FOR MIXED USEDEVELOPMENT AT KIRKBY TOWN CENTRE AND LAND SOUTH OFCHERRYFIELD DRIVE, KIRKBY CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OFKNOWSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Introduction

These Closing Submissions address the matters identified in theGovernment Office for the North West (GONW) letter of the 6

August2008 as the matters upon which the Secretary of State particularlywished to be informed for the purposes of her determination of theapplication.2.In addressing the specific matters that the Secretary of State wishesinformation upon it is necessary to put the context for theconsideration of those issues into the wider circumstances that relateto Kirkby and the Borough as a whole.3.We do not repeat what was said in Opening but it is in thecircumstances here vital to recall that sustainable development is notsimply about land use planning. It engages with a wider agenda relatedto spatial planning: see for example PPS1 paragraphs 4 and 5. In orderto appreciate what that means in the Kirkby context one must look atthe socio-economic baseline.

Socio Economic Baseline

The key evidence in relation to the socio-economic circumstances of Kirkby/Knowsley and the wider area is set out in the evidence of MrHolliss, KMBC/INQ/9 and SOCECON/Joint/1/12

January 2009: StatisticalEvidence Base.5.Originally Kirkby had a target population of 77,000. That target wasnever achieved. In 2006 the population was 41,473. The Council’sstabilisation strategy has stemmed the decline but the population of the Borough continues to fall in the under 40s cohort: 92,900 in 1992,79,200 in 2007 (Table 1.1/Appendix 2) MH. The significance being thatthis cohort represents the younger more mobile and affluent groupswithin society.6.The evidence of MH (Section 2) demonstrates that in all the key indicesKirkby/Knowsley are significantly worse than Merseyside, the North

West and the UK. In particular it has lower economic activity, higherlevels of unemployment and worklessness, low levels of education andtraining, lower life expectancy and worse health.7.In terms of risk of worklessness there is a high dependency onmanufacturing with 22% jobs in manufacturing compared with 10% inMerseyside, 13% in the North West and 11% in GB (MH 7.2.5(V)/7).8.The most dismal statistic appears in the evidence of Ms Ramsey (3.7/7)that demonstrates that 8 in 1,000 babies die in the first year comparedto 5 in a 1000 elsewhere in the UK. Three out of four children in Kirkbylive in impoverished households. Life expectancy is significantlyshorter.9.In terms of the agreed Statistical Evidence Base it will be seen thatKirkby and North Liverpool are consistently worse when measuredagainst the 5% statistic in respect of SOAs. (The 5% figure appears atpage 8 of the summary item 7 in the Regional Economic StrategyCD2.7).10.The statistical base demonstrates that compared with the other townsidentified including Bootle, Skelmersdale and St Helens the indices of deprivation across all measures are significantly worse in Kirkby.Burchnall agreed (Xx of Burchnall) that North Liverpool was showingsome instances of greater levels of deprivation but it is not a definedgeographical area. It falls within the administrative area of LCCwhereby the areas are sub-divided for development control purposes.

Kirkby Town Centre

11.The evidence demonstrates (MH 2.7/8) that Kirkby town centre is notperforming. There is substantial leakage of both comparison andconvenience goods expenditure to competing locations. The NEMSsurvey demonstrates that Kirkby retains:

•

Only 15% of comparison goods expenditure over its localisedcatchment (NEMS Zones 1 and 2);