• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Liverpool City Council Closing Submissions
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77Proposed Mixed Use Development Comprising Stadium, Foodstore, ComparisonRetailing, Leisure Uses, Commercial Uses, Car Parking, New Access and Infrastructureand Public Realm Town Centre and Land South of Cherryfield Drive, Kirkby,Knowsley, MerseysideAPP/V4305/V/08/1203375CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF THE LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCILINTRODUCTION
1.
The fact that so many of the neighbouring local authorities have appeared at thisinquiry as objectors indicates the level of concern over the major policy breaches anddamage to the retail hierarchy and to the plan led system that this applicationrepresents.
2.
Attempts to portray objectors as pursuing rival commercial interests, as interfering inmatters which are the proper concern of another local planning authority or as bodieswhich have as their agenda the prevention of the regeneration in Kirkby are asmisplaced as they are desperate. On the evidence produced at this Inquiry theSecretary of State should be left in no doubt that the concerns being pursued byLiverpool City Council are based on genuine and real concerns over the damage thatthis application, if granted, would cause to confidence in the regional and local planning framework and to investor confidence in existing centres – including theregional centre. They are also based on real concerns as to the validity of the claimsmade as to the regenerative effects of this proposal and the failure to explore anyalternative approach to regeneration which would be compliant with national, regionaland local policy.
3.
There have been several attempts on behalf of the Applicants to divert this Inquiryaway from the specific planning issues raised towards generalities – particularlywhere issues, when expressed as generalities (like mothers and apple pie), are obvious“good things”. Thus,
1
 
Liverpool City Council Closing Submissions
(a)
The issue is not whether Kirkby as an area needs regeneration (it clearly does) but whether it has been demonstrated that the present scheme is the only, or even an, effective way to achieve that regeneration.
(b)
The issue is not whether Kirkby should be left to wallow in its socio economic problems but whether the evidence demonstrates that if this proposal isdismissed then there are no other opportunities for regeneration or economicimprovement of the area and whether the steady improvements made over recent years cannot be built upon in a way that is compatible with planning policy.
(c)
The issue is not whether it would be desirable for Everton Football Club tohave a new stadium (another apparent “good thing”) but whether the Club’scurrent ambition, driven by their present financial model and ownership, justifies public support for a proposal that is so at odds with the regional andlocal planning framework.
(d)
The issue is not whether there is a need to provide an improvement in theshopping offer in Kirkby but whether it has been demonstrated that a schemeof this scale - largely on open land beyond the existing centre is the only or even an appropriate means of meeting that need.
(e)
The issue is not whether the existence of the 1997 planning permission andformer ASDA Site Development Brief has failed to bring forward re-development of the centre (clearly they have not) but rather whether anycoherent and pro-active effort has been made by the local authority to explorethe opportunities for the redevelopment of the centre.
(f)
The issue is not whether planning permission should be granted because Tescosay that, if it isn’t, they will (please forgive the analogy) take their ball homewith them but whether it has been demonstrated that a Tesco led developmentof this size is the only realistic and effective way to achieve the regenerationof Kirkby.
4.
We would also ask the Secretary of State to note the significant changes in the waythe application has been presented - even during this Inquiry process.
(a)
There can be no doubt that the Applicants were arguing that the scale of the proposed development was justified as being the minimum necessary to
2
 
Liverpool City Council Closing Submissions
 provide the cross-subsidy for the Stadium and that they were asking the local planning authority to give weight to this in the consideration of their application to overcome the potential conflict with policy. This is apparentfrom the Supporting Statement [CD 1.1.3] and the financial statement [CD1.7.1].
(b)
There can be no doubt that this is how Knowsley interpreted the application.They instructed King Sturge specifically to investigate this claim with a viewto putting it in the planning balance because the proposal was not “wholly policy compliant.” [LCC/A/1 – App. 1] See also the Committee Report [CD5.1 page 353].
(c)
Asking for a financial contribution towards a desired objective to be balancedagainst policy or other planning objections to a development is, of course, theessence of an “enabling development” argument.
(d)
This enabling argument continued up until the date of the letter from theProgramme Officer of 16
th
October 2008 setting out the Inspector’s concernsover the lack of supporting financial justification.
(e)
The reliance on a enabling argument was ostensibly withdrawn in the letter from Berwin Leighton of 22
nd
October 2008“This technical form of “enabling development” is not the basis of our case and accordingly it will form no part of our evidence.”This was repeated by Leading Counsel at the second pre-inquiry meeting and,therefore, avoided the pressure then being placed on Knowsley and TEV todisclose (and thus open up to scrutiny) any financial justification which mighthave supported such an argument.
(f)
However, the position now appears to be that the Applicants are still arguingthat the cross subsidy to EFC is a factor which should be put into the balancewhen weighing the policy considerations for and against the development – i.e. to outweigh the planning objections (Clarkson Q.C. in xxam of AndrewPepler) – which amounts to the resurrection of an enabling argument!
1
YetTEV are still not prepared to produce the information which would allow the
1
 
Mr Clarkson’s reference to the “last refuge of the scoundrel” comes to mind albeit in a slightly differentcontext.
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...