Combined Authority Objectors Closing Statement

Application by Tesco Stores LtdMixed Use Development Proposal,Land South of Cherryfield Drive and at Kirkby Town Centre, Kirkby.Closing Submissions on behalf of the Combined Authorities.

1.The Combined Authorities case can be summarised as follows:

i.

The proposal conflicts with the Development Plan.

ii.

It conflicts with national guidance, in particular, PPS 6 since1.There is neither quantitative nor qualitative need to justify the present proposal.

2.

The scale is totally inappropriate and conflicts with the retailhierarchy.

3.

The proposal fails the sequential test

4.

There is unacceptable impact to the vitality and viability of Skelmersdale, St Helens and Bootle town centres. The proposalwill also undermine Kirkby town centre.

5.

It is inappropriate to promote this development by planningapplication rather than through the development plan process.

6.

The proposal will not promote linked trips between south of Cherryfield Drive (SCD) and the town centre. It will lead to onestop shopping outside the town to the detriment of the towncentre

iii.

The development will not promote sustainable transport choice as theshopping elements of the scheme will be dependant on securing tradefrom those travelling from a distance who will necessarily have to usethe private car.

iv.

The proposal fails to secure the proposed planned development of theexisting town centre within an acceptable timeframe, or at all. It willlead to deterioration of the town centre.v.Material regenerative considerations in favour of the proposal areinsufficient when weighed in the balance to militate that permissionshould be granted.2.The sheer scale of the retail element of the proposal when considered in the proper context of Kirkby town centre establishes that the proposal is singularlyinappropriate.3.The proposals massively increase retail provision at Kirkby and cause afundamental change in the town’s position in the established retail hierarchy andin the role it will play. The transformation can be demonstrated as follows:

a.

Some 50,000 sq m of new retail development will be added to Kirkby’sexisting 21.000 sq m. This represents a 235% increase in retail floor space.

1

b.

There will be a 402% increase in Kirkby’s turnover from a present £66m to£301m.

c.

Kirkby TC presently serves a population of around 40.000. To garner sufficient trade to service the development Tesco’s PCA has been drawn toencompass 225,955 persons or 5.5 times the existing population

.

Mr Hollisscatchment increases to some 396.000 or 10 times existing. The entire population of Borough is only 150.000.

d.

Tesco’s aspiration is to make Kirkby a sub regional centre for comparisonretailing. From being ranked as a district centre at 612 nationally the centrewould be elevated to 201. Within Merseyside it would move from 16

th

to atleast 6

th,

and up to 5

th

if the Chalon Way development does not go ahead in StHelens.

Kirkby will become bigger than Birkenhead, St Helens, Widnes,Prescot, Ormskirk, Huyton and Bootle. (

see update CAO/INQ/7

)

e.

Some 3/5ths of the application site is outside the Town Centre. Of thedevelopment which is certain pursuant to the section 106 some 90% will beoutside the town centre.f.The development will create a town centre extension that is far bigger than theexisting town centre. It was conceded that the extension will become the principle retail area with the existing town centre becoming subservient.( Mr Francis Xx)

g.

Much of the proposal is on greenfield land. Mr Halman has assessed that 34%of the application site and 52% of the area SCD is greenfield. (It should benoted that these figures include large areas of existing highway and previoussports provision which would not be classified PDL and therefore the percentages are probably higher.)

h.

The Tesco store will be the third largest new build store in the UK and thelargest in the north west. (The next largest store is in Warrington at 9400 sqm).4.This proposal will cause a fundamental change to the role and character of KirkbyTown Centre.

Does the proposal accord with the Development Plan? ( SoS issue a).

5.It is submitted that the proposals are clearly contrary to the Development Plan andcannot be justified by any arguments of “general conformity”. Further it is noexaggeration to say that for this proposal to be successful there will need to be awholesale rewriting of the retail hierarchy of the region.

2

6.The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the North West of England Plan RSSto 2021. (RSS) The promoters have sought to argue that the regenerative benefitsof the proposal render the scheme in general conformity with the plan. Thisapproach demonstrates a futile effort to downplay the retail and settlement policies of the plan which the proposals are in clear conflict with. The degree of conflict militates that there can be no question of general conformity beingachieved by selective reliance on parts of policies.7.Under Policy RDF 1 Kirkby is at most a third priority unnamed larger suburbancentre. Development in such centres has to be of appropriate scale. The size of development summarised above is clearly inappropriate. It is not aimed atmeeting Kirkby’s needs. To the contrary it is purely aimed at meeting theApplicants own commercial goals. The development will of necessity have to takeits trade from a far wider catchment than Kirkby if the scheme is to achieve itsnecessary turnover. To allow this development would make a mockery of thespatial priorities established by the Policy. They seek to make the regional centres,the inner areas and HMRA areas (including Bootle)the priorities for growth anddevelopment. Development of this scale should clearly be directed to centres witha higher priority for growth. There are then a raft of named centres which includeSt Helens and Skelmersdale but not Kirkby. The scheme will directly competewith the areas of priority.8.Further Para 5.4 makes clear that whilst development may be allowed in other suburban centres in areas with deprivation and regeneration issues it will be for LDDs to identify such centres and to indicate their roles. This paragraph came inat the end of the RSS process. There has been no such identification and analysisand it must await the development plan process. The Land Use Consultants Studydoes not begin to pre-empt this consideration. It was a document issued late in theRSS process which has not been fully considered or consulted upon. RSS adviceis unequivocal and moreover, as will be demonstrated subsequently, nationalguidance requires the same approach. The proposal is in clear conflict with RDF1.9.This proposal conflicts with Policies LCR 1-3 for the Liverpool City Region. Itdoes not encourage investment and sustainable development in the RegionalCentre or the surrounding inner areas and HMRAs. Under Policy LCR 3 centressuch as Kirkby should be supported to continue their regeneration andimprovement but proposals should reflect the centre’s individual character andlocation and should meet local needs. The proposal does not compliment thefunction of either the City Centre or the inner areas which contain Bootle. As tothe issue of reflecting the centre’s individual character such guidance can only bereferring to the existing character. It cannot refer to some aspirational character which is largely based on commercial desire. Finally a proposal of this scalemanifestly is not designed to meet local needs. There has been much discussion asto regeneration and worklessness. If the policy was one whereby any scale of proposal would be acceptable if it assisted in these areas then the policy wouldhave said so. It categorically does not support that approach.

3