Ms Yvonne Parker, Telephone 0151 443 4209 The Programme Officer, c/o Municipal Buildings, 4305 Cherryfield Drive Kirkby, L32 1TX Mobile: 0781 333


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Emma Pocock Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP Adelaide House London Bridge London EC4R 9HA

16 October 2008-10-16

Dear Emma DESTINATION KIRKBY - PINS REFERENCE: APP/V4305/V/08/1203375 The Inspector has seen the correspondence between BLP and Sefton MBC concerning evidence on the financial viability of the proposal for mixed use development, including new football stadium, convenience and comparison retail, residential and leisure uses, at Kirkby town centre and land to the south of Cherryfield Drive, Kirkby. The Inspector notes from the applicant’s case in support of the planning application (application Document 28), para 4.3, that the applicant accepts that a “key principle that underpins the development proposal is that the stadium, ----- cannot be secured without the enabling retail development that is proposed as part of the overall initiative. In essence without the retail there can be no stadium, and ------- without the stadium the amount of retailing proposed would be less supportable by the Council for policy reasons.” Clearly in view of the weight placed by both the applicant and the Council on the need for the scale of enabling development proposed, this is a matter on which the Inspector will require detailed evidence in order to advise the SoS and to help inform the SoS’s decision. Without detailed supporting evidence it will be difficult for the Inspector to provide such advice and to determine what weight should be placed on the need for the scale of retail development proposed in this regard. The Rule 6 parties challenge the contention by the applicant that the scale of the retail development is necessary to deliver the new football stadium and the regenerative benefits claimed in the scheme. For the assertion by the applicant to be properly tested, the Inspector considers it essential for the parties to co-operate in producing the evidence required to support the arguments on both sides. Any areas of agreement in respect of base data should be identified in advance of the start of the Inquiry, and the main areas of disagreement highlighted for examination. The Inspector is most concerned that the applicant does not intend to release evidence to the Rule 6 parties in relation to this issue prior to the date for exchange of proofs. She considers that such a failure to disclose material in advance of that date could prevent the

Rule 6 parties from producing their own evidence to address the issue of the enabling retail development in time for it to be addressed at the Inquiry. This in turn would be likely to result in an adjournment of the Inquiry and consequent delays, which the Inspector understands that the applicant wishes to avoid. The Inspector does therefore encourage the applicant and the Rule 6 parties to collaborate on the evidence to be produced in relation to the issue of the scale of the development. This is to secure the efficient running of the Inquiry; to ensure that the issue of enabling development is properly tested; and to enable the Inspector to advise as to the weight that can be accorded in the report to the SoS.
Kind regards

Yvonne Parker Programme Officer 16 October 2008