Stadium Locational Assessment Report

8/14/2019 Stadium Locational Assessment Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stadium-locational-assessment-report 1/35

Stadium Locational Report

On behalf of

Everton Football Club

November 2007

Savills (L&P) Ltd

12 Windsor PlaceCardiffCF10 3BY

(029) 20 368920(029) 20 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



1

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Everton Football Club Requirements

3.0 Liverpool Football Club Assessment

4.0 Liaison with Liverpool City Council

5.0 Overview of Sites

6.0 Conclusions

Appendix 1 – Alternative Site Location Plans

Appendix 2 – ‘Bestway’ Overlay



2

1. INTRODUCTION

This report has been produced on behalf of Everton Football Club in connection with

the proposed new stadium at Kirkby, in Knowsley Metropolitan Borough. This report

sets out the background to Everton Football Club’s (EFC) consideration of various sites,

which has also included development of their existing stadium at Goodison Park

In setting the scene for this report, it is important to highlight a number of key issues

which are relevant:

1. Everton Football Club identified that the existing Goodison Park stadium was not

suitable for future requirements some ten years ago and the operational

deficiencies, redevelopment constraints and private implications have continued

to reinforce this conclusion. (see Section 2.0)

2. Concurrent with Everton Football Club’s need to identify an alternative location,

has also been the parallel exercise undertaken by Liverpool Football Club (LFC).

LFC did not consider that their existing stadium at Anfield (close to Goodison

Park) was capable of providing the capacity and quality of accommodation to

allow them to remain competitive. LFC have concluded, and this has been

accepted by Liverpool City Council and the Government Office for the North

West, that the proposal at Stanley Park represented the only location amongst all

the sites considered in the City which satisfied their needs. These conclusions

have been reiterated with further update work undertaken during Summer 2007

by LFC. (see section 3.0)

3. Everton Football Club have been approached by a number of developers and

landowners in recent years, particularly following the withdrawal from the

proposed re-location to King’s Dock in 2003. EFC have also considered a

number of the same sites as assessed and discounted by Liverpool Football Club

(see point 2 above) since Spring 2006 when the proposed Kirkby opportunity was

presented to them. This stimulated further dialogue with the City Council, prior to

EFC signing an exclusivity agreement on Kirkby in late August 2006. No

appropriate alternatives were identified by the City Council during this period.



3

EFC’s ballot of supporters in Summer 2007 further stimulated comments

particularly from Liverpool City Council, regarding potential alternative locations.

It is clear that the consideration of sites has been a major area of analysis in recent

years in connection with both EFC and LFC.

This report provides an overview in section 2 of some of the current deficencies with

Goodison Park, and by comparison sets out a list of requirements that EFC consider to

be essential to allow the Club to remain competitive at the highest level of the Premier

League and in European Competitions.

In section 3 we briefly consider the locational analysis undertaken by Liverpool Football

Club, given the fact this analysis has been accepted by the key decision making

authorities. Section 4 provides an overview of the discussions with Liverpool City

Council, with particular reference to sites identified in 2007. Section 5 provides anoverview of a number of other sites suggested and our conclusions are set out in

section 6. The appendices referred to in the text are contained at the end of the report.

This report should be read in conjunction with the Alternative Sites Assessment

produced by DPP (Document 8.3) which analyses a large number of alternative sites in

order to satisfy the sequential tests set out in PPS 6. This report aims to complement

the Alternative Sites Assessment by concentrating on the sites that have been put

forward as alternatives to retain Everton within the Liverpool City Council administrative

boundaries.



4

2. EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB REQUIREMENTS

This section highlights a number of the deficiencies in connection with the current EFC

stadium, Goodison Park, in terms of operational compromises, the failure to maximise

potential revenue streams and also, very importantly, the difficulties in the future of

providing the potential for further expansion. This section also highlights the list of

criteria which the Club believe they need to satisfy with any new stadium proposal.

2.1 Goodison Park

Goodison Park has been the home to Everton Football Club since their move from

Anfield in 1892. Goodison Park was the first major football stadium built in England.

The ground was subject to a series of improvements over the first twenty years

including a new Bullens Road stand, a double-decker Park End stand and a large main

stand on Goodison Road. The latter survived until 1971.

Another double-decker stand was constructed in 1926, replacing the original Bullens

Road stand. The Gwladys Street stand was completed in 1938. At its peak the stadium

housed over 78,000 spectators.

The stadium was held in such high regard that it held five games in the 1966 World

Cup, which was second only to Wembley in the number of World Cup games staged

that year.

The double-decker main stand on Goodison Road was demolished in 1971 to make

way for the three-tiered Main road stand which is in place today.

The Safety of Sports Grounds Acts came in effect in 1977 which had the effect of

reducing the capacity of the stadium from 56,000 to 35,000. Everton upgraded outdated

entrances and exits in order to recover some of the capacity. In 1986 the capacity was

53,419, of which 24,419 were seated.



5

The Taylor report resulted in the need to convert the stadium to an all-seater stadium in

time for the 1994/1995 season. The Park End Terrace was the only area that was not

made all-seater following the Taylor Report, but this was delayed due to the intention to

re-develop it. The current Park End stand was completed in September 1994.

Following the completion of the Park End stand, Everton’s capacity was 40,100, which

was the largest top flight club ground in England at that time. Since then the capacity

has been overtaken by a number of Premiership Club’s including Manchester United,

Liverpool, Arsenal, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Manchester City and Sunderland.

Whilst the stadium was once amongst the best in the Country, the age of the stands

and the constraints of the area around the stadium have meant that the stadium has

become outdated and has been overtaken by a number of grounds which have been

the subject of redevelopment and relocation in the last two decades.

The Chief Executive of the football club has identified that the following operational

deficiencies of the ground;

o 10% of the Stadium seating has an obstructed view if the goal area;

o Approximately 12,000 of the 40,000 seats (30%) have an obstructed view of

the playing area.

o Poor Car Parking facilities within the vicinity of the stadium;

o There is no lateral movement within the stadium;

o Three sides of the stadium are on the public highway which equates to poor

access and movement around the stadium;

o Lack of corporate facilities within all stands, and views of designated areas in

the Main Stand;



6

o Lack of Executive Boxes and facilities, each corporate entertainment area is

served by separate back of house facilities due to the piecemeal way in

which it has been developed, which is inefficient;

o Poor press facilities;

o Poor facilities for team and coaching staff (Dressing rooms, Tunnel, Doping

room, Interview areas, Players Lounge);

o Poor facilities for briefing/staff area for match day Stewards;

o No remote ticket collection point, the ticket collection point is too close to the

Visiting Supporters collection point, on night matches this requires an added

police presence;

o Small Concourse area, poor ground bar areas, poor toilet facilities;

o The stadium structure needs constant maintenance, painting and roof repair

work required annually;

o Poor facilities for the disabled;

o Poor TV / Press facilities, (Gantry, TV Commentary area, Press box, Sky

Box, Interview areas, No Press Mixed Zone Area, Camera Positions);

o Lack of office space for the Administration Staff, staff detached from each

other in different areas within the stadium and within the vicinity.

o Dugout area is small, with lack of space surrounding for overflow of staff,

medical staff, press and players

o Poor Entertainment facilities



7

In addition to the above, a separate study has been undertaken by KSS Design

(submitted as an appendices to Document 13 of the planning submission – ‘Proposed

Stadium for EFC’) which has looked in-depth at the potential for redeveloping the

Goodison Park ground either wholesale or in phases.

In order to meet the latest Green Guide standards and to work within the physical

constraints of the site, the study has shown that a redevelopment would only result in a

final capacity of approximately 35,000 seats, a reduction in capacity of approximately

5,000 seats compared with the existing situation.

A phased redevelopment; which would result in the loss of up to 25% of the revenue

over the four seasons that it would take to develop; to realise a net reduction in the

overall capacity would clearly not be viable. In any event, a redeveloped stadium would

not meet the requirements of the club considered necessary in order to compete at the

top flight of English football or in European competitions. It would not offer anyopportunity for future expansion and would result in a compromised design due to the

external constraints on the site boundaries. This is discussed further below in the site

assessments.

2.2 EFC Requirements

The importance of high capacity, good quality stadia for clubs to remain competitive at

the highest levels is demonstrated by the significant investment undertaken by a

number of EFC’s competitors, such as Arsenal F.C., Manchester City F.C., NewcastleUnited F.C and potentially Liverpool United F.C. who are all seeking, or have secured,

stadia in excess of 50,000 capacity, with a range of facilities and services which

supporters increasingly expect.

EFC require a new modern stadium with seating and facilities designed to meet the

latest Green Guide recommendations; an overall image commensurate the Club’s

standing and; capable of attracting the best players in the game. With regard to

stadium specifics, EFC’s preferred solution incorporates the following:-



8

• 50,000 seats, total capacity – capable of being expanded at a later date up to

60,000.

• 2,000-3,000 hospitality executive boxed seats.

• 60 or more hospitality boxes (8-10 person).

• Top quality facilities for players and team staff.

• Unimpeded views to all seating positions.

• Compliance with the latest ADM/DDA regulations.

• Potential to comply with Champions League requirements.

• Comprehensive match day travel plan.

• Individual iconography particular to EFC.

Crucially, in order to deliver a modern stadium which meets these requirements then

there is the critical issue of funding. Sports stadia represent substantial capital

investment, at a time when there are increasing demands that expenditure is

maintained on securing the best players available to remain competitive. It is essential,

therefore, that funding becomes a key part of any site selection process as the viability

will dictate delivery.



9

3. LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB ASSESSMENT

Uniquely, during the last 5-10 years Everton Football Club and Liverpool Football Club

have reviewed their future stadia requirements, both having recognised their existing

Goodison Park and Anfield locations could no longer provide the quality and income

needed to compete at the highest levels of football. In this section we provide a brief

overview of the process which LFC have undertaken.

In Summer 2000 LFC announced their aspiration to secure a new larger stadium,

initially with a capacity of 70,000 spectators. Following a detailed financial review of

capacity options and viability it was subsequently decided to persue a stadium of

60,000 capacity.

LFC explored options for the redevelopment and expansion of its existing ground at

Anfield and concluded, following dialogue with Liverpool City Council, that this optionwould not meet their longer/term requirements and thus, discussion took place with the

City Council and other parties in connection with identifying an alternative location.

Stanley Park was identified by the LFC consultant team, but given the substantial

physical and planning policy objections in proposing a major stadium on a historic park

there was clearly a requirement to consider other options to see if a more deliverable

solution/alternative site could be provided.

It is understood that the LFC process initially identified a dozen or more sites within the

City Council boundaries and it appears that the result of an assessment exercise

looking at availability, suitability, accessibility, viability and deliverability highlighted two

preferred options. These options were Stanley Park and Central Docks.

The Central Docks site, whist being capable of accommodating a major sports stadium,

was also the subject of major redevelopment and regeneration proposals for a large

mixed used scheme from which the City Council and a developer would generate

substantial benefits.

Whilst Stanley Park would not appear to be an obvious solution, given the physical and



10

policy difficulties, it is clear that the regeneration potential of the scheme within this part

of Liverpool was considered to be a major benefit which would outweigh the policy

concerns.

LFC submitted a planning application in 2003. When considered at planning committee

in July 2004, the Director of Planning at Liverpool City Council concluded that the

proposal at Stanley Park represented the only opportunity which would meet LFC’s

needs, and that any harm to the historic park and other policy considerations would be

out-weighed by the overall benefits of LFC’s investment and long-term commitment to

this area.

Following the resolution to grant planning permission, the proposal was referred to the

Government Office for the North West, given the scale and major departure from policy

which it represented. The GONW assessed the application considerations, included

the consideration of other sites, and decided in Autumn 2004 not to intervene in theplanning process, such that a decision could be issued by the City Council.

Given the complexity of such a major application, there was a subsequent 18 month

period when LFC were negotiating and finalising the legal agreements which would

contain the various mitigation and community benefits. In Spring 2006, when the

discussions had been concluded on the legal agreements, the director of planning at

Liverpool City Council decided to report the application back to planning committee,

given the length of time which had occurred since the previous resolution, in order to

provide an update on any changes in planning policy and other material considerations.

In Spring 2006 the City Council did not consider there was any further need for LFC to

review any additional sites, or indeed consider a re-appraisal of previous sites, as

clearly there were not considered to be any alternatives available. Therefore, in Spring

2006 planning permission was finally issued for the development of a stadium for LFC

in Stanley Park.

Given the close scrutiny of the Stanley Park proposal over the 3-4 year period by the

City Council; then it was clear there were no other locations better suited to meet the

needs of LFC as a leading Premier League Football Club.



11

In 2007 there was a change of ownership in LFC and as a result, a review of how

Stanley Park can best meet their needs for the future has been undertaken. This has

resulted in a major design review in order to ensure that the stadium is capable of

future expansion, and also that the range of facilities available are considered to meet

the needs of their supporters and visitors. A revised planning application has been

submitted to Liverpool City Council in July 2007, and accompanying this is an updated

report which again highlights the fact that there are no alternative locations within the

City Council area (nor indeed the adjoining authorities at Sefton and Knowsley).

LFC’s consultants were specifically asked to consider the ‘Bestway’ site at Scotland

Road, along with the Edge Lane Retail Park in a supplementary report.

Liverpool City Council resolved to approve the application, subject to a legal agreement

on the 6th

November 2007. The Govt Office are currently considering whether it should

exercise its’ powers to ‘Call-in’ the application.

In resolving to grant permission for the scheme, Liverpool City Council have accepted

the fact there are no other alternatives capable of meeting the needs of a Premier

League Club.

The above overview of LFC’s planning process during the last 6-7 years has

demonstrated substantial dialogue between them and Liverpool City Council in

considering whether any other sites would be more appropriate than Stanley Park. The

City Council’s conclusions that no alternatives exist, and the endorsement by the

Government Office for the North West not to intervene in the process provides a very

clear background with which to consider the proposal by Everton Football Club.

An overview of the sites considered by LFC is reproduced and updated in full within the

Alternative Sites Assessment produced by DPP (Document 8.3).



12

4. LIAISON WITH LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL

The recognition that Everton Football Club need to relocate to a new site in order to

obtain a stadium to meet their requirements has been accepted by all of the key

organisations. This was demonstrated in 2001 when Everton Football Club was

selected as part of a consortium to develop a major mixed use scheme at Kings Dock in

Liverpool. This selection was made by a number of public sector organisations

including Liverpool Vision, Liverpool City Council, the North West Development Agency

and English Partnerships. As already mentioned, the preferred developer and the public

sector were unable to progress these proposals and discussions on a stadium proposal

at Kings Dock ended in 2003.

EFC’s requirement for a new stadium did not change, but clearly the ability to fund the

capital investment, and secure appropriate enabling development was further

reinforced as a necessity. Informal discussions continued with the City Council during2004 and 2005 on a range of club-related matters, which also included the reiteration of

a new stadium for EFC. It is perhaps no surprise that Liverpool City Council were not

able to suggest and promote any potential locations for EFC, as this was the period

during which Liverpool Football Club were undertaking a detailed analysis of sites and

were agreeing with the City Council that there were no satisfactory options available,

except Stanley Park.

In March 2006 when Everton Football Club were approached by Tesco and Knowsley

Council in connection with the Kirkby opportunity, it was clear to the Club that a key

consideration on whether they should pursue this new opportunity, would be whether

any other locations were available within Liverpool City Council. The Club fully

recognised that if they were to pursue the Kirkby proposal then the relocation from

within the administrative area of Liverpool, then this would create a degree of

disappointment within the City Council if Everton’s new home was to be in an adjacent

authority, being within the greater Liverpool area.

Everton Football Club had been advised by Hepher Dixon Planning Consultants (now

part of Savills) since the Kings Dock process, and had been engaged in formal

discussions with the City over a number of years. Hepher Dixon were instructed by the



13

Club to liaise with the City Council to identify whether there were any other

opportunities that could meet the Club’s needs. At this time, it was ‘public knowledge’

that the Kirkby opportunity had been put forward.

The City Council and Liverpool Land Development Corporation held discussions with

Hepher Dixon to see whether there were any options worth pursuing. The result of this

process, which also involved the public sector bodies seeking external specialist

advice, resulted in two sites being identified, namely at the Liver Industrial Estate in

Aintree and the Ansa site adjacent to the New Mersey Retail Park in Speke.

Following dialogue on these sites, Liverpool City Council concluded that the Liver

Industrial Estate had ‘major servicing, access and residential problems’, not

withstanding any issues associated with obtaining enabling development. The Ansa site

was considered to be physically well located, but the level of enabling retail

development was considered to be relatively limited, without prejudicing other Councilpolicies. Furthermore, the site had recently been purchased, and therefore any viability

exercise would need to deal with the land acquisition also.

It was clear, therefore, by August 2006 that there would not appear to be any location

identified by the City Council, and its public sector partners, on any regeneration sites

or elsewhere that would satisfy the Club’s needs. As a result of this dialogue, which had

been considering sites over a five month period, then Everton Football Club concluded

that, in the absence of any alternatives within the City Council area, it could move

forward to sign an Exclusivity Agreement with Tesco and Knowsley Council in order to

investigate the Kirkby opportunity further.

No further dialogue was held with the City Council in connection with any other sites,

until July 2007, following the Club’s announcement of the forthcoming ballot of

supporters in connection with the proposed move to Kirkby. At this stage, the City

Council had indicated that a new opportunity had arisen on a site owned by Bestway

(also known as ‘The Loop’ and ‘The Tunnel Trumpet’). The two other sites which were

referred to in the press at the time were the Liver Industrial Estate (previously

dismissed by the City Council a year earlier) and the depot site on Long Lane. During

Summer 2007, and coinciding with the Club’s ballot, the City Council indicated their



14

support for the Bestway-led scheme.

Savills advised Everton Football Club that the Bestway proposal appeared to be

undeliverable as:

• there were concerns regarding the availability of sufficient land to accommodate

a stadium and associated enabling development;

• that the main site was unsuitable for a 50-60,000 capacity stadium;

• that accessibility would be very difficult and expensive to resolve and;

• the resultant high infrastructure and stadium capita cost would mean that the

proposal could not be viable.

These views were relayed to Bestway and the City Council in discussions and this

remains our conclusion. A more detailed analysis of the Bestway site is contained in

Section 5.

Following the Club’s ballot and the announcement in late August 2007 that the Club’s

Board of Directors had a mandate to continue negotiations with Tesco and Knowsley

Borough Council, the City Council have reiterated their view that 3 opportunities remain

available for Everton Football Club to consider within the City, namely the Bestway site,

a redevelopment and expansion of the Edge Lane Retail Park and also the

redevelopment of Goodison Park. To date, no information has been presented to the

Club with regards to any masterplan, appraisal or programme to justify the comments

about the ‘deliverability’ of these.

Everton Football Club are sympathetic to the City Council’s concern about the loss of

the Club from within the administrative area. Everton FC have been struggling with the

deficiencies of the existing Goodison Park stadium for some ten years, during which

attempts to find a satisfactory alternative location have been fruitless. Notwithstanding

these difficulties, the Club have remained competitive and have achieved recent high

finishes in the Premier League and entry to European competitions. However, during

this period a number of the Club’s competitors have expanded or relocated to new sites

in order to be competitive going forward. This increasingly places Everton Football Club

at a disadvantage, which will only increase as the failure to find new stadium



15

accommodation continues. Indeed, the City Council are very sympathetic to the needs

of the Premier League, as evidenced by their support for Liverpool Football Club’s

proposals at Stanley Park which have now been under discussion for seven years.

Everton Football Club are a commercial business operating in a fiercely competitive

market, where the ability to attract leading players and deliver results on the field is of

primary importance. The proposed relocation to Kirkby has not been undertaken lightly,

nor without extensive dialogue with the City Council, in order to explain the

circumstances behind the decision making. Indeed, the Club have been very grateful

for the dialogue with Senior Executives at the Council over a number of years on

various stadium-related matters.

In conclusion, the dialogue between the Club and the City Council has not been able to

identify a suitable alternative, and the difficulty in addressing this is fully recognised by

all parties.



16

5. OVERVIEW OF SITES

In this section of the report we consider the sites which have been suggested by the

Council and third parties since the announcement of the fand ballot in the summer of

2007. The Alternative Sites Assessment produced by DPP (Document 8.3) covers in

depth the sites that have been discounted by Liverpool Football Club City and a number

of other potential sites for completeness.

The approach which Savills have adopted in considering sites has been based upon a

number of factors, namely:

• Availability – this relates to landownership and acquisition costs;

• Suitability – is the site of sufficient size and in an appropriate location to

accommodate a major Football Stadium to be developed to a capacity of 50,000,

but capable of expansion at a later date to 60,000 or more;

• Accessibility – the access and movement strategies are critical to ensuring that

the operational aspects of the stadium runs smoothly;

• Viability – the capital expenditure of a new stadium and its required infrastructure

is very expensive, and thus identifying whether there are any opportunities for

enabling development in order to off-set the capital cost is vital;

• Deliverability – this requires an analysis of the planning process, compulsory

purchase, highways works requirements.

Developing a major Sports Stadium is extremely complicated, expensive and highprofile. No club would pursue an opportunity without having considered in detail the

prospects for addressing the above criteria and how to de-risk the project. The danger

of ‘cost overruns’ and ‘delays’ could be catastrophic, therefore, Everton Football Club

have been cautious with regard to which sites they would enter into discussions on, in

full recognition of the dangers which can arise.



17

The three sites which have received particular publicity in recent months, particularly

from the City Council are:

• Bestway

• Goodison Park

• Edge Lane Retail Park

This section deals with each of these sites in turn.

Site Name: Bestway, Scotland Road, Liverpool

Site Size: 4 ha

UDP Status : The site is designated as a ‘Mixed Use Area’ under Policy

E6. The site is considered to be suitable for

Business/Industrial Use.

Ownership Private Ownership – Bestway Cash & Carry

Current Uses: Cash & Carry Business

Planning History There is no planning history relevant to a stadium

development of the scale envisaged.

Site Specific Policy Issues The site abuts the Project Jennifer Site. The implications of

this are discussed below

Site Context The site is surrounded by the slip road linking the A59

(Scotland Road) and the Kingsway Tunnel. The site is

separated from the surrounding land uses by up to 10 lanes

of road in parts. Land to the north is used as an industrial

estate. Land the south is residential. To the west is

residential and open space and to the east is industrial land.

Site Assessment:

Availability

Press releases from the landowners have suggested that the site would be available.



18

However, as discussed below, promoters of the Bestway site have suggested that the site

could be enlarged to oversail the surrounding highways and bridge them to provide adequate

pedestrian access and circulation space. The ownership and availability of the land outside of

the boundaries of the Bestway site, beyond the highways, is not known. However, it is likely to

be in multiple ownership and is currently in active use for commercial, residential and public

open space purposes.

Suitability

The site has been assessed by KSS Design and SDG (Architectural and Transport advisors

on the Kirkby scheme respectively) in terms of its physical suitability to accommodate a

50,000 seater stadium.

SDG are the company responsible for transport, crowd flow and evacuation capacity analysis

for the Emirates Stadium, Croke Park, New Wembley, Lansdowne Road and StamfordBridge.

Their considered view is that the Bestway site could only safely house a stadium of around

30,000-35,000 seats.

Promoters of the Bestway site had contended that the recently constructed, 60,000 seater,

Emirates Stadium for Arsenal FC at Ashburton Grove occupies an 8-acre site. As such their

site should be able to accommodate the Everton proposals.

SDG have confirmed that Ashburton Grove is in fact a 25-acre site with the stadium building

itself taking up some 9-acres with a further 8 acres allocated to crowd circulation and access

routes - with the remainder being given over to mostly residential development. The full and

safe stadium operation therefore occupies 17 acres.

SDG have commented on the suitability of the Bestway site as follows:

"Owing to the onerous requirements regarding emergency vehicle access and the exact

evacuation requirements for major sporting facilities, any stadium design must include large

external circulation areas around the stadium to achieve a safety certificate - the licence to



19

operate.”

"Should the vast majority (i.e. enough land to accommodate a 50,000 capacity building) of the

'loop' site be developed out into a stadium, it could not meet the key criteria to receive its

safety licence and it could not be opened to the public”

The Bestway site promoters revealed a preliminary scheme to the press, reproduced below.

Commenting on the scheme, SDG stated that:

"To make the design revealed today operate in a safe fashion would prove to be prohibitively

expensive for Everton Football Club because of the necessary and perhaps extensive 'air

right' building construction over highways and the need to provide connecting bridges to

adjacent 'place of safety' areas and adequate pedestrian circulation and emergency vehicle

access routes.”

"All of this would have to be funded at great cost without the benefit of any large retail-led

development that would, in the case of Kirkby, enable the development of a stadium with no

operating/licensing risk to the club.”

"Despite the very wide roads that surround the loop site on all sides the local transport links to

the area are not very good - especially when compared to Kirkby given the raft of local

transport improvements that would come forward with the new stadium there.”



20

SDG concluded that the Bestway site is a “complete non-starter for Everton FC unless they

were seeking a site to accommodate 35,000 fans and no more."

KSS Design have carried out an exercise to show the Kirkby proposals overlaid onto the

Bestway site. This is reproduced at Appendix 1. KSS have calculated that the footprint of the

Kirkby building, plus the 20m exterior concourse required for circulation would require a

minimum site area of 5.6 ha, compared with the Bestway site area of 4ha.

In summary, the site is not considered to be physically suitable to accommodate a stadium of

the size required for the Club.

Accessibility

As discussed above, the site is not considered to be suitable accommodate a stadium of thesize required due to lack of the ability to access the site on foot. In order to make the site

accessible, promoters have suggested that pedestrian bridges could be formed over the

surrounding road network. The cost of this option is considered prohibitive as discussed

below.

Viability

As demonstrated above, the restrictive size of the Bestway site means that land for the

enabling development essential to develop a Stadium of this size could not be included within

the site.

The enabling development for the Emirates stadium came largely in the form of new

residential development. However, the land values for residential are not sufficient in

Liverpool for residential development to facilitate a new stadium. Even if sufficient land could

be found outside the boundaries of the Bestway site, development of large scale residential

sites to enable a stadium would jeopardize the HMRI initiatives.

In the Kirkby case, enabling development is necessary in the form of approximately



21

160,000 sq. ft. of food retail and 339,000 sq. ft. of other retail development. The Bestway site

is adjacent to the Project Jennifer proposals for a new district centre in the Great Homer St

area. Project Jennifer has outline planning permission for a 115,000 square feet superstore,

and 80,000 square feet of non-food retail stores. This will provide the enabling development

for a regeneration scheme which is a priority for Liverpool City Council and has been for a

number of years.

Any substantial retail development in the area of the Bestway site in order to enable a

stadium development would seriously undermine Project Jennifer, and therefore would be

extremely unlikely to be supported by the City Council.

Notwithstanding the fact that the site is not of a sufficient size for a stadium to meet the Clubs

needs and certainly cannot accommodate any enabling development; if land could be found

around the site for enabling development, the necessary retail scheme would be contrary to

the regeneration aims of the City Council and contrary to planning policy.

The physical analysis of the site by KSS architects has ruled out the site on the basis of it’s

ability to accommodate a stadium of the footprint of that proposed for Kirkby. The views of

SDG are that the site is not capable of accommodating the infrastructure to serve such a

large stadium.

Promoters of the Bestway site have suggested that the site could be enlarged to oversail the

surrounding highways and bridge them to provide adequate pedestrian access and circulation

space.

On the assumption that a bespoke design could be devised to accommodate the size of

building required, the construction costs of bridging potentially 10 lanes of traffic, at different

levels around the site and; providing a development plateau to accommodate the stadium

itself would prove prohibitively expensive. Notwithstanding the constructions costs, the land

acquisition would only exacerbate the viability problems.

Future expansion opportunity is also considered vital to the long term viability of a relocation

of a football stadium. The Bestway site does not offer any option for future expansion of

capacity.



22

Given the foregoing, development of the Bestway site for a stadium is not a viable option.



23

Deliverability

Delivering the proposals in planning terms would require an acceptance by the Council that

the site could be developed contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan allocation. The

stadium will generate employment and therefore it is likely that an argument could be made in

favour of the principle of the land use. However, developing a stadium of the size required

would require additional land take to provide safe access, which may involve compulsory

purchase.

Additional land would also be required to provide the enabling development which is not

readily available, and as reasoned above, planning permission would be very difficult to

deliver given the impact that this would have on Project Jennifer.

The cost and impracticality associated with the pedestrian bridges would prevent the delivery

of a stadium on this site.

Summary

Whilst the Bestway site may be available, it is not considered to be physically suitable to

accommodate the stadium development required by Everton due to its’ insufficient size.

In addition, the site cannot accommodate the essential enabling retail development for two

reasons. Firstly, the site is not large enough to accommodate any retail development.

Secondly, retail development of the size required to enable a stadium would not be supported

under the planning policies of the City Council and, would jeapardise a priority regeneration

scheme in the form of Project Jennifer.

Adapting the site to accommodate a stadium of the size required, through provding circulation

platforms and bridging the surrounding roads to form escape routes, would prove prohibitively

expensive, and compound the already crippling viability problems.

In conclusion, the site is neither suitable in terms of its physical characteristics or viable. The

site itself is likely to be available, although not currently on the market, however, the

availability of land surrounding the site that would be required to accommodate the circulation



24

space is unknown.

This lack of potential of the Bestway site to accommodate a large stadium development has

been acknowledged by Liverpool City Council in resolving to approve the new stadium for

LFC at Stanley Park. The consultant team for LFC were specifically asked to consider the

Bestway site as part of the alternative site assessment. It has been accepted that it is not

suitable by virtue of the resolution to grant permission for the Stanley Park site given in

November 2007.

Site Name: Goodison Park, Goodison Road, Liverpool

Site Size: 3.5 ha

UDP Status : The site is not subject to a specific allocation. It is located

within a primarily residential area. In such areas, Policy H4

states that planning permission for residential development

will be allowed. Other forms of development orredevelopment may be granted where there is no adverse

impact on residential amenity or the character of the area

and subject to other policies of the UDP

Ownership Private Ownership – Everton Football Club

Current Uses: Football Stadium – 40,158 Capacity

Planning History The site has been used as a sports ground/stadium since

1892. Various applications have been approved for

amendments to the stands and the car parking areas. The

most significant recent application was the approval of a

new stand at the Park End in the early 1990’s to

accommodate 6,000 spectators.

Site Specific Policy Issues The site lies within a HMRI ‘Zone of Opportunity’. Outline

planning permission has recently been granted for 1300

new homes within the same zone.

Site Context The site is bounded by residential uses to the west/north

and a mix of residential, education and commercial uses to

the east. The southern end of the site is used for car

parking and is adjacent to a dual carriageway.



25

Site Assessment:

Availability

The site itself is available as it is within the ownership of the Football Club.

The appraisal of the redevelopment options on site (detailed in full in the Goodison Park

Stadium Redevelopment Report) indicates that the existing site boundary is only capable of

accommodating a redeveloped stadium with a capacity of 35,000, which is over 5,000 less

than the existing stadium and 15,000 less than the preferred option.

The site would need to be significantly enlarged in order to accommodate a 50,000 seater

stadium, which could potentially involve acquiring multiple residential properties, a school,

shops and business’s, in addition to public highways. The site assembly would be likely toprove prohibitive and would be likely to require compulsory purchase, given the large number

of residential properties involved.

Suitability

As detailed in the redevelopment appraisal, the tight constraints of the surrounding area

would limit a redevelopment to only 35,000 seats

If a 50,000 seater stadium could be designed for the site, it would most likely results in

unacceptable visual and amenity impacts due to the proximity of the terraced housing.

An enlarged stadium would result in potential for an additional 10,000 spectators on match

days, with greater impacts on social and environmental issues such as noise and pedestrian

movement through the tight knit surrounding residential streets. This could be contrary to

Policy H4 of the UDP.

The site is of however of insufficient size to accommodate a larger stadium and its related

infrastructure. Enlarging the site is not considered to be feasible and would only compound

problems associated with locating such a large stadium in such proximity to dense residential



26

uses.

Accessibility

The site is not considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate the transport infrastructure

necessary to serve the larger numbers of spectators that would be generated. It is currently

accessible and the planned increase of the Football Parking Management Zone associated

with the LFC Stanley Park proposals would mitigate the impact that increased demand for

parking would have on local residents.

Viability

The Goodison Park Stadium Redevelopment Report that accompanies the application looks

at the viability of redeveloping the site.

A redevelopment would realise a new stadium with a capacity of 5,000 less than the existing

stadium. This would need to be carried out on a phased basis, with no enabling development.

As a result, the club would be required to fund the redevelopment with a reduced revenue

stream (approximately 25% over a minimum of 4 years) without the enabling development

that would be fundamental to funding the new stadium.

The redevelopment option is therefore financially unviable to build and; would be unviable in

the sense that it would result in greatly reduced capacity compared with the current stadium,

resulting in reduced revenue streams in the future.

A redevelopment option would not offer any future expansion opportunities, given the already

constrained nature of the site. This harms any long term viability of the redevelopment option.

Deliverability

The practicalities of delivering a 35,000 seat redevelopment would principally hinge upon the

availability to finance the scheme, given that the land use is established, as are the heights of

the existing structures. Financing the redevelopment is not considered viable given the

reduced revenue throughout the redevelopment phases and the lack of enabling



27

development.

A 50,000 capacity stadium would be far more complex to deliver. As discussed above, the

additional land required would include public highways and compulsory purchase of multiple

ownership residential/commercial properties. It could require finding an alternative site for a

relocated Primary School to serve local needs. The scale of the new structures required are

unlikely to be appropriate given the dense residential nature of the surroundings.

Consequently, it is doubtful that a planning permission could be obtained.

Summary

The redevelopment option has been shown to be unviable for either a development which

could be accommodated on the existing site or; a 50,000 seater stadium which would require

a larger site involving compulsory purchase.

Site Name: Edge lane Retail Park, Edge Lane Liverpool

Site Size: 15.2 ha

UDP Status : The site includes the allocated Edge Lane Retail

Warehousing Park; as such Policy S11 will protect the

function of the Retail Warehouse park through limiting the

size of units in occupation by individual operators. Use

class A3 will also be restricted.

The north east section of the site includes land allocated as

Rathbone Road Recreation Ground (P89) and falls within

the neighbourhood park hierarchy.

The south east section of the site is allocated for mixed use

development (Rathbone Road / Binns Road), and use

classes A1 (Retail Warehousing), C1, and D2 will be

supported.

Ownership Multiple tenures within the retail park, with Liverpool Land

DC coordinating regeneration within the wider area.



28

Current Uses: The site contains a mix of commercial and retail units within

the retail park. A small area of public open space is also

found within the north west of the site.

Planning History Recent notable applications include proposals for the

erection of 7 no. retail units of 5000 sq.ft following the

demolition of the existing Homebase store, the

refurbishment and subdivision of existing retail units along

with associated car parking (Ref 07F/2422).

Site Specific Policy Issues The remainder of the site is designated as a Primarily

Residential Area; Policy H4 requires material consideration

and will permit development for residential and business

use as long as this is in accordance with other relevant

policies.

The site is also incorporated with the Eastern Approaches

Strategic Investment Area of the Edge Lane Corridor.

Site Context The site is bounded to the north by the A5047 Edge Lane,

with a continuation of the retail park, and predominantly

residential property found beyond. The eastern site

boundary is fragmented by the position of housing along

Rathbone Road, continuing beyond. To the south lies rail

infrastructure, with Wavertree Technology Park to the south

and west.

Site Assessment:

Availability

It should be noted at this point that no specific site has been identified by Liverpool City

Council or any other third party, therefore it is difficult to comment with any certainty on the

availability of any site. Considering the multiple tenures already on site, and the pending



29

application for the subdivision and redevelopment of commercial and retail space, the site is

likely to be unavailable.

Suitability

Again, without any specific sites having been identified, it is difficult to comment on site

specific suitability. The location of the site, in close proximity to vehicular, and public transport

networks suggests that it could be suitable for stadium development, however the site would

only be suitable if it could be cleared and redeveloped in its entirety. With the current mix of

commercial and retail tenures on site, this is unlikely.

The mix of tenures already present, and the position of the site as a gateway location as per

the SIA's, and UDP, means that the site cannot be realistically considered for stadium

development. It is unlikely that the LPA would wish to locate a stadium and associated

infrastructure here considering the regeneration already being undertaken within theimmediate vicinity.

Accessibility

Access to the site is provided via Edge Lane, Rathbone Road, and Binns Road. Edge Lane,

as an arterial route into the City Centre provides excellent vehicular accessibility as well as

numerous bus routes into the surrounding area. Access to the rail network can also be

achieved via Wavertree, and Edge Lane Stations.

Therefore the site is accessible.

Viability

The site is considered to be unviable for stadium development given the present site value for

retail uses.

Deliverability

The multiple tenures on site, would compromise the ability to clear a site of a size suitable for



30

a 50,000 seater stadium. Likewise, the need for large scale new retail floorspace for enabling

development, in addition to the replacement retail floorspace required to allow a site to be

formed would be contrary to the Liverpool UDP. Consequently, the site assembly difficulties

and major hurdle for obtaining planning permission severely compromise the deliverability of

the site.

Summary

No specific site has been identified by the Council or third parties, which makes it difficult to

assess the potential of the Edge Lane Retail Park site. The site would likely require wholesale

redevelopment to accommodate a stadium, which is likely to include protected open space

land.

The site is not available and is unlikely to be suitable given the level of new enabling

floorspace required and the difficulty in assembling a site.



31

6. CONCLUSIONS

This report has provided an overview of the site search undertaken by EFC over the previous

decade to find a site suitable and viable for a new stadium. It has long been accepted by EFC

that a new stadium is required in order to allow the club to compete long term within the

Premier League and in Europe.

The site requirements have been explored to set the parameters for the alternative site

search. This has clearly established that additional land is required alongside the stadium for

the ‘enabling’ development required in order to finance a stadium of the scale and

specification required.

It has been established that EFC have made continued and exhaustive efforts to find a site for

a new stadium within the administrative boundaries of Liverpool City Council, but without

success. A similar exercise has been undertaken by Liverpool FC, the end result being thatthe only site suitable and available with the Liverpool City Council administrative boundaries

for their relocation is Stanley Park.

LFC have been shown to have undertaken an exhaustive exercise to justify being able to

build on such an important area in terms of its open space and heritage value.

In resolving to grant permission for the LFC proposals, subject to a legal agreement, Liverpool

City Council have accepted that there are no other sites suitable or available within their

boundaries for a large scale football stadium. This assessment has included both the

‘Bestway’ site at Scotland Road and the Edge Lane Retail Park.

For completeness, this report has looked in detail at the two alternative sites suggested by

Liverpool City Council prior to their resolution to grant permission for the LFC proposals, i.e.

the Bestway Site and Edge Lane Retail Park, along with the option of redeveloping Goodison

Park. It has been established that none of these options are both suitable and available for

development to meet the future requirements of the club.

The Alternative Sites Assessment carried out by DPP has revisited all of the sites considered

by LFC, along with a number of other sites, to determine if any other sites are suitable or



32

available for the development of a major stadium and the necessary enabling development.

It has been demonstrated that there are no sites that are both suitable and available within

the Liverpool City Council administrative boundaries for the development of a new stadium for

EFC.



33

Appendix 1 – Kirkby Stadium Proposals Overlaid on to ‘Bestway’ Scotland Road Site



Appendix 2 – Alternative Site Location Plans

Documents

Stadium Locational Assessment Report