The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
from the OS:
STADIUM INQUIRY - DAY 1
BY CRAIG DAVIES | TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2008, 19:08
The Kirkby Public Inquiry convened for the first time today, with opening statements from representatives of all parties concerned.
Inspector Wendy Burden opened the inquiry at 10am in Kirkby's Civic Suite.
The process began with a series of opening statements by representatives of each of the groups involved in the inquiry. Mr Patrick Clarkson QC representing the Applicants for the development was the first to address the inquiry.
He highlighted the government statistics that reveal the need for regeneration in Kirkby, citing the fact the life expectancy in Kirkby is almost three years below the national average for men and women and that it is one of the most deprived boroughs in the country.
He explained: "Kirkby and Everton have never before reached this stage of deliverability. It is a once in a generation opportunity for Kirkby. There is no alternative that can deliver this combination.
"The need for Everton to move is chronic. The stadium will be a landmark in the area, designed to meet all the fundamental requirements of a football club playing at the highest level. The quality of the design is befitting the standards of the Club. Where the Club locates is a matter for the Club and it should be a sustainable location."
Mr Clarkson was followed by Mr Martin Kingston QC, representing Knowsley Borough Council.
He underlined the fact that the development marries together opportunity and need for all parties concerned.
He praised the council for the work it has done in trying to turn around the fortunes of Kirkby but stressed that only a development of this scale would provide the major boost required for major regeneration.
"The problems that persist in Kirkby are, quite literally, from the cradle to the grave. There exists in these proposals the opportunity to break the cycle of depravation. There are elements of risk that are attached, but they are far outweighed by the undeniable fact this is a once in a lifetime opportunity."
He also addressed the suggestion the Skelmersdale's regeneration needs would be influenced by the proposal for Kirkby, explaining: "Skelmersdale's regeneration needs are not as acute or chronic as those in Kirkby."
In relation to the building of a new football stadium, he added: "There is no doubt that Everton is an important economic driver for Liverpool and it makes an important contribution to the image of the region in a positive way. The Club needs a new ground in order to continue to make a positive economic contribution and in terms of image. There is no suitable location for a new ground anywhere else."
Stephen Sauvain QC, opening on behalf of Liverpool City Council, began by explaining that, whilst the council had always endeavoured to work closely with both city clubs in order to meet their stadium needs, the focus of the council's objection to the proposed developments relates to the retail element.
"The proposal is out of scale in terms of the retail hierarchy and it seemed to me there was an admission that is the case during the two opening parts," he suggested.
He went on to question the increase in turnover for Kirkby projected by the proposals and, whilst conceding the city council recognised the need for regeneration in the town, he suggested the existing work being done by Knowsley Council was already affecting a turnaround.
He added: "It is an opportunistic proposal for a retail park with tenuous benefits for the existing town centre."
Mr Sauvain also raised into question the financial breakdown of the stadium costs and the contribution the Club would be making in relation to Tesco.
Mr Roger Lancaster represented the Combined Authorities Objectors of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, Lancashire County Council, West Lancashire District Council and St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council.
His focus was on the increase in retail space the application would provide to Kirkby and the impact the CAO perceive that to have.
He pinpointed the fact the application would see a 235% increase in retail floor space in Kirkby and that this would undermine other regional centres in the area. He argued the development of one of the biggest Tesco stores in the North West was not in keeping with the location and the size of the town, quoting a figure of 40,000 residents for the zone one area of Kirkby.
Mr Lancaster suggested a smaller development would provide the necessary boost to the town and not impinge on other centres. He pointed out that West Lancs Council was very concerned by high vacancy rates in Skelmersdale's town centre stores - an issue that would be intensified by the application.
"Knowsley do not suggest (a development) in Skelmersdale is going to damage their scheme. We suggest the Knowsley scheme will condemn the Skelmersdale bill."
He went on to make reference to The Strand shopping centre in Bootle and the issues facing the residents and retailers there, with a similar point made in relation to St Helens town centre, claiming St Helens is a higher priority for improvement than Kirkby.
"Five neighbouring planning authorities are at odds with the size of the proposal," he concluded.
He moved on to the plans for a new stadium, highlighting issues with parking and transportation and suggesting there had been a change in approach by the Everton board.
He argued that until recently the board had shown no indication of wishing to sell the Club and that the situation had changed, raising into question the relevance of Tesco providing a subsidy for the stadium build.
The final three opening statements were made by Tony Barton of the Kirkby Residents Action Group, Peter Fisher of the Knowsley Constituency Liberal Democrats and Dave Kelly of Keep Everton in our City.
Mr Barton pointed out: "We're in support of progress, but not at any price. Any progress should be for the benefit of Kirkby people and not for big business.
"This development will have a detrimental impact on every resident in Kirkby, with every road in the town blocked on every match-day and match-night."
He provided figures to support the relevance of his group within the local community.
Mr Fisher questioned the likelihood of 14,000 matchgoers utilising the proposed park-and-ride and park-and-walk services. He also suggested there was no evidence to suggest Everton had the fanbase to fill a 50,000 stadium based on average attendances last season and this.
Mr Kelly questioned the legitimacy of any exclusivity agreement between Everton, Tesco and Knowsley BC, questioned the legitimacy of Everton's ballot of fans over the stadium proposal and claimed KEIOC could prove many of 35 potential stadium sites in the Liverpool City Council area ticked the necessary boxes for a possible new home for the Club.
The final session of the afternoon saw the first witness called, with Mr John Francis standing as an expert to answer questions on Planning Issues, with Mr Clarkson's questioning followed by cross-examination by Mr Sauvain.
