Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 483

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/keioc/www/forum/includes/bbcode.php on line 112
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3824: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3826: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3827: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3828: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/bbcode.php:483)
Keeping Everton in Our City • View topic - LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict

Keeping Everton in Our City

KEIOC Discussion Forum
It is currently Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:46 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 pm
Posts: 1759
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Pub ... efield.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 pm
Posts: 1759
some interesting quotes from that report:

Quote:
North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS 13)
3.14 The north West Regional Assembly submitted the draft RSS in January 2006. An
independent examination was held between November 2006 and February 2007
and the panel’s report was published in May 2007. The Secretary of state has
now considered the report and has recently published proposed changes (March
2008). The plan is at an advanced stage, with adoption anticipated in the middle
of 2008, and is therefore considered to be a material consideration in the
determination of planning applications.

3.15 Policy RDF1 sets out the main development locations, with the focus on the
urban areas of the regional centres and regional towns and cities and sets out the
spatial priorities within the region taking into account specific considerations set
out in other Sub Regional Chapters. The first priority for growth is within the
regional centres of Manchester and Liverpool with the second priority being on
the inner areas surrounding these centres
with emphasis placed on areas in need
or regeneration and Housing Market Renewal.

3.16 Policy LCR2 broadly defines the regional centre of Liverpool and surrounding
inner area, Knowsley and Kirkby are not included within this area. They are
covered by Policy RDF2 now that the original wording of LCR3 (in which they
were included) has been deleted by the Panel, a recommendation endorsed by the
recent proposed changes.

3.23 We do not agree with the applicant that the emerging RSS can only be given
limited weight and should be a material consideration in the determination of the
application. We do not consider the scale of development proposed meets local
needs and is complementary to the role and function of the centre envisaged or
indeed complementary to the promotion of Liverpool’s regional role and focus.
Therefore, we consider that the proposals do not accord with emerging RSS
.


Quote:
Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan - June 2006
3.24 This plan provides a direction for planning and development in the Borough to
2016. Strategic Objective 5 encourages the provision of shopping, leisure and
other town centre uses consistent with local needs , whilst protecting and
enhancing the viability and vitality of the town, district and local centres in
Knowsley. The supporting text highlights the need for developments to be of a
scale appropriate to the role of the centre in question.

3.27 Policy S1 - Retail and Town Centre development strategy states that proposals
for retail development and other town centre uses must both protect and
enhance the vitality and viability of existing centres and be appropriate to the
scale and role of each centre. The KRUDP identifies a need of a major
development of up to 9,000 sq m gross for food retailing in Kirkby town centre
and further comparison goods retailing within Kirkby, Prescot and Huyton, with
a minimum of 7,000sqm additional floorspace split between the three centres
over the period to 2011. These figures are based on a retail assessment carried
out by Chestertons in 2002.

3.29 Policy S4 deals specifically with Kirkby Town Centre. Policy S4 notes that the
town centre is designated an Action Area within which (our emphasis)
comprehensive development or redevelopment shall be permitted for a number
of uses. The list of uses permitted includes a major foodstore of up to 9,000 sq
m in gross floorspace and / or comparison goods retail units, no level of
floorspace is set out for the comparison goods units.

3.30 The supporting text to this policy repeats the need for a 9,000 sq m foodstore
and considers that at least 2,000 sq m of non food shopping floorspace is
required up to 2011. Whilst this policy sets a minimum floorspace requirement
for the comparison goods floorspace we consider that it did not envisage the
level of additional comparison goods shops proposed with this application.

3.31 The relatively recently adopted Local Plan does not envisage the scale of
development proposed in Kirkby, nor makes any provision for the major
extension of the town centre to the south. While the development plan supports
regeneration and enhancement of Kirkby town centre with new retail
development within it, it is clear that this should be consistent with the
maintenance of the role of the centre in the Merseyside retail hierarchy.
Therefore, the proposed development clearly conflicts with the adopted Local
Plan in terms of scale and in terms of need the level of comparison goods
floorspace proposed.


Quote:
Kirkby Town Centre Interim Policy Statement
3.33 The Council has undertaken a second round of consultation on the draft Kirkby
Town Centre Interim Policy Statement (IPS) (November 2007). The Council
recognise that this document is not a formal LDF document and only has weight
as a material consideration. This document was produced by the Council at the
same time as the Tesco/ Everton proposals were being discussed and promoted.
The IPS draws heavily on the specifics of the then scale of the Tesco/ Everton
proposals to illustrate and justify the form of development sought in the IPS.

3.34 There are a number of inconsistencies between the statutory development plan
and this draft IPS document, in terms of the quantum of additional retail
considered acceptable, the location of proposed new development in Kirkby
Town Centre and justification for the loss of open space.


3.35 The IPS is the first document which considers the scale of the development
proposed. This document is in draft and has received a number of objections to
it (including Liverpool CC) and is not an appropriate document to introduce such
a significant policy change, which would elevate Kirkby significantly in the retail
hierarchy.


Overall assessment of scale

3.37 The proposed scheme runs counter to the Government’s policy as expressed in
PPS6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’. In that the application is not consistent with
the appropriateness of scale and that the applicants have not adequately
demonstrated retail need, that the sequential approach has been adequately
carried out and that there has been an appropriate and realistic assessment of
retail impact.

3.42 The planning application documents place significant weight on the regeneration
benefits of the proposal to justify the scale of the retail development.
Commentary is provided on the step change needed for the town centre and the
Council’s frustration with the lack of investment in the town centre over recent
years. While change, regeneration and investment in town centres and in Kirkby
in this case should be very much supported, it is important that any proposal
including new retail is of an appropriate scale and in accordance with the regional
spatial strategy which has been formulated over a number of years.

3.43 In this context the major issue is one of scale and we consider that the proposals
do not comply with adopted or emerging planning policy both in PPS6 and
regional guidance.


4. Assessment of Retail Need

Kirkby Retail Evidence Base Report by DTZ on behalf of Knowsley MBC,
October 2007
4.2 This report was produced in October 2007 to provide independent advice on the
retail element of the proposed scheme. The report provided estimates of retail
capacity using a 15 minute drivetime and worked in conjunction with Tesco’s
consultants DPP in terms of shared data sources. DTZ anticipated a smaller
scheme being delivered noting a scheme of 47,000 sq m with a 15,000 sq m
Tesco store included (all gross floorspace figures). The study notes the
provisions of draft RSS13 at the time.

4.8 We do not set out in detail the serious concerns we have with this assessment but
we consider it to be a deeply flawed assessment with large uplifts in market share
assumed from a wide catchment area, more than modest inflows assumed from
outside this area, incorrect calculations which increase capacity potential and a
low proportion of growth attributed to existing retailers to name but a few. All
these factors if modified would reduce the capacity estimates significantly.

4.9 We consider that it is not a sound evidence base for the IPS and note that Tesco
have not used DTZ’s work in any great detail even through they have worked in
conjunction with them and had the opportunity to incorporate the findings of
their assessment (including the revisions) in their application submission.


Knowsley MBC Town Centre & Shopping Study 2002 by Chesterton

4.11 The study considers that a key priority for the town centre is to secure a high
quality foodstore. The study notes the extant consent for a foodstore but notes
that a larger format store will be required, although this should be in the region of
8-9,000 sq m gross. (NB the application proposals are for a foodstore building
over 22,000 sq m with the area devoted to the foodstore of some 14,000 sq m
gross). Based on constant market shares the need for new comparison goods
floorspace within Kirkby town centre is only some 2,287 sq m gross (1,399 sq m
net) by 2011, doubling market shares provides a need for 18,365 sq m gross
(12,243 sq m net) by 2011, rising to 21,000 sq m gross by 2016. The application
proposals seek some 33,000 sq m net by 2012 which is over 20,000 sq m net
higher than the higher estimates set out by Chesterton. Whilst sales densities
would be different and there is a year difference in the estimates the application
proposals still represent a substantial increase on what was anticipated by the
retail study which supports the currently adopted UDP.

Applicant’s Retail Assessment (Document 8.1) produced by DPP,
November 2007, Addendum submitted in April 2008 and 2nd Addendum
submitted in May 2008.
Base Assumptions

4.13 The assessment adopts a base year of 2007 with a design year of 2012 which
equates to one full year of trading after opening. The assessment is in a 2003
price base. There will be more up-to-date figures now available and the price
base could be updated and we question why more up-to-date figures have not
been used by the applicant.


Shopper Household Interview Survey
4.18 A household interview shopper survey was commissioned by Tesco in November
2006 covering the 11 zones of the catchment area. The sample size was 1,510
across a population of 1,198,276 which is a low representation of 0.1% of the
population. We would anticipate more in the region of 0.5% to improve
statistical reliability
. The questionnaire covered some 54 questions including in a
number of questions on shopping preferences that would normally be expected
to be covered.

4.19 It is, therefore, surprising that this survey data has not been used in any detail by
the applicant in their assessment of need or if it has not in a transparent way
. It
would normally be expected that if such a survey had been carried out that it
would be used in some detail in the calculations of retail need. Whilst not the
only factor to consider in assessing shopping patterns we are concerned at the
lack of transparency over the use of this data. We consider that Knowsley BC
should question why this data has not been used in a transparent way and seek
some more detailed work on how it has been used to inform their market share
and claw back assumptions. The approach to date is overly simplistic.

4.20 The results of the survey do show trade leaking from the Kirkby area but do not
appear to be quite as substantial as the applicant suggests
. We would expect that
the results of such a survey would have been used in much greater detail.
Therefore, a full assessment could be made of existing trading patterns, what the
actual market share of the centre is, what elevation in market share is required to
support the floorspace proposed and most importantly whether that was realistic
and supportable. To date the applicants’ assessment does not allow that
judgement to be made as it is not sufficiently robust and therefore can not be
adequately relied upon to show that a quantitative need has been demonstrated.


4.29 The additional floorspace proposed is some 14,843 sq m gross (11,130 sq m net0
and based on the applicants’ assessment this at a turnover of £4,000 per sq m
would give rise to an additional £44.5m of turnover of which not all of this can
be directly discounted as pure replacement. Even if this related to only half of
the turnover then there is still some £22m which has not be accounted for in the
assessment of need and impact.

4.30 Using the applicants’ assessment of the £164m comparison goods turnover, only
£3.16 m is as result of new floorspace in the town centre. It is notable that a
significantly greater amount (£54m) will be generated by non-food sales in the
foodstore, which has a greater amount of its sales area devoted to such goods
than the sale of food. The turnover in non food goods from the proposed Tesco
store is greater than the estimated comparison goods turnover of the Kirkby
town centre as a whole in 2012 which is some £47m.


Assessment of Quantitative Need
4.39 The need for the convenience goods has not be adequately justified or supported
by robust information (results of the household survey are alluded to but not
used in a transparent way). DTZ struggled to find capacity for 1,222 sq m net
and DPP have not adequately explained how they can now find capacity for
4,767 sq m net other than widening the trade draw without taking on board the
draw of other centres and commitments.

4.45 This simplistic approach is not sufficient to demonstrate a need for the
proposals. This approach does not illustrate what the existing market share is
and what increase is needed to support this additional floorspace. This approach
simply assumes that all the expenditure is available to this proposal and only then
the rest goes to commitments and other centres. Based on the figures provided
by the applicant based on average turnovers the PCA will need to have a market
share of some 33% to support the existing floorspace. We estimate that to
support the application proposals this will have to increase to over 50% which is
significant jump in the market share of one centre. The implications of this
market share and resultant reduction in other centres has not been adequately
assessed, there is only a finite amount of expenditure available and how this is
currently shared and will be shared has not been assessed in any detail to allay
concerns about the need assessment.

4.46 DTZ’s report at least noted from the household survey the low existing market
shares of Kirkby (some 20% each for convenience and comparison goods) and
therefore there would have to be a significant clawback in expenditure to achieve
the market shares required to provide for the available expenditure and capacity
for the floorspace proposed. DPP’s only comment is that not all the spend will
come from the PCA (suggesting a much wider draw than required for Kirkby in
any event) and that a substantial amount will still be available for outflow. This
approach fails to consider the existing position in the necessary detail and for an
examination of the changes to market shares and subsequent effect on other
centres to be adequately assessed. The applicant has not sufficiently
demonstrated a need for the retail floorspace proposed.


4.48 Given that the household survey shows that from this zone there are few trips
into Kirkby for non-food shopping this is an extensive clawback assumption and
one (along with others) that we would seriously question. There are also
implications for the issue of scale as such a clawback is evidence that the level of
floorspace proposed is far greater than appropriate for the scale of the centre
existing or expanded.


4.52 As DPP note in their impact assessment tables this will represent an uplift of
trade for the centre of 200% for convenience goods and over 400% for
comparison goods on the current position. This is clearly a very significant
increase in turnover and one issue of scale as well as this level of increase is
clearly not consistent with current and emerging planning policy. To put the
anticipated turnover in context Liverpool’s turnover on comparison goods at
2012 (without Liverpool One) is estimated to be £466m, Southport £306m, St
Helens £274m, Wigan £246m. Prescott is £78m and Huyton £83m. Clearly
Kirkby would become of a completely different scale than envisaged by regional
and adopted local planning guidance.

4.53 There is no doubt a need for quality retail floorspace to regenerate Kirkby town
centre and there appears to be a gap where a supermarket of a reasonable size
could be provided.

4.54 The Tesco application proposals seek to provide a store to fill the qualitative gap
for a quality foodstore to compete with the growth of out-of-centre stores in the
locality (Tesco stores included) but the dominant use of this store is actually for
comparison goods - 53% of the sales area and the qualitative need for this
amount of comparison floorspace has to be questioned. Again with the
comparison goods it is an issue of the scale of the floorspace that the application
will provide and its relationship with policy. The qualitative need for new
comparison goods floorspace is apparent but not one to justify the scale of the
application proposals.

4.55 In summary, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated a need (both
quantitative and qualitative) for the retail floorspace proposed. There is likely to
be a need for additional convenience goods floorspace to support a major new
foodstore but we would question the amount of non food floorspace currently
proposed with the store.

4.56 There are a number of assumptions and overall approach that we are concerned
about and consider that there are sufficient grounds to object as the applicant has
not adequately demonstrated a need for the retail floorspace proposed.


Quote:
5 The Sequential Approach

5.11 As section 2 of this report illustrates there is a significant element of retail
floorspace proposed to the south of Kirkby town centre in a number of units.
Overall we consider that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated sufficient
flexibility in their approach to the scale of retail required and why it could not be
disaggregated from the stadium proposals.
The application is supported by
statements whereby it is outlined that the stadium will cost £130m to build and
that there is a £52m shortfall in funding which the uplift in land values as a result
of the retail development will facilitate. The statement does not include a
financial appraisal of this position to evaluate what certain critical mass of retail is
required to provide this funding. To date the applicant has failed to provide
compelling material considerations to outweigh the deficiencies of the application
in policy terms namely need, scale, the sequential approach and impact.


5.12 The reasons for not being flexible in the approach to the application are not
sufficiently detailed in terms of viability and why this quantum of retail is needed
to cross fund the stadium and why the flexibility of approach could not be
adopted and a smaller amount of ‘policy compliant’ retail floorspace could be
proposed. Indeed the applicant now controls much of the town centre through
recent acquisitions and therefore has not adequately demonstrated why a more
comprehensive scheme could not been developed within the existing town centre
in accordance with policy guidance.

5.13 Furthermore, the sequential assessment and the assumptions put forward behind
not disaggregating the proposal are very much led by the requirement for the
foodstore and how this should not be disaggregated. There is a paucity of
information concerning the considerable amount of comparison goods
floorspace that is proposed in addition to and why this can not be located on
more sequentially preferable sites has not adequately addressed by the assessment
to date. We do not consider at this stage that the applicant has adequately
satisfied the tests of PSS6 and the sequential approach to site selection.


Quote:
6. Assessment of Retail Impact
6.9 We are concerned at the wide spread of the impact and the large draw from
centres outside the 15 minute catchment area. There are notable impact on
Wigan, Widnes, Southport and Bootle which are all over 10%. There is also
estimated to be high an impact on Kirkby town centre is you look past the
increase apportioned by the proposals which are in an edge of centre location.

6.12 We consider that the impact assessment has not adequately demonstrated the
true impact of the proposals and could be much greater in reality. The trade
draw from Liverpool is high and may have implications for traders and proposals
on the periphery of the town centre although the overall impact figure is not one
which could be argued as having a material impact of such a centre.

6.14 The recent reduction in floorspace has been brought about by the removal of the
mezzanines proposed in the new town centre floorspace and also a reduction in
that proposed to the south of the town centre. The retail footprint and heights
of the units remain as before. We consider that should Knowsley Council be
minded to approve this application that strict and enforceable conditions and
legal agreements should be applied to control the level of floorspace in the future.
The buildings will be able to easily accommodate mezzanines in the future
(possibly in the short term) and whilst planning applications will be required for
internal alterations greater than 200 sq m (unless otherwise conditioned that all
mezzanines need applications) the concern is that incremental increases could
lead to a larger overall impact in the near future if the necessary control is not in
place.

6.18 On a technical point the application has incorrectly estimated the convenience
goods impact on Prescot town centre as only 0.3%. In fact the calculations are
incorrect and it should read 10.7%. This is a high impact and one which is likely
to be greater as only a small amount of trade has been diverted from the centre,
also this is likely to be higher as the turnover figures include the Tesco store
which is actually edge of centre.


7. Conclusions
7.3 In terms of the foodstore the assessment has not considered the implications and
trade draw of commitments outside the Primary Catchment Area that will draw
from the shared catchment area. Whilst there is a need for a new foodstore
within Kirkby town centre in both quantitative and qualitative terms, the size of
the foodstore proposed (including the extensive non-food floorspace proposed
within it) has not been justified in terms of the need assessment.

7.4 The assessment has not used the findings of the household shopper survey in any
detail. The results of the survey do show trade leaking from the Kirkby area but
do not appear to be quite as substantial as the applicant suggests. We would
expect that the results of such a survey would have been used in much greater
detail. The applicants’ assessment is overly simplistic and can not be considered
to be robust in demonstrating a need for the application proposals.

7.8 The assessment is overly simplistic and the approach fails to take into account a
number of factors and in particular the actual and proposed shopping patterns.

7.9 The applicant has failed to sufficiently demonstrate a qualitative need for the
comparison goods retail floorspace proposed in light of the scale of the
proposals.

7.10 There are a number of assumptions that we are concerned about and consider
that there are sufficient grounds to object to the assessment of need.

Scale
7.11 Clearly the application is not compliant with any of the provisions of regional
policy in terms of the scale of retail floorspace proposed. The non-food sales
area of the ‘town centre’ would increase by at least 27,500 sq m net (sales). In
addition the turnover increase in convenience goods is 200% and for comparison
goods this would be 350%. The increase in comparison goods floorspace is
paramount here as it could draw from a much wider area than is intended for the
centre as guided in regional policy with implications for Liverpool and its centres.

7.12 This is clearly a very significant increase in turnover and one issue of scale as well
as this level of increase is clearly not consistent with current and emerging
planning policy. To put the anticipated turnover in context Liverpool’s turnover
on comparison goods at 2012 (without Liverpool One) is estimated to be £466m,
Southport £306m, St Helens £27m, Wigan £246m and perhaps more comparable
centres of Prescott £78m and Huyton £83m. Clearly Kirkby would become of a
completely different scale than envisaged by regional and adopted local planning
guidance as its turnover is estimated to increase to £197m by 2012.

7.13 There is a need expressed in local plan documents for a new foodstore of some
9,000 sq m gross although the latest statement by Knowsley can only calculate a
requirement for 1,222 sq m net. Nevertheless there is an apparent need for a new
major convenience store in Kirkby town centre. However, the foodstore
proposed of some 14,000 sq m (10,219 sq m sales) provides for a significant
amount of non-food retailing and mall type units and we suggest that this is not
of a scale appropriate
for a on the edge of a centre of this nature even in the light
of competition from out-of-centre stores.

7.14 The issue of scale and non-compliance with regional policy is a clear reason for
objecting to the proposals
, there has not been sufficient reasons or material
considerations provided to demonstrate why these proposals should be approved
contrary to the regional position.

Sequential Approach
7.15 The majority of the retail floorspace proposed is in an edge-of-centre location.
Overall we consider that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated sufficient
flexibility in their approach to the scale of retail required and why it could not be
disaggregated from the stadium proposals. They have not provided sufficient
comfort to the determining authority of the availability, suitability and viability of
many of the sites. Equally the reasons for not being flexible in the approach to
the application are not completely clear or sufficiently detailed in terms of
viability and why a lower quantum of retail could not cross fund the stadium. We
note that there are other examples of stadium being crossed fund by adjacent
retail developments (Reading, Swansea, Coventry, Cardiff etc) but these had a
much lower of level of retail floorspace constructed. There are also other
examples of large modern stadium being recently built without the requirement
to provide retail floorspace adjacent to cross fund them.

7.17 We do not consider at this stage that the applicant has adequately satisfied the
tests of PSS6 and the sequential approach to site selection.

Impact

7.20 The assessment considers that 70% of the non-food turnover will be drawn from
areas around Kirkby, Prescot, Huyton and areas to the north and east of
Liverpool including Croxteth, West Derby, Stockbridge Village, Norris Green
and Fazakerley. The remaining 30% is to be drawn from residents in Liverpool
and areas further afield such as St Helens, Southport, Bootle, Skelmersdale and
Widnes.

7.21 With the introduction of Liverpool One the turnover of Liverpool City Centre is
estimated to grow by some £255m which is comparable to the floorspace
proposed with this application. Some £33m of the estimated turnover of the
application proposals is estimated to be drawn from Liverpool City Centre. This
is the largest diversion from any centre assessed. There is concern that this will
have implications for the peripheral areas of the City Centre.

7.22 Furthermore, there is concern over the estimates of trade draw as they could be
higher as the assessment draws from a wide area but high amounts from areas
outside its defined primary catchment area in contrast to the 70:30 split suggested
above. The trade draw is more likely to be from a confined area as questionable
whether trade will be drawn from such a wide area on the level proposed by the
applicant, for example, almost £22m of the turnover will be drawn from outside
the entire study area (Wigan and Warrington) which is questionable.


also much more in there worth reading, it's a long document but worthy of everyone taking a look at it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:10 am
Posts: 31
Location: Birkenhead
Reference Section 4.18, 4.19 and 4.20 - hinting at a dodgy questionnaire?
(Couldn't possibly be worse than the one on the OS for a brief period a month or so ago. :roll: )
Hope the proponents of Kirkby don't notice this - in defence of the scheme, they'll accuse KEIOC of organising it! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:09 pm
Posts: 30
Location: West Lancs
Report in the Liverpool Daily Post this morning stating LCC are not expected to object to Kirkby project. :cry:

Can this possibly be true. :evil: :evil: :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:13 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Sydney
The Daily Post and apparently Radio Merseyside have today reported that Liverpool City Councillors will not now be asking its planning committee to object to the Kirkby project. If they dont object then the chances of the scheme being called in by Government will be considerably reduced.
Please someone tell me this is only paper talk and isn't true. Bradley said in the echo only a few days ago that the LCC would definately be objecting to Kirkby even with the 30% reduction in floor space.....what the fuck is going on?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:46 pm
Posts: 2
I absolutely cant believe theyre thinking about not objecting, its disgusting.

I hate LCC, i hate u Bill and you too Keith

:'(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 pm
Posts: 1759
Bit of calm here for a moment before any panic buttons get pushed too hard - the Council haven't yet met and won't do un til Wednesday, previously both Bradley and Joe Anderson have indicated the Council will be objecting, that article in the Post/Echo today simply cherrypicked a few quotes out of the report and failed to pick up what was in the Annexes which laid out what the Council would object to, where this has arisen is the final page of a poorly written planning officer's report on the project.

What this looks like is that LCC aren't going full bore but appear to support the regeneration but only with a reduction in retail, which Tesco claimed have reached the breaking point, before objecting - this way LCC can say they tried to be supportive before objecting and looks less of a "Bullying" big brother council than if they steamrollered the project from the get-go.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:27 pm
Posts: 126
All on main site.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:49 pm
Posts: 28
When I heard that this morning, I felt like somebody had punched me in the stomach.

Hope it's true that we shouldn't be panicking yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LCC independent consultants Kirkby verdict
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 pm
Posts: 1759
we'll see for sure on Wednesday as to what their exact objection reads like, hopefully it'll be worded a lot better than the officer's report


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group