PLANNING APPLICATION BY TESCO STORES LTD FOR AMAJOR MIXED USEDEVELOPMENT ON LAND TO THE SOUTH OF THE TOWNCENTRE OFKIRKBY IN KNOWSLEY

Planning Application: 08/00001/HYB

Closing Statement on Behalf of KRAG Coalition

- 1 -

Before I begin my closing statement on behalf of the KRAG coalition I would just like to thank theInspector and her colleagues (Mr. Jackson and Mr. Pikett) for their guidance, their patience andindulgence without which we could never have presented our case so well. We would like toexpress our gratitude to Yvonne Parker and her team for all their support, help and advice. Our thanks also go out to the members of the Coalition who have worked ceaselessly before and duringthe Inquiry to keep our research and evidence as informed and up to date as has been possible giventhe lack of resources at our disposal. Equally, the support of the Residents and Community of Kirkby both inside and away from the Inquiry has been utterly magnificent and inspirational, andhas been a credit to the reputation of our Town and all who live and work here. Thanks also to Mr.Sauvain and Mr. Lancaster and their teams for their professionalism and tenacity. Not forgettingKEIOC, KTA, The Grange and the Liberal Democrats.Finally we thank the applicants, KMBC and all their witnesses and evidence for showing us that wewere correct in our assumptions all along.So here we are at the end of the Public Inquiry.Two years and a month after we were told that without a Football Stadium Kirkby would not beregenerated. Eight months after the Planning Committee meeting where Knowsley Councillors, dueto their misguided, badly informed opinions, were minded to approve the application, only to bethwarted by the SOS, who, in her wisdom announced that the application be called in two monthslater for scrutiny. How the Residents and Traders celebrated this news, thinking back to thatPlanning Committee meeting where Michael Kissman stated that a “call in” would jeopardise thewhole scheme and therefore the future of Kirkby’s existence. And Mr. Wyness, then CEO of Everton, pleading with the Councillors not to reject the application because a Public Inquiry would push the cost beyond the capability of the club to participate. Neither of these views, true to form,were correct. Their artificial deadlines can now be seen for just what they were – threats to force people’s hand and get their own way.It has been quite an experience for everyone who has taken any part in the process, whether directlyor indirectly.What have we learned?

•

We have learned from Mr. Coles’ (TEV/P/7) evidence that Tesco saw the land south of Cherryfield Drive as “an ideal edge of centre location” as part of Tesco’s strategicrequirements in 2005. Even though this land was allocated for a new learning centre as part of the BSF programme even as late as December 2006.

•

We have learned that EFC were not told about their part in the masterplan(TEV/INQ/16) prepared by Saunders Architects for Tesco in negotiation with KMBCuntil February 2006 (TEV/P/8) and were at first unwilling until they realised it was a“once in a lifetime opportunity” and the “deal of the century” for them due to the landacquisition

•

We have learned that KMBC were in negotiations with St Modwyn (CAO/P/4) toregenerate the existing Town centre only to pick the wrong partner and see its visionfade and die.

•

We have learned that although the crucial reasoning behind the need for the stadium andsize of the retail element was in order for them to “enable” and “cross-subsidise” eachother, this approach was abandoned after the call in.In essence mam, what we have learned is that this whole development has changed shape, focusand emphasis constantly through its existence, in order to fit into whatever form the applicantsfeel is best to get it passed. This is regardless of its relevance or need to the people of Kirkby.

- 2 -

In this closing statement I will set out, on behalf of the KRAG Coalition, why we understand thatthe evidence provided in this Inquiry is devastating toward the applicant’s case. The questions theSOS has asked have revealed serious flaws in what they are planning.Let me begin with the first question:

a:Whether the proposed development accords with the development plan for the area …having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory PurchaseAct 2004.

There has been plenty of cross examination by, and witnesses for, both LCC and CAO. This provedthat the applicants’ only reasoning that the development accords with the RSS is that it fits broadlywithin the fundamentals of the document and that the RSS is open to interpretation. The KRUDPhas been both used by and disregarded by the applicants when they have seen fit.We are particularly aware of the plight of residents who are going to lose their houses under thisdevelopment. We are shocked that the applicants have been so cavalier over this matter that theyhaven’t even researched properly who owns the land. These residents have been significant partiesto the regeneration of Kirkby in the last fifteen years as pioneers, developing their own housing and building a good Community. As the Inquiry has heard, the lack of consultation with them anddiscrepancies in KMBC’s evidence about this makes the applicants appear unreliable. This is notan appropriate basis on which to conclude a CPO of people’s homes, for a project which is far from being essential infrastructure in the town and is dubious at best in its value.We therefore ask that the Inquiry conclude on this question that the applicants have far from fullycomplied with the law.

b:The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies inPlanning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, particularly with regard to:i.whether there is a qualitative and quantitative need for a retail development;

This has been covered by the objectors evidence and cross examination and must be seen in thenegative