Public Inquiry into application for: mixed-use

development including a new football stadium,

retail, residential and leisure uses on land in Kirkby

Proof of Evidence of KEIOC Campaign

(Alternative Sites & Design)

Reference: KEIOC/P/1
Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/V4305/V/08/1203375

December 2008
Contents

Page

1.0 Introduction & Scope of Evidence

1.1 Introduction 3
1.7 Scope of Evidence 4

2.0 Alternative Sites for Everton F.C

2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Assessment Criteria 5
2.3 The Thirty-Nine Potential Sites 10

3.0 Design of the Stadium

3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Goodison Park 29
3.2 Redevelopment on the Existing Site 32
3.3 Alternative Proposals for Goodison Park 32
3.4 The Proposals for Kirkby 36
3.5 Urban Design & Green Issues 39
3.6 The Potential of a New Stadium to be a Theatre 40

4.0 Design Policy Requirements

4.1 Introduction 44
4.2 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development 44
4.3 By Design 45
4.4 Regional Spatial Strategy 46
4.5 Knowsley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 47
4.6 Conclusion 48

Appendices

1.0 Introduction & Scope of Evidence

2
1.1 Introduction

1.2 We, KEIOC are a pressure group especially created to campaign for Everton F.C to stay
within the Liverpool City boundaries either by way of redeveloping their existing ground
(Goodison Park) or my means of a new stadium.

1.3 The overall aims of the group are the following:

• Promote alternative sites within the city that would enable Everton Football Club to maintain
its historic presence in Liverpool.
• Enable all Evertonians to access a worldwide resource on information relating specifically to
the proposed ground move.
• Facilitate and encourage all Evertonians to participate in the wider stadium debate from an
informed standpoint.
• Inform the fans of the off field activities of the board which directly affect the on field
performance of the club.
• Be the voice of the many match going Evertonians that were unable to voice their opinion in
the 2007 ballot on relocating the club.

1.4 KEIOC’s evidence will cover a range of issues including;

• Alternative Sites for the proposed Stadium;

• Transport Issues Specific to the Stadium;
• The Design of the Stadium;
• The Finances of Everton F.C as detailed in the planning application
• The 2007 Ground Move Ballot conducted by the Electoral Reform Services on behalf of
Everton F.C.

1.5 The above will be raised through four separate proofs, all of these proofs have been formulated
by a number of KEIOC members, and all four proofs will be presented at the inquiry by separate
individuals.

1.6 It should be noted that all proofs should be read in conjunction as they all form the main
objections of KEIOC.

1.7 Scope of Evidence

3
1.8 This proof provides detailed information on 39 alternative sites for the possible relocation of
Everton Football Club, this has been produced by Trevor Skempton on behalf of KEIOC. This
proof then goes on to look at the Design of Goodison Park and a number of alternatives for
redevelopment on the existing site.

1.9 Trevor Skempton then provides a detailed account of the Kirkby Proposal relating to the
Stadium while also commenting on green and urban Issues.

1.10 The proof then concludes with a detailed evaluation of the proposed stadium scheme against
National, Regional and Local design policy; concluding that the current proposal should be
refused permission by the Secretary of State.

1.11 A number of appendices referred in the document are supplied as a separate appendix.

2.0 Alternative Sites

4
2.1 Introduction

This report is a response to the potential 35 sites listed in the ‘Alternative Sites for a Stadium
Assessment’, prepared by DPP [Document 8.3.] for the Kirkby Public Enquiry. It makes use of
selected plans and information from that document, together with other material, with the objective of
demonstrating that there are multiple options for an appropriate stadium development for Everton
within the heart of Liverpool.

This report adds four further sites as follows:

[36] The triangle of railway land between Kirkdale and Bank Hall Stations
[37] Central Birkenhead, close to Hamilton Square and Woodside Ferry
[38] Eastern extension of the Goodison Park site to Walton Lane
[39] Conservation and expansion of Everton’s historic ground, Goodison Park

There are five sites, which we believe to provide practical alternatives for development.
These are: Goodison Park [39], Tunnel Loop Bestway [20], Kirkdale Bank Hall [36], Everton Park [6]
and Walton Hall Park [18].

There are four other sites which we believe provide very exciting prospects, subject to the type of
further investigation and negotiation that, up to now, has been impossible because of the long-
standing ‘exclusivity agreement’ with Knowsley Borough Council. These are: Central Docks [3], Kings
Dock [12], Stanley Dock [16] and Stanley Park [17].

Of the 39 sites considered, ten are outside the Liverpool city boundary and are therefore considered
by KEIOC to be inappropriate. Many of the other sites have potential and, we think, have been
dismissed too lightly in order to buttress the Kirkby proposal. We have commented on all the sites in
order to put our objections to Kirkby into perspective.

2.2 Assessment Criteria

Each site is assessed under the following six criteria, together with a conclusion, which will take into
account factors such as potential income and cost, which relate to the six criteria, but are otherwise
outside the scope of this exercise. Up to three ticks or crosses are added to each of the criteria, to
allow each site to be summed-up at a glance. The methodology assumes that every site has some
problems, but that these should not be used to reject sites just to promote one particular plan. The
notion that there are no sites at all available for a stadium development within the city is unscientific
and ridiculous.

[A] Location
[B] History/Landmark:

5
[C] Accessibility:
[D] Partners:
[E] Constraints:
[F] Availability:

A. Location:

A.1. The historic home of Everton is in inner-city North Liverpool. For a few years, Everton played at
Anfield, before moving across the park to a new stadium, subsequently named as Goodison Park.
When Everton moved out in 1892, a rival club, to be named Liverpool, was formed and this unique
rivalry, between two major clubs only half a mile apart, has ensured that Liverpool is the only city to
have been represented in the top flight of English football in every season since the foundation of the
Football League.

A.2. The second factor is the position of football within the context of Liverpool as a regional centre.
There are three definitions of Greater Liverpool. These are: [1] the County of Merseyside, with a
population within its five boroughs of 1.4 million people, [2] the Liverpool City Region [defined in
various official documents as including Merseyside plus West Lancashire, Halton, West Cheshire, and
parts of North-East Wales, with a combined population of 2.4 million, and [3] the Liverpool One
catchment area [a re-statement of Liverpool City Centre’s historic regional influence, as defined by
Grosvenor], with a population of 4.9 million. This ‘region’ includes much of North-West England
[excluding Greater Manchester] together with North Wales, and also recognises the city’s important
links to Dublin, Belfast and the Isle of Man.

A.3. Cultural organisations operating at a regional level place themselves in Liverpool City Centre, to
take advantage of its unique profile and accessibility. These include Grosvenor [Liverpool One],
National Museums Liverpool, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, the Empire, Playhouse and
Everyman Theatres, the Tate Gallery and the Arena and Conference Centre. In remarks at the pre-
meeting to the Kirkby Public Inquiry, Mr Clarkson, for the applicants, said that “…an Opera House has
nothing whatsoever to do with a Football Club”. We beg to differ. We think that there are many
similarities. Just as an Opera House would be unlikely to move to the edge of the city, so we believe
that Everton should stay close to the city centre, at the heart of the city-region.

A.4. Everton should be looking at partners for its stadium development, those who would benefit from
and contribute to a seven-days-a-week operation. These, including hotels, leisure and events
organisations, are more likely to be found in or near the city centre. The notion that a stadium is a
‘sterile space-eater’ that should be placed beyond the city limits was a feature of post-war planning,
particularly in America. However, that view is now thoroughly discredited and many modern stadia are
being sited close to city centres. Examples in the UK include Cardiff and Newcastle, where serious
consideration was given to moving to the edge of town, but the final decision in both cases was to
stay and re-develop within the city centre.
6
A.5. Merseyrail can be seen as the central nervous system of the city, particularly when considering
the movement of large numbers of people. The map below shows the 39 sites considered in this
paper distributed across the network map. The yellow shading indicates the Merseyside County. Blue
dots indicate sites that are recommended by KEIOC for further detailed investigation, green dots
indicate other sites with some factors in their favour, and red dots indicate unacceptable sites. Both
Kirkby and Goodison Park are just 15 minutes walk from a Merseyrail station, but Kirkdale [for
Goodison Park] is much better situated within the network than Kirkby, and has hence has much
greater capacity. The city centre sites benefit to an even greater degree.

B. History/Landmark:

B.1. Football clubs are an expression of their historic roots in the hearts of cities. They are an
established part of the iconography of the heart of the city, as well as a source of employment and an
attraction to tourists. Sometimes, newer communities try to produce their own instant iconography, by
7
transplanting a club from somewhere else. This is a feature of the franchise system that operates in
the USA, but it is unusual in England. An obvious example is that of Wimbledon, whose removal to
Milton Keynes caused a great deal of upset and bitterness. Although the journey from Walton to
Kirkby is only a few miles, it must be remembered that it crosses a significant local authority boundary
and one community’s gain is likely to be another community’s loss, on many different levels, not just
financial. We think that this is an issue that should be considered as part of the planning process, and
therefore is relevant to this Inquiry.

C. Accessibility:

C.1. The focus of both regional and inter-city transport is the city centre. This applies particularly to
public transport, local and long-range, but also to private cars.

C.2. There is a complex web of transportation and movement on foot that has been established
around the existing grounds, both Goodison and nearby Anfield. Both clubs, particularly Everton, have
a large proportion of supporters who walk to the matches. For them, the club moving away from the
heart of the city will make it much less accessible [to put it mildly]. Once again, we suggest that the
needs of the substantial existing community in Walton and the inner-city are relevant to this Inquiry.

D. Partners:

D.1. There has been a great deal of talk about ‘enabling’. This has been concerned with ways of
subsidising the capital cost of a stadium through the granting of planning permission in conjunction
with a major retail development.

D.2. Of far more relevance to Everton Football Club, its supporters and the community to which it
belongs, is the prospect of ongoing partnerships to ensure that the stadium makes a healthy seven-
days-a-week contribution to urban life as well as sustaining the club and its development in the years
ahead.

D.3. Some businesses are compatible with football, others less so. Entertainment, leisure and
hospitality [hotels and restaurants] are compatible, contributing to each other’s activities. Offices and
weekday uses are compatible, if they make their parking and infrastructure available to football as an
out-of-hours activity. However, there is little or no compatibility between football and shopping; they
tend to get in each other’s way.

E. Constraints:

E.1. One person’s constraint is another person’s opportunity. In evaluating sites, most surveyors and
many planners will look at area, zoning and usage. Architects and engineers are more likely to look at
the special opportunities created by particular constraints, such as a sloping site or the presence of
some historic fabric.
8
E.2. A feature of many of the site assessments carried out, particularly those produced to justify
Liverpool’s proposed move into Stanley Park, is that constraints were seen as excuses for dismissing
a site rather than as challenges to be overcome. Other sites, although clearly unsuitable, seem to
have been brought forward as Aunt Sallys, easily knocked over, but included to give the impression
that the search has been exhaustive.

F. Availability:

F.1. Availability of a site is rarely a straightforward issue. There is a need for thorough investigation
and negotiation, and there are questions of commercial sensitivity. In addition to this, the long-
standing ‘exclusivity agreements’, between Everton, Tesco and
Knowsley Council in support of a single option [Kirkby], has made this investigation process difficult if
not impossible. This is particularly true in the fast-changing world of the city centre, because most of
the assessments rely on information gathered some time ago, including many with respect to the
potential relocation of Liverpool Football Club.
We have endeavoured to add a more up-to-date commentary, wherever this is applicable.

2.3 The thirty-nine Potential Sites

1. Existing Anfield Site

Location: Within inner-city North Liverpool √√

History/Landmark: Early home of Everton, but now associated with Liverpool √xx
Accessibility: Network of inner-city streets, but no current access to Merseyrail. √x
Partners: Theoretical potential for Everton to share with Liverpool FC √
9
Constraints: Similar to Goodison Park. Potential incremental expansion. √√
Availability: Integral with envisaged New Anfield. Therefore currently unavailable xx

Conclusion: The theoretical possibility of a ground-share of Anfield could see Everton

providing a high-profile new development at the Anfield Road end, coupled with a joint
remodelling and expansion of the Main Stand. Although the site is unavailable at present,
progress on the New Anfield project is faltering and this option should be kept under review
as one of several options for a potential ground-share.

2. Atlantic and Netherton Industrial Estates

Location: Within the North Liverpool built-up area, but outside city boundary √xx
History/Landmark: Prominent site on approaches to North Liverpool and docks √
Accessibility: Merseyrail [Aintree Station] and multiple road links √√
Partners: Hotel and leisure √
Constraints: Planning policy and other users xx
Availability: Apparently not available xx

Conclusion: One of the better suburban sites, with good transport links and visibility.
However, it is apparently unavailable. It is also outside the city boundary.

3. Central Docks

Location: Within inner-city north Liverpool and close to city centre √√√
History/Landmark: Dramatic riverside site. Potential focus of new development √√√
Accessibility: Merseyrail [from proposed new Vauxhall Station] and City Centre √√
Partners: Potential for major events, hotels, leisure and ground-share √√√
Constraints: Adjoining World Heritage Site. Sensitive design necessary √√x
Availability: No recent negotiations. Likely to be supported by LCC Planners x√√

10
Conclusion: This would be a superb site for a new stadium development, providing that the
plans contribute to a high quality of environment and 7-days-a-week activity. This could
make it a suitable focal point for Peel’s ambitious proposals for ‘Liverpool Waters’ and, as
such, it would be welcomed by the City Council, who are anxious to avoid the creation of an
enclave consisting of little but high-rise offices and luxury apartments. At present, Peel [as
owners of the site] seem to be unconvinced that Everton would provide the level of quality
that they seek; it has been suggested that they [Peel] would be more interested in a joint
stadium proposal. However, the Kirkby ‘exclusivity agreement’ has prevented serious
discussions on one of the most obvious opportunities within the city.

4. Former Dunlop Site, near Airport

Location: Within city boundary but remote from city centre √xx
History/Landmark: High visibility for air travellers, but little otherwise. √xx
Accessibility: Poor, but could be catalyst for improved transport to airport √xx
Partners: Hotel √
Constraints: Potential conflict with airport operations xxx
Availability: Required for future airport expansion. Not available xxx

11
Conclusion: Not a serious contender.

5. Dunnings Bridge Road

Location: Within North Liverpool built-up area, but outside city boundary √xx
History/Landmark: Prominent site on approaches to North Liverpool and docks √
Accessibility: Merseyrail [Aintree Station] and multiple road links √√
Partners: Hotel and leisure √
Constraints: Contaminated land x
Availability: Apparently available √√

Conclusion: As Site 2, one of the better suburban sites, with good transport links and
visibility. However, it is outside the city boundary.

6. Everton Park

Location: In the heart of Everton √√√

History/Landmark: Prominent sloping site below St George’s Church √√√
Accessibility: Merseyrail [Sandhills]. Fairly close to city centre and existing ground √√√
Partners: Hotel, leisure and sports centre √√
Constraints: Sloping site provides opportunity. Need to incorporate sports centre √x
Availability: Modern under-used park on cleared land, owned by City Council. √

The historic tower in Everton Park is depicted on the badge of Everton Football Club

12
Conclusion: The North end of Everton Park, incorporating the sports centre, could be a
superb site for a 60,000-seat stadium in the heart of Everton, with dramatic use being made
of the sloping site and potential for access at different levels. The site was identified in the
same document, circulated early in 2007 [see Appendix 1], which identified the Tunnel Loop
[Bestway] and Kirkdale sites.

7. Garden Festival Site

Location: Within city boundary, but in the South End, beyond the inner-city √x
History/Landmark: Riverside festival site, could be deemed appropriate for a stadium √
Accessibility: Merseyrail [St Michael’s]. Road access would need to be improved √√x
Partners: Hotel and leisure, facing river and restored gardens √√
Constraints: Relatively straightforward improved site with appropriate history √√
Availability: Current planning approval for housing and restored parkland xx

Conclusion: Could be appropriate and accessible, given its designation as a festival site,
but it is not in the traditional heart of the city. There are current proposals for housing and a
restoration of the festival gardens, and the site may be no longer available.

8. Garston Docks
13
Location: Within city boundary, but in the South End, beyond the inner-city √x
History/Landmark: Possible landmark on southern approach from the airport √
Accessibility: Potential Merseyrail [Cressington Park], but road access limited √x
Partners; Hotel and leisure √
Constraints: Main constraints are availability and road access xx
Availability: Much of site is unavailable or proposed for residential development xx

Conclusion: There may be a potential site close to Cressington Park station, but road
access for a large stadium would be a problem, and some land has already been earmarked
for residential development. This part of South Liverpool is a long way from both the historic
community of Everton and the city centre.

9. Gilmoss 1A

Location: Within city boundary, but remote from the heart of the city √x
History/Landmark: Prominent on the approach from the East Lancs Road and M57 √√
Accessibility: No rail access and limited local road network xx
Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city √√
Constraints: No serious development constraints, other than need to improve access √√
Availability: Apparently available √√

Conclusion: There are severe access problems, which probably rule this out, although in
most respects it is a better proposition than the nearby Kirkby sites.

10. Gilmoss 1B

Location: Within city boundary, but remote from the heart of the city √x
History/Landmark: Prominent on approach from the East Lancs Road √
Accessibility: No rail access and limited local road network xx
Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city √√
Constraints: Few constraints. Potential contamination. Need to improve access √x
Availability: Multiple tenures. Availability questionable x

Conclusion: There are severe access problems, which probably rule this out, although in
some respects it is a better proposition than the nearby Kirkby sites.

11. John Moores [Edge Lane]

Conclusion: Part of the Wavertree Technology Park, which is being developed as a valuable
centre for employment. Not available, therefore not a serious contender.

12. Kings Dock

Location: City Centre, next to new Arena and Conference Centre. √√√
History/Landmark: Compatible with adjoining facilities, adding to landmark effect √√
Accessibility: Close to city centre transport, parking and other facilities √√
Partners: Major events, working with Arena and Conference Centre management √√√
Constraints: Remaining site suitable for a 60,000-seat stadium with sliding pitch √√
Availability: Maybe not just yet, but economic downturn is leading to re-appraisal
x√√

14
Conclusion: The site could be even more attractive now than it was at the time of the
original Kings Dock proposal in 2003. But the Kirkby ‘exclusivity agreement’ has acted to
block active consideration of the fast-changing circumstances and opportunities in the city
centre. There is the potential for joint management of the stadium and existing exhibition
facilities and arena. Serious consideration should again be given to this site, given the
recent change in circumstances.

13. Prescot Road

15
Location: Within inner-city and not far from Everton √√
History/Landmark: Close to Newsham Park √
Accessibility: Inner-city networks. Potential Merseyrail link [as New Anfield] x√
Partners: Hotel and leisure overlooking park. Major events, subject to rail link √√
Constraints: Brownfield site with no serious constraints √√
Availability: Apparently available, although various tenancies √

Conclusion: This could be an attractive and practical possibility, especially if the rail link
could be re-opened [as has been suggested, to serve the New Anfield].

14. Land at Speke Boulevard

Location: South Liverpool, within city boundary but remote from city centre √x
History/Landmark: Potential landmark on southern approach to city from airport √
Accessibility: Between road and railway, but poor local street network √x
Partners: Hotel and leisure √
Constraints: Few physical constraints √√
Availability: Apparently available √√

Conclusion: This is the wrong part of town for Everton and, although within the city
boundaries, it has many of the same disadvantages as the Kirkby proposal.

15. Speke Northern Airfield

Location: Within city boundary but remote from city centre √xx
History/Landmark: Little opportunity to create landmark. No historical links xx
Accessibility: Poor xx
Partners: Hotel and leisure √
Constraints: Industrial site with few constraints √
Availability: Apparently available √√

Conclusion: Although within the city, the isolated location and lack of accessibility would
seem to rule this out as a serious contender.

16. Stanley Dock

Location: Within inner-city north Liverpool and reasonably close to city centre √√√
History/Landmark: Dramatic riverside site. Potential focus of new development √√√
Accessibility: Merseyrail [from proposed new Vauxhall Station] and City Centre √√
Partners: Potential for major events, hotel and leisure √√√
Constraints: Within World Heritage Site. Exceptionally good design necessary √xx
Availability: Possible, but subject to negotiation with many stakeholders xx√

16
Conclusion: This site has been quickly dismissed as ‘too small’ and unsuitable ‘…within the
context of heritage and conservation…’ This exemplifies the problem of leaving site
assessment to organisations and people who are unable or unwilling to recognise that
constraints can also be opportunities, always preferring a cleared site that is bigger than
necessary. Developing Stanley Dock would be a serious challenge, but the result could be
inspirational. It would need to win the support of the many bodies interested in the heritage
and the wider future of the city.

This would not be easy, but there is no easy way of bringing these huge historic structures
back to real life in the 21st century. Engaging in this kind of collective exercise in the heart of
the city could push Everton to a leading position in Stadium development. At this moment,
Chelsea are giving consideration to proposals that they move into a new arena at the former
Battersea Power Station. Their move may never happen, but at least they are prepared to
consider it as an imaginative possibility.

17
17. Stanley Park

Location: Established home of both clubs √√

History/Landmark: Few sites in World football have such historic resonance √√√
Accessibility: Established access arrangements, with scope for Merseyrail extension √√
Partners: Hotels, leisure and major events, but slightly less potential than city centre √√
Constraints: Few physical constraints on site. Lack of current access by Merseyrail √x
Availability: Established as suitable for Liverpool FC, but new permission needed √√x

Conclusion: It has already been accepted as an appropriate site for Liverpool FC.
Therefore, it is logical that it could be an appropriate site for a shared stadium. In this
scenario, the suggestion would be to place the stadium alongside Priory Road, away from
residential properties, with two retractable pitches, one surrounded by an Everton Village at
the North-West end, the other by a Liverpool Village at the South-East end.

The main stadium would thus be available [with a concrete floor and a retractable roof] for
major events and concerts. The sites of both existing stadia would become extensions to the
revitalised park, retaining the historic pitches and elements of the old grounds.

18
18. Walton Hall Park

Location: Outside inner-city, but within walking distance of Goodison Park √√

History/Landmark: Highly visible on one of the main approaches to the city √√
Accessibility: No nearby Merseyrail Stations [at present] and limited road network xx
Partners: Hotel and leisure. Could be centrepiece of revitalised park √√
Constraints: Established green space, but comparable with New Anfield x√
Availability: City Council would have to agree [as New Anfield] x√

Conclusion: This seems to be an obvious choice to many supporters, despite the relatively
poor accessibility. It is close to Goodison Park, and there are natural comparisons with the
projected move of Liverpool FC into Stanley Park. Whilst a new stadium, designed in the
manner of a large ‘pavilion’ could be a wonderful centrepiece of a revitalised park,
appropriate access would require extensive new infrastructure. The ‘pavilion’ approach
would exclude large-scale enabling development, such as retail, but a hotel and leisure uses
could be accommodated as an integral part of the pavilion/stadium structure.

19. Wavertree Playground

19
Location: South Liverpool, but inner-city x√
History/Landmark: Visible on approaches by road and rail √
Accessibility: Potential railway access. Reasonable road links √
Partners: Hotel and leisure. Potential for major events √√
Constraints: Long established and valued city park xx
Availability: Unlikely xx

Conclusion: This could be an exciting prospect, although there are other sites in the city
that have better links with the club’s historical community in the North End. This park is well-
used, but a ‘pavilion’ approach as described for Walton Hall Park [above] could be
appropriate. Improved accessibility could make it suitable as a venue for major events.

20. Tunnel Loop [Bestway] Site

Location: Close to city centre, below Everton Park √√√

History/Landmark: Very prominent site in Scotland Road, in Everton √√√
Accessibility: Short walk from city centre stations, car parks and infrastructure √√√
Partners: Hotel and leisure. Major Events √√√
Constraints: Few other than need to construct deck over the tunnel approach road. x√
Availability: Owner willing to negotiate. City owns land to south √√√

The Tunnel Loop site has been promoted by KEIOC, Liverpool City Council and the site
owners, Bestway. The ‘exclusivity agreement has prevented Everton from taking part in
serious discussions. These sketches show phasing and a potential share with Liverpool.

20
Conclusions: This is a remarkable opportunity, which has not been able to be taken
seriously by Everton because of their ‘exclusivity agreement’. The site is less constrained
than the 74,000-seat Millennium Stadium in Cardiff and could offer comparable benefits,
with a retractable roof and the additional possibility of a retractable pitch [in Cardiff, the pitch
is removed in small sections by forklift trucks]. A report by HOK Sport [architects of the
Millennium Stadium] confirms that the Loop site could accommodate a 55,000-seat stadium.
The HOK Report has been submitted as a separate document.

21. Edge Lane Retail Park

Location: Prominent site on edge of inner-city √

History/Landmark: Potentially dramatic landmark site at gateway to city √√√
Accessibility: Good, by both road, rail and local street network √√√
Partners: Hotel, leisure and major events √√
Constraints: Currently designated as a retail park x
Availability: The potential is there, and the Local Authority may be supportive √

Conclusion: Whereas the neighbouring Technology Park is unavailable, the position with
respect to the retail park is much more promising. The potential of this site to become a
major city landmark is there and the accessibility is very good. We still prefer the options in
the city centre, but this site is worthy of further consideration.

22. Aintree Retail Park / long Lane Industrial Estate

21
Location: North Liverpool suburbs, within city boundary √√
History/Landmark: Beyond inner-city and hidden away from general view x
Accessibility: Potential Merseyrail access to North. Road network limited √x
Partners: Hotel and leisure √
Constraints: Few constraints √
Availability: Potentially available √

Conclusion: These are two industrial sites in North Liverpool and may be suitable and
available, but they have few other advantages. The Northern site is the better of the two,
because of the potential of direct rail access.

23. Stonebridge Cross

Location: Within city boundary, but remote from the heart of the city √x
History/Landmark: Prominent on approach from the East Lancs Road √
Accessibility: No rail access and limited local road network xx
Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city √√
Constraints: Few constraints. √
Availability: Apparently available √√

Conclusion: There are severe access problems, which probably rule this out, although
insome respects it is a better proposition than the nearby Kirkby sites.

24. Stanley Market

Location: Within inner-city and not far from Everton. √√

History/Landmark: Interesting local history as wholesale market √
Accessibility: Good inner-city networks. Potential Merseyrail link [as New Anfield] √√
Partners: Hotel and leisure overlooking park. Major events, subject to rail link √√
Constraints: Restricted site with interesting and distinctive design potential √√
Availability: Present use as a market but may become available x√

Conclusion: This could be an attractive and practical possibility, especially if the rail link
could be re-opened [as has been suggested to serve the New Anfield].

25. Calderstones Park

Conclusion: This is one of Liverpool’s historic parks, with no historic links to the city’s
football clubs and no particular advantages in terms of accessibility for either football or
other major events. As such, it is deemed to be unavailable and not a serious contender.

26. Sefton Park

Conclusion: This is one of Liverpool’s historic parks, with no historic links to the city’s
football clubs and no particular advantages in terms of accessibility for either football or
other major events. As such, it is deemed to be unavailable and not a serious contender.

27. Newsham Park

22
Conclusion: This is one of Liverpool’s historic parks, with no historic links to the city’s
football clubs and no particular advantages in terms of accessibility for either football or
other major events. As such, it is deemed to be unavailable and not a serious contender.

28. Sparrow Hall Playing Fields

Location: Within city boundary, in suburban area of North Liverpool √

History/Landmark: Prominent on approach along Townsend Avenue and East Lancs √
Accessibility: Merseyrail not too far [Fazakerley]. Limited road network √x
Partners: Potential hotel and leisure as part of gateway to city √√
Constraints: Few constraints. Need to improve access √x
Availability: City playing fields. Could be compatible with stadium √

Conclusion: There access problems, but these seem capable of solution. This is a much
better proposition than the Kirkby sites.

29. North Shore

Location: Close to club’s historic community √√

History/Landmark: Potential to be highly visible, within North end of city √√
Accessibility: Accessible by Merseyrail. Good road links √√
Partners: Major events potential, hotel and leisure √√
Constraints: Industrial area close to docks, similar to downtown Birkenhead x√
Availability: Multiple tenures, but no doubt a suitable site could be identified x√

Conclusion: There are no doubt suitable sites that could be identified within this large area,
but there are better prospects nearby, especially Site 36 [Kirkdale Bank Hall].

30 Land off Speke Boulevard

Location: Just outside city boundary, at furthest extremity from city centre xx
History/Landmark: Prominent gateway to city √
Accessibility: Potential railway station. Limited road network √x
Partners: Hotel and leisure at gateway to the city √√
Constraints: Need for major infrastructure work to secure rail and road access xx
Availability: Apparently available √√

Conclusion: Although a potential gateway landmark, the site is remote from the city centre.
The need for major new infrastructure probably rules it out.

31. Huyton Business Park

Location: Remote from city centre and outside boundary xxx

History/Landmark: No apparent relationship with city or club’s traditions xxx
Accessibility: No rail access and limited road network xxx

Conclusion: Completely unacceptable on first three criteria. Not a serious contender.

32. Kirkby Stadium

Location: Outside the city boundary and remote from the city centre xxx
23
History/Landmark: Could be local focal point within satellite town, home of Z-cars √
Accessibility: Poor by public transport. Roads and parking will be big problems xxx
Partners: Hotel and leisure, easily accessible by road on non-match days √
Constraints: Established sporting use. Constrained access for large events √x
Availability: Probable √

Conclusions: Major problems are location and accessibility. These factors alone should rule
this out as a serious contender.

33. Knowsley Industrial Estate

Location: Remote from city centre and outside boundary xxx

History/Landmark: No apparent relationship with city or club’s traditions xxx
Accessibility: No rail access and limited road network xxx

Conclusion: Completely unacceptable on first three criteria. Not a serious contender.

34. Aintree Race Course

Location: Outside the city boundary, but closely linked to North Liverpool xx√
History/Landmark: Historic sporting venue √√
Accessibility: Merseyrail station, but suburban location with some difficulties √√x
Partners: Established sporting venue, hotels, leisure, major events √√
Constraints: Need to make compatible with revitalised use as racecourse x
Availability: Subject to demonstrating the above compatibility, may be possible √

Conclusion: Not acceptable to KEIOC, as outside the city boundary. It was the site of a
previous proposal, for a joint Mersey Stadium with a 67,000 capacity. The established
racecourse use suggests there could be a synergy with stadium development.

35. Land South of Kirkby Town Centre

Location: Outside the city boundary and remote from the city centre xxx
History/Landmark: Could be local focal point within satellite town, home of Z-cars √
Accessibility: Poor by public transport. Roads and parking will be big problems xxx
Partners: Proposed enabling development will not be helpful as long-term partner √x
Constraints: Made-up ground, planning restrictions on future use and/or expansion xx
Availability: Planning permission granted, but contentious Public Inquiry √x

Conclusions: Major problems are location, accessibility and restrictions on future expansion.
These three factors alone should rule this out as a serious contender.

36. Kirkdale-Bank Hall

Location: Within traditional heartland of North Liverpool, not far from Goodison √√
24
History/Landmark: Potential landmark on approaches to city from the North √√√
Accessibility: Superb access to Merseyrail, close to traditional local community √√√
Partners: Major events, hotel and leisure, park and ride facility for city centre access √√
Constraints: Tight site needs deck over railway lines. Opportunity for clever design xx√
Availability: Subject to agreement with railway authorities √

Conclusion: This is an exciting proposition within the traditional heartland of North

Liverpool. Many supporters already use Kirkdale Merseyrail Station to get to Goodison Park.
There are many precedents for decking over railway lines, for example the National Indoor
Arena in Birmingham and the Vålerengen Stadium in Oslo. The site is tight and would
require a bespoke design to achieve the target of 60,000 seats. The transport links would
make it suitable as a venue for major events [although without scope for a sliding pitch] and
its car parks could provide a week-day park-and-ride facility. The site was first identified in
the same paper that identified the Tunnel Loop Site, in February 2007 [see Appendix 1].

37. Central Birkenhead

Location: Outside city boundary but accessible and close to city centre xx√
25
History/Landmark: Potential to be highly visible, opposite the Pier Head √√
Accessibility: Accessible from city centre by rail, ferry and road tunnels √√
Partners: Major events, hotel and leisure, park and ride for city centre √√√
Constraints: Psychological barrier for Liverpool-based supporters xx
Availability: Unspecified potential sites within under-utilised grid-iron streets x√

Conclusion: This is obviously unacceptable to KEIOC, as it lies outside the present city
boundary. However, despite the psychological barrier of the river, it scores higher on
accessibility and other issues than many of the alternatives, including Kirkby. There are a
number of potential development sites within the grid-iron of streets leading out from
Hamilton Square. It is comparable in scope to the large area included by the applicants as
‘North Shore’. There is potential for an imaginative scheme next to Woodside Ferry.

38. Eastern Expansion of Goodison Park to Walton Lane

Location: In the built-up area of Walton, Liverpool 4, the club’s home since 1892 √√√
History/Landmark: The combination of the ground and surrounding streets is iconic √√√
Accessibility: Accessible via a network of city streets, two miles from city centre √√
Partners: Potential for hotel and leisure. Transport and tourism links with LFC √√√
Constraints: Need to enlarge footprint. LCC may be prepared to support √x
Availability: Part owned. Need for large-scale Compulsory Purchase Order √xx

Conclusion: This has been proposed on several occasions and would provide the
opportunity to rebuild the stadium without serious disruption to the present structure,
possibly turning the pitch through 90 degrees. We believe that this proposal ignores the
advantages of preserving significant elements of the existing historic structure and
atmosphere of Goodison Park. We also believe that the land required from the surrounding
community is larger than necessary. Therefore, we prefer Site 39, which has the additional
benefit of allowing incremental development.

39. Conservation and Expansion of Goodison Park

Location: In the built-up area of Walton, Liverpool 4, the club’s home since 1892 √√√
History/Landmark: The combination of the ground and surrounding streets is iconic √√√
26
Accessibility: Accessible via a network of city streets, two miles from city centre √√
Partners: Potential for hotel and leisure. Transport and tourism links with LFC √√√
Constraints: Need to enlarge footprint on two sides. LCC may well support this x√
Availability: Owners. May need Compulsory Purchase for long-term expansion √√x

Conclusion: The plan above shows the footprint [dark blue] that we consider is needed to
expand Goodison Park, without destroying its close relationship with the surrounding
community. The strip alongside Walton Lane would allow for non-retail enabling
development overlooking Stanley Park. The pale blue shading indicates the area of
surrounding townscape that we argue should be given Conservation Area status, in
conjunction with the conservation of historic elements of the stadium structure.

This is KEIOC’s ‘Plan A’. An earlier study by architects Ward McHugh looked into rebuilding the
stadium within the current footprint, and other studies have been carried out on this basis. However,
we think that it is important that Everton faces its long-term future without the constraint of the present
footprint. Nevertheless, we consider it equally important that Everton give due consideration to the
importance of the built heritage of Goodison Park, in particular the two remaining Archibald Leitch-
designed stands. We recognise Goodison Park’s potential to be the ‘Albert Dock of World Football’.

Our recommendation is that Everton enter into serious discussions with the City Council and the local
community to determine what is the appropriate long-term footprint for Goodison Park [no more than
is necessary and no less]. These discussions should also seek to establish a partnership between the
27
club and the local community, to investigate not only the stadium development, but the improvement
and ongoing maintenance of the surrounding streets as a Conservation Area [like that in Kensington
Fields, Liverpool 7].

Trevor Skempton / for KEIOC / 1st December 2008

3.0 Design Response

3.1 Introduction

28
3.1.1 Football is an emotional business. In remarks at the pre-meeting to the Kirkby Public Inquiry,
Mr Clarkson, for the applicants, said that “…an Opera House has nothing whatsoever to do
with a Football Club”. As already stated in the document on the choice of location, so with
design issues, we beg to differ.

3.1.2 There may be differences in the social make-up of the spectators [although since the
formation and marketing of the Premier League, these differences have been diminishing, for
better or worse]. Football contains a greater element of improvisation, and possibly of the
unexpected, but in terms of colour, drama, sound and larger-than-life entertainment, the
similarities between opera and football are surely greater than the differences. The point is
this: the stadium is a grand theatre and should be judged as such.

3.1.3 This response to the design issues is in four sections:

1. An assessment of Goodison Park

2. An assessment of the Kirkby Stadium as proposed

3. Urban Design and Green Issues

4. The theatrical potential of a new stadium

3.2 Goodison Park

History and Overview

3.2.1 David Keirle describes the technical shortcomings inside the stadium accurately, in terms of
obstructed views, cramped concourses, poor toilets and catering facilities. However, he
makes two value-judgements about the location, which should be challenged:

[para 2.1.6. ] “The current stadium is set within a predominately residential area and is built
tight to the site boundaries…. [on match days, there is] considerable disruption.”

3.2.2 This is an urban area. Most of the buildings, including the houses, are built to the back of
pavement. This is what gives it its urban character. From time to time, the streets are busy,
and lively. The traditional ensemble of Football Ground hemmed in by tightly by surrounding
streets is similar to the ensemble of a Victorian Mill and the mill village. They both stem from
the same origins, the genesis of modern social management in the nineteenth century. There
is a case for preserving surviving examples of this relationship as Conservation Areas. For
example, Saltaire village and mill, in West Yorkshire, is now a World Heritage Site. Its narrow
terraced streets are reminiscent of Walton, but it is regarded as a desirable place to live.
Some may prefer a suburban location or a landscaped ‘business park’, but many others will
disagree. What should be beyond dispute is that the area and the streets around Goodison
Park deserve some loving care and attention, from the both the Local Authority and the
Football Club.

29
Disruption? One of many streets near Goodison decorated in 1966, when Everton won the FA
Cup and Goodison Park staged five World Cup games, including the semi-final

David Keirle, however, says that Goodison Park is a stadium with:

[2.1.7] “… little architectural merit, which makes no positive contribution to the immediate
surrounding area.”

3.2.3 Similar judgements were made about the Liverpool’s famous Albert Dock [now also part of a
World Heritage Site], before the warehouses were saved as the result of a long campaign.
Liverpool and other cities have lost countless gems that were described by someone as being
of ‘little architectural merit.’

3.2.4 Archibald Leitch was the greatest of the stadium designers of the first half of the twentieth
century. Goodison Park has two of his surviving stands, with a connecting corner and a
unique relationship with St. Luke’s Church. This powerful imagery of this ensemble has
spread round the World, not least back in 1966 when Goodison was host to five World Cup
matches, including the semi-final [and Everton won the FA Cup]. The surrounding streets held
street parties and were decorated with bunting. Whatever maybe missing here, there is no
lack of historical interest or ‘architectural merit.’

30
The junction of Archibald Leitch’s two surviving stands at Goodison Park. This is one of the
iconic sights of World football, which David Keirle admits to having “….a certain historic
charm” and which we argue could be preserved, reconfiguring the lower levels and
extending the Upper Bullens under a big new roof, supported by a pitch-length truss

3.2.5 The more modern Main Stand and Park End are mean-spirited structures that inspire little
affection in themselves, but at least they contribute to the essential sense of a tight theatrical
enclosure. I remember reading a school essay, where a youngster described the ‘miracle’ of
travelling from quiet suburbs, crossing on the ferry, getting a bus up to Walton, walking up the
dark narrow streets with growing excitement, reaching the turnstiles, then coming suddenly
into ‘a magical floodlit arena.’

Notwithstanding the romance of the above, the case for modernisation of the facilities is not
disputed.

3.2.6 Nor, in a general sense, is the cost. Refurbishment and conservation is not necessarily a
cheap option in the short-term, although this approach has the considerable advantage of
being able to be carried out incrementally, managed and delivered in response to ever-
changing circumstances. It is also ‘green’ in that it involves the recycling of material, and
continued use of the historical capital invested in these large structures. What is needed is
something that Everton don’t seem to have [at least in stadium terms], a long-term plan.

3.3 Redevelopment on the Existing Site

31
David Keirle states that it is:

“….not possible to design or deliver a new stadium on the current site that would exceed
a total capacity of 35,000.”

3.3.1 We think that, in his Option 1, he could have tried harder, for example by utilising the whole
space at the Park End. Supporters groups, over the years, have worked on this particular
problem with architects, and have come up with considerably higher figures.

3.3.2 Nevertheless, because we are all ambitious to secure a long-term future, we accept that the
footprint of Goodison has to be enlarged, not to meet the immediate requirement of 50,000
seats, but to ensure that the club doesn’t find itself restricted in the future if it requires a
stadium as large as those of its competitors in Liverpool and Manchester.

3.3.4 We think that his Option 2 imposes a suburban-style stadium with relatively wasteful space
standards onto this neighbourhood, and would require more compulsory purchase than we
think is justified. We are aware of his similar proposals for Tottenham, which at least
recognise their overwhelming wish to stay in their local community.

3.3.5 Option 3 is a more interesting exercise, but it begs the question of why all the allocated
budget was allocated to a new Bullens Road Stand, offering limited extra capacity, when a
more effective first option would surely be to expand the Park End, in conjunction with
enabling development, including a hotel overlooking the Park Lake. This plan does however
illustrate the genuine potential for incremental growth in affordable phases.

3.3.6 Despite these reservations, the overlay of the symmetrical plans of the Emirates [60,000] and
Kirkby [50,000] in David Keirle’s report are useful and seem to support the point that a more
compact multi-tier design, such as Croke Park [80,000] or Millennium Stadium [74,000],
designed in a bespoke assymetrical fashion, could be fitted onto the site with a relatively
modest increase in the footprint. This is the scenario that is outlined below.

3.4 Alternative Proposals for Goodison Park

3.4.1 It is apparent that no-one at Everton Football Club has been prepared [since John Moores
was Chairman, in the 1960s] to give serious consideration to the formulation of a long-term
plan for incremental development. And yet, this is the path taken successfully by competitor
clubs [Manchester United, Aston Villa, Tottenham Newcastle United, etc.], who have
expanded their stadia, whilst also staying close to their inner-city roots.

3.4.2 It is not for us, as a group of supporters, to bring forward fully-worked out and costed
schemes. As already stated, we don’t argue that the incremental process is cheaper than

32
 building a brand-new structure. But we do argue that it is manageable and deliverable,
whereas we doubt the wisdom of looking for a single ‘big-bang’ capital injection, funded either
by a ‘sugar-daddy’ or the exploitation of a loophole in the planning process.

3.4.3 However, a number of exploratory studies have been carried out by architects and engineers.
With this information in mind, the following phasing system is recommended in principle. This
would be carried out over an extended period, in accordance with a long-term business and
development plan and in consultation with supporters, the local community and the City
Council.

Under the Chairmanship of the late John Moores, the old Main Stand was replaced in
phases without any significant disruption in ground capacity or atmosphere, a process that
could be repeated, but this time bringing back the appropriate style and grandeur

3.4.4 Phase One: An immediate increase of capacity to 48,000 by the replacement of the Park End
Stand by a large new structure seating 14,000. Most of these would be premium seats and a
series of large new lounges would be operated in conjunction with a new landmark hotel
overlooking the park lake. Most construction would be carried out behind the existing stand,
with no requirement to reduce capacity during this period. This large structure and the tower
would be more than a match for the nearby ‘New Anfield’.

3.4.5 Phase Two: Re-modelling of the Gwladys Street Stand. This will demonstrate the
conservation approach, by preserving Leitch’s basic structure and showcasing its positive

33
 relationship with both the church and the houses in the street behind. The lower level seating
would be reconfigured to remove the worst of the obstructed views, with the loss of about 600
seats, although there is no intention to otherwise ‘improve’ the ‘cramped’ seating standards in
this part of the ground. The 600 seats would be replaced in the form of premium seats in a
‘sky gallery’ to be added as part of a new roof. The roof structure would allow the removal of
the posts from the upper tier and would consist of a deep truss spanning the full width of the
stand. As well as the ‘sky gallery’, this truss would support a single large video screen [with
smaller screens at each side, facing backwards].

3.4.6 The main structural work would be completed in consecutive close seasons. The Lower
Gwladys Street would also be re-designed to be able to serve as the stage area for major
events, providing appropriate technical and backstage areas, capable of being brought into
use at any time of the year without disrupting the main business of football.

The first phase, the rebuilding of the Park End, together with a landmark hotel tower, would
bring the capacity up to 48,000 and allow the club time to plan the next phases

34
Extracts from engineering and sight-line studies into the expansion and reconfiguration of
the Bullens Road Stand and the corner where it meets the expanded Park End Stand

3.4.7 Phase Three: Rebuilding of the Bullens Road Stand, preserving Leitch’s basic structure and
adding a new tier behind. The net increase in capacity will be only 4,000, but the entire
seating will be converted to premium space standards. The back part of the Lower Bullens
could become a spectacular combined long lounge and museum, potentially open seven days
a week, showcasing the original features of the structure, with a continuous view of the pitch,
albeit obstructed by columns and the overhanging tier above. The columns will be removed
from the upper tier, which will then offer some of the best views in the ground. The new roof
will be supported by a single long truss, echoing that on the new Gwladys Street, but above
the roof to cater for the extra height of the seating below. Phase Three will require the
extension of the site boundary to include part of the school and 30 houses in Diana Street and
Muriel Street. The school could be redesigned around a courtyard and also be allowed further
use of some of the indoor stadium facilities. The houses could be replaced by new
accommodation on Walton Lane.

3.4.8 Phase Four: This is a major long-term step, but allowance for it should be made at the outset.
Goodison Road is diverted to run parallel with the pitch from its junction with City Road. 40
houses would be removed [to be replaced by new accommodation facing Walton Lane or
elsewhere within the surrounding community]. The businesses facing Goodison Road,
including the Winslow Hotel, would be replaced by new structures facing the new road, the
aim being to restore the general feel of the area in its heyday. A new corner stand would be
built next to the Park End overlooking Spellow Lane. This would have a capacity of 6,000, and
be opened when the first part of the Main Stand is demolished. At that point, the capacity will
drop back temporarily to 48,000.

3.4.9 Phase Five: The first sub-phase of the Main Stand will bring the capacity up to 56,000 and the
second sub-phase, the following year, will bring it up to 63,000.

The final phases require the re-alignment of Goodison Road and Bullens Road. This site expansion
should be carried out in conjunction with the local community and creation of a Conservation Area
covering the historic streets between County Road and Walton Lane

35
3.4.10 The ultimate objective would be to complete a stadium that incorporates its characteristic
historic features, meets all the requirements of an ambitious business and its partners, meets
the rising expectations of the supporters and, last but not least, is the celebrated centrepiece
of a revived local community in Walton. The stadium should be designed to be an active
centre seven-days-a-week; at the moment, supporters visiting the box office or the club shop
cannot even get a cup of tea or coffee at the stadium.

3.5 The proposals for Kirkby

3.5.1 If the brief was to provide a stadium that fitted in with an out-of-town retail park, then the
design could be deemed to be appropriate. The proposal resembles the large blank-walled
buildings that characterise edge-of-town retail centres.

3.5.2 On one side is a large surface car park [which will not be available for match-going
supporters], on a second side is a coach park, on the third is a main road beyond a
landscaped buffer-zone. Only on the fourth side is there an ‘urban’ street linking the stadium
with the rest of the town centre, and this street has no active frontages. It is clear that this is a
facility for football alone, at the end of a pedestrian cul-de-sac, that for most of the week will
be a closed structure giving little to the surrounding community.

3.5.3 If this is indeed the brief, the technical solution is hard to fault. The straight lines and
symmetrical layout symbolise economy and suggest a standardised rather than a bespoke
design. The symmetrical layout also suggests a once-and-for-all solution, with no allowance
for long-term greater ambitions. There is a reference to filling in the corners, to add a further
10,000 seats in the future, but the planning approval specifically rejects both expansion and
also any broadening of stadium use to include major events.
36
3.5.4 The design is illustrated in the ‘2008 stadia brochure’ of the construction company, Barr. Two
of these illustrations are reproduced below, and they show a large box-like structure which
fails to express any sense of the theatrical drama of what will happen inside and sits in a
landscape of car parks and large low sheds characteristic of an out-of town ‘retail park’ rather
than a busy town or city.

Images taken from Barr’s ‘2008 stadia brochure’. On the left is the proposed view from
Valley Road, on the right the stadium sits amongst low-rise retail sheds and car parks.

3.5.5 We have been asked many times whether this design would be acceptable if transposed to
an inner-city or central site. The response is as follows:

[a] The structural economy, the straight lines and bevelled corners are not problems in themselves,
but there should be a greater distinction between the different parts of the ground to encourage
differentiation in atmosphere. For example, there are those who prefer a crowded convivial
atmosphere with singing. There are others who put a premium on cinema-style comfort. There are, of
course, big differences in what people are able or willing to pay and in their levels of expectation. In
particular, the price-exclusion of a generation of young supporters is a growing problem across the
English Premier League.

[b] The stadium should be much more open to the streets around it and have a range of ground-level
mixed-use activities, available to the public seven-days-a-week. This mixed-use approach is an
essential feature of the modern urban-design agenda, in the same way as it has been applied in
mixed-use developments such as Liverpool One. It leads to a safer and more sustainable
environment.

[c] The stadium should specifically allow for long-term improvement, expansion and development.
This is not just good business practice, but it is also recognises the long-term dreams of supporters.
Supporters dream of winning the European Cup [now known as the ‘Champions League’], as Aston

37
Villa, Glasgow Celtic, Nottingham Forest, Liverpool and Manchester United have done before, and
surely no-one at Everton would say that this is not a realistic long-term objective and possibility. It is,
therefore, perverse to physically restrict the club by moving into a stadium that cannot be expanded to
compete with the stadia of our closest competitors [Old Trafford and New Anfield].

3.5.6 Ongoing stadium development can be a source of great anticipation and excitement for
supporters. The multi-phased development of St James’ Park, Newcastle, saw regular
Sunday crowds around the construction site marvelling as their club seemed to be building up
into the sky, season after season. Newcastle made effective use of the ongoing stadium
construction, highly visible in the city centre, as a means of engaging with their supporters
and building up the fan-base.

[d] Some of the potential city centre sites are tight and constrained, as are the sites of St James’ Park,
the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff and that of Croke Park in Dublin. This applies to Goodison Park,
Bestway’s Tunnel Loop on Scotland Road, Kirkdale, Everton Park and the Kings Dock. These sites
require bespoke solutions, but they offer much more opportunity for adding excitement and interest to
this mass-entertainment business, in partnership with related commercial organisations and ongoing
community activities. The success of the Millennium Stadium atmosphere is due, in a large part, to the
compact three-tier arrangement necessitated by the site restrictions.

3.6 Urban design and green issues

3.6.1 It is worth looking again at the two grounds on either side of Stanley Park, within their
respective networks of streets [see plans below]. Both have similar constraints. This has led

38
 both clubs to the conclusion, advised by their respective developers, that ‘slash and burn’ is
the best option – starting afresh on a cleared site, a blank canvas. The waste of resources
that this implies is shocking. Some say that the solution is to pool resources in a shared
stadium, pointing out that even Wembley could make money if it had two Premiership
‘franchises’; this argument re-surfaced recently and attracted wide support.

The left-hand plan shows the two stadia and Stanley Park, with the outline of Liverpool’s
proposed ‘New Anfield’ dotted within the park. The right-hand plan shows the potential
expansion of both existing stadia, each to accommodate 60,000, with a large rectangular
communal [public sector] ‘events’ space within the park, over an underground car park, as
part of a shared public transport infrastructure

3.6.2 Another view is to look at the advantages of expanding the two existing grounds and sharing
a new transport infrastructure, with a large events space and underground car park in Stanley
Park. This consolidates the traditional intense rivalry of the two clubs.

39
3.6.3 The new urban design agenda is critical of the suburban car-orientated planning and
functional zoning of the post-war years, and promotes more intensive and sustainable mixed-
use developments, usually based around public transport. It was formulated by Richard
Rogers’ ‘Urban Task Force’, set up by the Government in1998, and codified by the
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment [CABE], particularly in their document
‘By Design [Urban Design in the Planning System]’.

3.6.4 CABE has been openly critical of the Kirkby proposals and similar out-of-town schemes.

3.6.5 CABE advocates revitalisation of inner-city and city centres, as exemplified by its support for
Grosvenor’s recently-completed Liverpool One Development.

3.7 The potential of a new stadium to be a theatre

3.7.1 We see standardised stadia emerging all over the country. At first, it was the simple single-tier
rectangle with some of the corners filled in [as at Derby, Middlesbrough,
Leicester and Southampton] and later the symmetrical bowl [as at Bolton, City of
Manchester, Arsenal and proposed for Tottenham].

3.7.2 This is the ‘commodification’ of football, expressed in steel; these new stadia have all the
character of the inside of a bath-tub – or a supermarket. As the atmosphere dies, the product
will become less attractive and the television companies won’t be slow to switch their
attentions elsewhere. Perhaps some clubs will resist this trend.

3.7.3 We hope that Everton will learn from its own fabulous history, that stadium atmosphere can be
– to use the language of business – a ‘unique selling point’, but we just can’t see this
happening with these Kirkby proposals.

3.7.4 The several alternative city centre sites each offer the prospect of the stadium becoming a
seven-days-a-week destination for visitors, in between the football matches, concerts and
other major events. City centre land is, of course, precious and must be used carefully. This
has the potential to add to the stadium’s character, by requiring a bespoke solution, which will
express the individual characteristics of the site and location.

3.7.5 For example, the Tunnel Loop site, owned by Bestway, is large enough to build the first phase
of the stadium completely within the Loop, fitting ‘like a glove’ to provide a first-phase capacity
of 50,000. The development would include a plinth covering part of the access road. This
would form an entrance plaza [a fitting site for the re-located statue of Dixie Dean] stretching
between two major routes leading North from the City Centre, Scotland Road and St. Anne
Street. This is our ‘Plan B’.

40
3.7.6 The ‘extra’ cost attributed to the need to build a deck over a section of the tunnel approach
road would be more than offset by the ‘savings’ in transport infrastructure arising from the
location on the edge of the city centre. A more recent study by HOK, architects of the
Millennium Stadium, took a similar approach and concluded that a stadium with a capacity of
55,000 was possible. A copy of the preliminary report by HOK has been submitted to the
Inquiry.

3.7.7 Each link from the city centre is a wide road, offering just fifteen minutes walk from Moorfields
[Merseyrail] and Lime Street [Main Line and Underground] Stations respectively. The land
between the two could be made available by Liverpool City Council for ‘enabling’
development, thus anchoring the scheme into city centre, with its car parks and other
infrastructure, and providing a valuable new public square.

41
An early sketch suggesting a new stadium on the Tunnel Loop site. The dark blue area
represents a first phase of 50,000 seats, the light blue a further phase of 12,000 seats, and the
purple a 28-storey landmark ‘Hotel 1878’ [the year of Everton’s foundation].

3.7.8 It has been suggested that such a development could be a non-retail equivalent of Liverpool
One [a ‘Liverpool Two’ perhaps?]. Most significant would be the dramatic effect that this
development would have on this part of town. The road has already defined a visually-
powerful circular structure and its position on Scotland Road below Everton Park would be a
decisive signal that the long overdue regeneration of North Liverpool is well under way.

42
‘Liverpool One’, a large mixed-use retail-led development on the South side of the city
centre. It has been suggested that a stadium development on the Loop site could be the
heart of major leisure-led mixed-use development on the North side, a ‘Liverpool Two’.

3.7.9 This response opened by describing football as an emotional business. We lose sight of this
magical parallel universe at our peril. In a fractured world, in which there are indefensible
gulfs of income and life-chances, football clubs can allow us to express our underlying sense
of community. Perhaps the football ground should be seen a Cathedral as well as an Opera
House. Nil satis nisi optimum.

Trevor Skempton / for KEIOC / 1st December 2008

43
4.0 Design Policy Requirements

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section will look at the design of the proposed new stadium and surrounding area in
terms of design policy in relation to National, Regional and Local policy and guidance. It is not
the intention of this section to evaluate the design of the stadium as Trevor Skempton on
behalf of KEIOC has addressed this previously.

4.1.2 The wider context of the proposal including the retail element does not make up part of this
section.

4.1.3 We feel the proposed stadium fails to meet the standards set out in a number of policy and
guidance documents and fails to demonstrate in the application that the current proposal is of
good design.

4.2 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

4.2.1 The Government has prepared guidance called Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1)
Delivering Sustainable Development, which provides a full statement of Government policies
for the Good Design on all new developments.

Below we have emphasised where we feel the stadium fails to meet set criteria from PPS1:

Para 3.5 High quality and inclusive design should create well-mixed and integrated
developments which avoid segregation and have well-planned public spaces that bring
people together and provide opportunities for physical activity and recreation.

4.2.2 PPS1 sets out that all new developments should be of high quality and inclusive design along
with well planned public spaces. The stadium due to its nature as a design and build lacks
high quality design as has been previously demonstrated by Trevor Skempton. The proposed
stadium also fails to integrate with the surrounding development leaving a sterile and
unattractive surrounding public space that is contrary to the guidance in PPS1. These in effect
will stifle opportunities for physical activity and recreation in the surrounding public realm.

Para 3.5 Good design should be integrated into the existing urban form and the natural and
built environments;

44
4.2.3 It is clearly evident from the proposed Masterplan that the proposed new Stadium not only
fails to integrate into the new development but ‘also’ fails to actively sit within the existing
urban form due to a number of factors previously mentioned by Trevor Skempton.

4.3 By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System: towards better practice

4.3.1 PPS1 also sets out that all Local Authorities should have high regard to a number of design
‘guidances’ such as By Design. All Local Authorities should have high regard to the contents
of By Design as it forms an important material consideration to planning decisions.

4.3.2 By Design clearly sets out the role of the planning system in terms of design;

“The planning system provides the means to encourage good design, not just in conservation areas
and other attractive places, but everywhere. Securing good design is central to good planning. The
appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are relevant to the
consideration of a planning application and PPG1 makes it clear that local planning authorities should
reject poor designs”.

4.3.3 As with PPS1 we have emphasised where we feel the proposed new stadium in Kirkby fails to
meet the design requirements set out in By Design:

4.3.4 By Design sets out a number of select design criteria to be considered in the planning
process. These are:

• Character (A place with its own identity)

• Continuity and Enclosure (A place where public and private spaces are clearly distinguished)
• Quality of the Public Realm (A place with attractive and successful outdoor areas)
• Ease of Movement (A place that is easy to get to and move through)
• Legibility (A place that has a clear image and is easy to understand)
• Adaptability (A place that can change easily)
• Diversity (A place with variety and choice)

4.3.5 As we are just interested in the stadium side of the development it is obvious that not all the
above principles can be applied to the stadium element in their entirety, but many of the
principles can still be applied in certain aspects.

4.3.6 In this case when applying the above design principles it is evident that the stadium proposal
fails to adequately meet a number of them as set out in By Design. Due to the design and
construction methods, the proposed stadium lacks character and fails to create a sense of
45
 identity for Kirkby. Secondly, the quality of public realm around the stadium lacks real
cohesion and fails to act as an attractive outdoor area.

4.3.7 With this in mind it is clear that the current design of the proposed stadium fails to meet a
number of criteria set out in By Design.

4.3.8 Along with By Design the proposed stadium also fails to meet a number of requirements
outlined in English Heritage’s & CABE’s 2007 document titled “Guidance on tall buildings”
(endorsed by Government on 26 July 2007). The definition of a 'tall-building' and one adopted
by Government is;

“Any building which is significantly higher than its neighbours and/or which recognisably changes the
skyline”

4.3.9 It should be made clear at this stage that KEIOC do not oppose the height of the Stadium,
though it is clear that the structure should be defined as a tall building and with that should
comply to this guidance in order to successfully achieve good design.

4.3.10 The complete document can be found in the appendices, some clear guidance that the
stadium fails to meet is the following;

4.4 To be acceptable, any new tall building should be in an appropriate location, should be of
excellent design quality in its own right and should enhance the qualities of its immediate
location and wider setting. It should produce more benefits than costs to the lives of those
affected by it. Failure on any of these grounds will make a proposal unacceptable to CABE
and English Heritage.

5.1 Tall buildings should not be supported by local planning authorities unless it can be
demonstrated through the submission of fully justified and worked-up proposals that they are
of excellent architectural quality and in the appropriate location.

4.4 Regional Spatial Strategy

4.4.1 The North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was formally adopted in September 2008
and provides a framework for development and investment in the region over the next fifteen
to twenty years, while also establishing policies to achieve sustainable development.

4.4.2 The RSS has a number of design requirements and at the same time states that
developments should have regard to the North West Design Guide.
46
Policy DP7: Promote Environmental Quality, says;

“Promoting good quality design in new development and ensuring that development respects its
setting taking into account relevant design requirements, the NW Design Guide and other best
practice;

4.4.3 As demonstrated throughout our proof we feel the proposed stadium is not of high quality and
therefore the stadium is not complying with the RSS in promoting good quality design in a
new development; furthermore, as demonstrated with regard to By Design, the stadium fails
to comply with other best practice.

Para 4.10 Good design, creativity and innovation, are essential to improve the built environment and
make better use of land to support sustainable patterns

4.4.4 The RSS rightly points out that good design along with creativity are essential in improving
the built environment, however the proposed stadium for Everton F.C fails to represent a well-
designed stadium, and thus lacking the creativity to maximize better use of land it fails to
support more sustainable patterns.

4.5 Knowsley Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

4.5.1 The Knowsley UDP was formally adopted in June 2006 and is the Council’s strategy for
delivering physical development and protecting areas. The UDP will be in place for the
foreseeable future until the Council produces its new Core Strategy as part of the Local
Development Framework.

4.5.2 Chapter 11 of the UDP is entitled Development Quality and the Built Environment and
addresses the need for good urban design in the Borough. The strategic objectives are:

4.5.3 To stimulate a high design quality in new development which will:

a) Help to create a sense of place and pride in Knowsley and its constituent communities
b) Respond to and enhance the character of the townscape and landscape and
c) Make the Borough a more attractive place to live and work.

4.5.4 Policy DQ1 is the Council’s policy on design that all new development should comply with.

47
4.5.5 DQ1 is a robust design policy that the proposed stadium fails to comply with: due to the poor
architectural merit of the design of the stadium policy DQ1 has been ignored on a number of
issues by the applicant.

4.5.6 For example it is evident that the stadium ignores the following from DQ1:

• Respond to and, where appropriate, enhance the characteristics of the immediate

surrounding area through the use of appropriate scale, density, massing, height and building
lines;

• Protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers;

• Preserve and manage any existing important natural features such as trees, hedgerows,
greenspace, ponds, slopes and streams and where possible make use of these as design
features;

• Achieve good design quality in all new buildings and structures in terms of their scale, style,
materials, detailing and their relationship with each other;

4.5.7 It could be argued the stadium fails to comply with Policy DQ1 in its entirety; the policy is
supplied in full as an appendix at the end of the proof for information.

4.5.8 We believe the non-compliance with the Council’s UDP is further emphasised by the Council’s
own officers in the committee report for the application:

“Officers are disappointed the design does not incorporate stronger urban form based on sound
design principles.

“Within the development, the design and quality of the landscaping and public realm, while creating
some points of visual interest, disappoints when measured against sound urban design principles.”

4.6 Conclusion

4.6.1 We have shown how the proposed stadium fails to comply with design policy at a National,
Regional and Local level. It has constant disregard for the number of adopted policy
documents and best practice guidance. This is further backed up by CABE comments which
said the following regarding the design of the stadium:

48
“We are concerned that the stadium design is being delivered by a Design and Build contractor. It is
our view that Design and Build contracts can produce successful outcomes only when high quality
design is embedded in the process; we do not feel that this has been achieved in this case.

We are not convinced by this masterplan that there is a clear understanding of the space required for
managing large crowds converging on the stadium. Also, we do not feel that an inspiring sense of
arrival, as one would expect to have upon approaching a stadium of this size and significance, has
been achieved. This stadium will be a prominent figure in the landscape in all directions, however, the
pedestrian approaches to the stadium lack coherence, meandering from the railway station or drifting
across car parks. On match days, the continued operation of all uses appears likely to be controlled
by crude boundary treatments”.

4.6.2 KEIOC believe that the overall design of the stadium and surrounding area befits neither a
Premier League club nor so the Town of Kirkby.

4.6.3 As a result, The Secretary of State is requested to refuse the application.

49