04 April 2008
Inaugural meeting: Destination Kirkby Community Liaison Group
Attendees: Michael Kissman, Tesco; Keith Wyness, Everton FC; Ian Ross, Everton FC; Cllr Jayne Aston, Knowsley BC; Cllr Mal Sharp, Knowsley BC; Cllr Eddie Connor, Knowsley BC; Cllr Jean Keats, Knowsley BC; Cllr John Greer, Knowsley BC; Gary Foulkes, Jobcentre Plus; Pauline Johnson, Prism Foundation; Frank Gill, Knowsley Community College; John Fleming, Community Network; Ian Morris, Community Network; Janet Worrall, representing Kirkby primary schools; Catherine Erickson, Older People’s Forum; Stephen Merrie, Primary Fluid Power; Rodney Smith, Kirkby Traders Association
Apologies: Steve Dumbell, Knowsley Enterprise; Pam Jervis, representing Kirkby secondary schools; Inspector Mark Wiggins, Merseyside Police
Also Invited: Cllr Marie Stuart, Knowsley BC; Dr Chris Mimnagh, representing health sector; George Mothers, Community Network; Jack Jones, Community Network; Tim Dudgill, Chamber of Commerce
Location: Tuesday 18 March 2008, 6pm – 7.15pm, Brookfield High School, Kirkby
1. Introduction
Michael Kissman (MK) began the meeting by thanking all other attendees and acknowledging the apologies and absences, and agreeing that the formal business would conclude at 7.15pm.
MK then offered some opening remarks on the purpose of the Liaison Group as a forum for engaging both Tesco and Everton in direct and ongoing conversations with representatives of the Kirkby community.
MK then opened up the discussion to contributions from all attending on their ‘expectations’ of the Liaison Group.
2. Group Expectations
Keith Wyness (KW) said that as Everton FC were embarking on this scheme with the aim that the new stadium would be the club’s home for 50 to 100 years, it was essential that they had local residents onside. The purpose of the Liaison Group therefore was to try and build trust, while addressing the harder issues.
Steve Merrie (SM) offered a bit of background on how his business works with others in Kirkby, including what he described as the broader business view that the scheme was going to be good for the area. He then however, turned to the “misinformation” that had been circulated concerning the scheme, and raised the question: “who is fighting Everton and Tesco’s corner?”
Cllr Jayne Aston (CA) said that there was need for clarification, on where the plans were currently at while also indicating that she had been troubled by the “misinformation” of the past few months. CA added that there was a need for the scheme to be seen to benefit all of Kirkby.
JA also added however, that given her role on the planning committee “no one will hear my view on the development until the night of the meeting that determines whether it will happen or not”.
Cllr Mal Sharp (MS) began by saying that while there was much to unite the concerns of those who currently oppose the scheme with elected members, they were separated by the latter’s willingness to find a solution. MS also noted that while the planning process will examine many of these concerns, there were other elements – for example the role of Everton in the local community – that also needed to be covered. He made it clear however, that he would not be talked at by those referring to the “horror” of being near a football club. MS made it clear that he personally wants to see the benefits of Tesco and the broader development.
Cllr Eddie Connor (EC) suggested that there was a real need to give out “positive information” about the scheme, and hoped that the Liaison Group would help facilitate this.
Pauline Johnson (PJ) referred to her role as a third sector representative and the range of unemployed people Prism works with. Her expectations from the Group revolved both around a desire for proper information on the scheme, and the need for the local community to work closely with Tesco and Everton.
Catherine Erickson (CE) introduced herself as having lived in Kirkby for fifty years and – having witnessed many changes in that time – being slightly scared of the proposed development. This was made more personal by her home sitting on the direct route between Kirkby railway station and what would be the site of the new stadium, and her fear that the latter might bring “violence and fighting”.
Cllr Jean Keats (JK) noted how as a representative of the ward in which CE lives, she has heard concerns from residents about the stadium – especially around litter - that made her believe not many people in her area supported the scheme.
Ian Morris (IM) began by explaining his work with young people in the Westvale area and his organisation of a local Sea Cadets unit, before talking about his lead role in Kirkby Residents’ Action Group (KRAG). While noting however, that the latter was established in opposition to the building of the stadium, IM made a point that he is not against the redevelopment of Kirkby, but the scale proposed by the scheme.
IM’s expectations of the Liaison Group were that it would involve honest discussion, and help build trust and communications for residents. On the latter, he made explicit reference to the planning process and the need to make local people feel they are being listened to. He also said it was “good to hear councillors expressing their own concerns” and referred to past “confidentiality deals” on planning matters.
IM also made some additional comments in relation to earlier contributions, speaking about local businesses that did not support the proposed scheme, and suggestions that there had been misinformation spread by opponents of the proposed scheme. He also raised an issue about invitations to attend the Group, and whether these covered the whole community.
MK addressed the latter point, as having been discussed and agreed with Knowsley BC at length prior to invitations being issued.
Gary Foulkes (GF) expressed his neutrality about the scheme before admitting he had great expectations and was excited about the jobs it would bring. GF also articulated the hope that the local college and other local organisations would be involved in training and related matters.
Frank Gill (FG) referred to the need to illustrate the benefits around not only jobs but “jobs with training” and also asked for a guarantee that management level jobs would go to local people. Focussing on the longer term, FG added that his expectations of the Group also extended to understanding what might emerge in the long-term beyond Tesco and the football stadium, for example how people from outside of Kirkby were going to be encouraged to come and shop there.
John Fleming (JF) introduced himself through his role the community empowerment network, established to get people more involved in local issues, and more recently in KRAG. He indicated that he saw the Liaison Group in terms of clarifying the potential benefits that the scheme might bring, and more broadly what kind of regeneration could be put into Kirkby.
MK summarised the following as his understanding of the Group’s collective expectations: ‘the need to listen to the community’, ‘understanding the benefits’, ‘regeneration’, ‘delivery for the long term’, ‘good information and open, honest debate’, ‘bringing the community together’ and ‘addressing particular concerns’. MK then opened up the Group to proposed topics of discussion at future meetings.
3. Topics for future discussion
3.1 Impact on local transport
The primary topic for discussion focussed on traffic, with reference initially to the roads and transport framework, and issues such as how many thousands of fans would be dispersed from what is currently a small railway station.
FG referred to concerns about fans, initially in relation to a football club’s statutory responsibility for what happens inside a stadium but also with regards to being resident within an area and the desire for a club to live “peacefully” with its neighbours.
IM acknowledged that incidents of violence at or around football games were isolated. More broadly however, IM commented on dispersal at the end of football games and noted the Traffic Impact Assessment proposed “corralling” (970-1000 people on each train). In discussing this, he highlighted issue of people waiting for trains or in bad weather, before noting how use of alternatives to public transport (ie cars and coaches) would impact upon public space and fields. He also noted that the concerts that would no doubt be staged at the new stadium as a way of maximising income were not addressed in the impact assessment.
IM also referred to the notion that 1,000 cyclists would be expected to ride to football matches and challenged the idea that this would happen at any Premiership team.
KW remarked that the TIA was “work in progress” but noted that the Government’s policy on transport demanded and ensured a ‘green’ solution for the impact of the new stadium. He also said that Goodison Park would not be a viable option for anyone wanting to build a new stadium from scratch.
MK acknowledged that the Liaison Group would at the earliest opportunity – and ideally the next meeting – need to involve a TIA expert and someone from Knowsley council.
3.2 Impact on local businesses and the town centre
SM highlighted both the potential impact on house prices and the local business community, referring to the ‘Poundland’-type shops in Kirkby town centre.
MK asked Rodney Smith (RS) if he had anything to say on behalf of the Kirkby Traders Association. RS declined as was “just representing the Chair in his absence”.
JC referred to the need to understand the quality of the jobs being created – full-time, part-time, minimum wage or otherwise, and the training involved.
MK prompted discussion on the need to understand the links to the town centre and impact.
IM referred to the timeframe and timetable for the development. He also wanted to understand Everton and Tesco’s role in the wider redevelopment of the local economy. To avoid the potential for creating a “ghost town”, IM suggested the need for “phasing and linkages” between the proposed scheme site and the town centre.
JK added her voice to this and referred to need to get balance right between the north and south of Cherryfield Drive.
3.3 Impact on the night-time economy
SM raised the issue of the need to know whether or not the development would lead to other “wish-list” amenities, eg a cinema or a bowling alley. He also remarked that while the development would involve “pluses and minuses”, a process of communications was necessary to highlight the benefits.
IR commented that while Everton and Tesco could not make promises that they would not be able to keep, both genuinely believed that there would be a positive “domino effect” for Kirkby.
MS referred to his personal vision being that the night-time economy of Kirkby would be improved.
3.4 Impact on community facilities
MK raised the issue of how best to attract long-term investment.
PJ said it is not just about football and shopping but also things you can put in place for smaller community groups.
IR referred to a recent document that had been put to George Howarth on what Everton would bring to the community. He also acknowledged that there were people in the Walton area who wanted Everton to stay, based on the Club’s local work.
JA commented on a temporary new walk-in health centre, and remarked that the PCT would only put in another facility in Kirkby town centre should the Destination Kirkby scheme goes ahead. This would be “practically a mini-hospital”.
FG raised question about the building aspect of the scheme and, if approved, whether pressure might be brought to bear on construction companies to employ local people.
IM followed up on this issue in relation to new school facilities being built – aimed at giving local children a “better learning environment”. He expressed his concern that the development may impact not only on the schools building programme but also on children doing their exams. IM further asked how companies manage the potential “disruption”, and suggested need for 24 hour security. IM also referred to green space that would be lost for the community, asking what will done to replace this in line with government policy on ‘complimentary green space’.
JK raised the need for recreation area in Westvale.
While SM asked about plus effect of additional rates from Everton and Tesco, the councillors present noted that these would go to central government.
4. Next scheduled meeting
KW offered that the next meeting should take place at Goodison Park. After discussion, it was agreed by the Group that this should take place on Wednesday 16 April at 6pm.
MK said that given the discussion, the focus for the next meeting would be around traffic, jobs and training, and community activity. Relevant experts would be invited to speak, included a key adviser on the TIA.
IM asked about the prospect of making TIA amendments available, while accepting that the impact assessment was work in progress. He raised the idea of circulating the amendments to attendees in advance of the meeting as a means of ensuring focussed discussion.
The meeting concluded and was closed at 7.15pm
Community Liaison Group inaugural meeting:
Draft minutes – to be approved at next meeting.
Inaugural meeting: Destination Kirkby Community Liaison Group
Attendees: Michael Kissman, Tesco; Keith Wyness, Everton FC; Ian Ross, Everton FC; Cllr Jayne Aston, Knowsley BC; Cllr Mal Sharp, Knowsley BC; Cllr Eddie Connor, Knowsley BC; Cllr Jean Keats, Knowsley BC; Cllr John Greer, Knowsley BC; Gary Foulkes, Jobcentre Plus; Pauline Johnson, Prism Foundation; Frank Gill, Knowsley Community College; John Fleming, Community Network; Ian Morris, Community Network; Janet Worrall, representing Kirkby primary schools; Catherine Erickson, Older People’s Forum; Stephen Merrie, Primary Fluid Power; Rodney Smith, Kirkby Traders Association
Apologies: Steve Dumbell, Knowsley Enterprise; Pam Jervis, representing Kirkby secondary schools; Inspector Mark Wiggins, Merseyside Police
Also Invited: Cllr Marie Stuart, Knowsley BC; Dr Chris Mimnagh, representing health sector; George Mothers, Community Network; Jack Jones, Community Network; Tim Dudgill, Chamber of Commerce
Location: Tuesday 18 March 2008, 6pm – 7.15pm, Brookfield High School, Kirkby
1. Introduction
Michael Kissman (MK) began the meeting by thanking all other attendees and acknowledging the apologies and absences, and agreeing that the formal business would conclude at 7.15pm.
MK then offered some opening remarks on the purpose of the Liaison Group as a forum for engaging both Tesco and Everton in direct and ongoing conversations with representatives of the Kirkby community.
MK then opened up the discussion to contributions from all attending on their ‘expectations’ of the Liaison Group.
2. Group Expectations
Keith Wyness (KW) said that as Everton FC were embarking on this scheme with the aim that the new stadium would be the club’s home for 50 to 100 years, it was essential that they had local residents onside. The purpose of the Liaison Group therefore was to try and build trust, while addressing the harder issues.
Steve Merrie (SM) offered a bit of background on how his business works with others in Kirkby, including what he described as the broader business view that the scheme was going to be good for the area. He then however, turned to the “misinformation” that had been circulated concerning the scheme, and raised the question: “who is fighting Everton and Tesco’s corner?”
Cllr Jayne Aston (CA) said that there was need for clarification, on where the plans were currently at while also indicating that she had been troubled by the “misinformation” of the past few months. CA added that there was a need for the scheme to be seen to benefit all of Kirkby.
JA also added however, that given her role on the planning committee “no one will hear my view on the development until the night of the meeting that determines whether it will happen or not”.
Cllr Mal Sharp (MS) began by saying that while there was much to unite the concerns of those who currently oppose the scheme with elected members, they were separated by the latter’s willingness to find a solution. MS also noted that while the planning process will examine many of these concerns, there were other elements – for example the role of Everton in the local community – that also needed to be covered. He made it clear however, that he would not be talked at by those referring to the “horror” of being near a football club. MS made it clear that he personally wants to see the benefits of Tesco and the broader development.
Cllr Eddie Connor (EC) suggested that there was a real need to give out “positive information” about the scheme, and hoped that the Liaison Group would help facilitate this.
Pauline Johnson (PJ) referred to her role as a third sector representative and the range of unemployed people Prism works with. Her expectations from the Group revolved both around a desire for proper information on the scheme, and the need for the local community to work closely with Tesco and Everton.
Catherine Erickson (CE) introduced herself as having lived in Kirkby for fifty years and – having witnessed many changes in that time – being slightly scared of the proposed development. This was made more personal by her home sitting on the direct route between Kirkby railway station and what would be the site of the new stadium, and her fear that the latter might bring “violence and fighting”.
Cllr Jean Keats (JK) noted how as a representative of the ward in which CE lives, she has heard concerns from residents about the stadium – especially around litter - that made her believe not many people in her area supported the scheme.
Ian Morris (IM) began by explaining his work with young people in the Westvale area and his organisation of a local Sea Cadets unit, before talking about his lead role in Kirkby Residents’ Action Group (KRAG). While noting however, that the latter was established in opposition to the building of the stadium, IM made a point that he is not against the redevelopment of Kirkby, but the scale proposed by the scheme.
IM’s expectations of the Liaison Group were that it would involve honest discussion, and help build trust and communications for residents. On the latter, he made explicit reference to the planning process and the need to make local people feel they are being listened to. He also said it was “good to hear councillors expressing their own concerns” and referred to past “confidentiality deals” on planning matters.
IM also made some additional comments in relation to earlier contributions, speaking about local businesses that did not support the proposed scheme, and suggestions that there had been misinformation spread by opponents of the proposed scheme. He also raised an issue about invitations to attend the Group, and whether these covered the whole community.
MK addressed the latter point, as having been discussed and agreed with Knowsley BC at length prior to invitations being issued.
Gary Foulkes (GF) expressed his neutrality about the scheme before admitting he had great expectations and was excited about the jobs it would bring. GF also articulated the hope that the local college and other local organisations would be involved in training and related matters.
Frank Gill (FG) referred to the need to illustrate the benefits around not only jobs but “jobs with training” and also asked for a guarantee that management level jobs would go to local people. Focussing on the longer term, FG added that his expectations of the Group also extended to understanding what might emerge in the long-term beyond Tesco and the football stadium, for example how people from outside of Kirkby were going to be encouraged to come and shop there.
John Fleming (JF) introduced himself through his role the community empowerment network, established to get people more involved in local issues, and more recently in KRAG. He indicated that he saw the Liaison Group in terms of clarifying the potential benefits that the scheme might bring, and more broadly what kind of regeneration could be put into Kirkby.
MK summarised the following as his understanding of the Group’s collective expectations: ‘the need to listen to the community’, ‘understanding the benefits’, ‘regeneration’, ‘delivery for the long term’, ‘good information and open, honest debate’, ‘bringing the community together’ and ‘addressing particular concerns’. MK then opened up the Group to proposed topics of discussion at future meetings.
3. Topics for future discussion
3.1 Impact on local transport
The primary topic for discussion focussed on traffic, with reference initially to the roads and transport framework, and issues such as how many thousands of fans would be dispersed from what is currently a small railway station.
FG referred to concerns about fans, initially in relation to a football club’s statutory responsibility for what happens inside a stadium but also with regards to being resident within an area and the desire for a club to live “peacefully” with its neighbours.
IM acknowledged that incidents of violence at or around football games were isolated. More broadly however, IM commented on dispersal at the end of football games and noted the Traffic Impact Assessment proposed “corralling” (970-1000 people on each train). In discussing this, he highlighted issue of people waiting for trains or in bad weather, before noting how use of alternatives to public transport (ie cars and coaches) would impact upon public space and fields. He also noted that the concerts that would no doubt be staged at the new stadium as a way of maximising income were not addressed in the impact assessment.
IM also referred to the notion that 1,000 cyclists would be expected to ride to football matches and challenged the idea that this would happen at any Premiership team.
KW remarked that the TIA was “work in progress” but noted that the Government’s policy on transport demanded and ensured a ‘green’ solution for the impact of the new stadium. He also said that Goodison Park would not be a viable option for anyone wanting to build a new stadium from scratch.
MK acknowledged that the Liaison Group would at the earliest opportunity – and ideally the next meeting – need to involve a TIA expert and someone from Knowsley council.
3.2 Impact on local businesses and the town centre
SM highlighted both the potential impact on house prices and the local business community, referring to the ‘Poundland’-type shops in Kirkby town centre.
MK asked Rodney Smith (RS) if he had anything to say on behalf of the Kirkby Traders Association. RS declined as was “just representing the Chair in his absence”.
JC referred to the need to understand the quality of the jobs being created – full-time, part-time, minimum wage or otherwise, and the training involved.
MK prompted discussion on the need to understand the links to the town centre and impact.
IM referred to the timeframe and timetable for the development. He also wanted to understand Everton and Tesco’s role in the wider redevelopment of the local economy. To avoid the potential for creating a “ghost town”, IM suggested the need for “phasing and linkages” between the proposed scheme site and the town centre.
JK added her voice to this and referred to need to get balance right between the north and south of Cherryfield Drive.
3.3 Impact on the night-time economy
SM raised the issue of the need to know whether or not the development would lead to other “wish-list” amenities, eg a cinema or a bowling alley. He also remarked that while the development would involve “pluses and minuses”, a process of communications was necessary to highlight the benefits.
IR commented that while Everton and Tesco could not make promises that they would not be able to keep, both genuinely believed that there would be a positive “domino effect” for Kirkby.
MS referred to his personal vision being that the night-time economy of Kirkby would be improved.
3.4 Impact on community facilities
MK raised the issue of how best to attract long-term investment.
PJ said it is not just about football and shopping but also things you can put in place for smaller community groups.
IR referred to a recent document that had been put to George Howarth on what Everton would bring to the community. He also acknowledged that there were people in the Walton area who wanted Everton to stay, based on the Club’s local work.
JA commented on a temporary new walk-in health centre, and remarked that the PCT would only put in another facility in Kirkby town centre should the Destination Kirkby scheme goes ahead. This would be “practically a mini-hospital”.
FG raised question about the building aspect of the scheme and, if approved, whether pressure might be brought to bear on construction companies to employ local people.
IM followed up on this issue in relation to new school facilities being built – aimed at giving local children a “better learning environment”. He expressed his concern that the development may impact not only on the schools building programme but also on children doing their exams. IM further asked how companies manage the potential “disruption”, and suggested need for 24 hour security. IM also referred to green space that would be lost for the community, asking what will done to replace this in line with government policy on ‘complimentary green space’.
JK raised the need for recreation area in Westvale.
While SM asked about plus effect of additional rates from Everton and Tesco, the councillors present noted that these would go to central government.
4. Next scheduled meeting
KW offered that the next meeting should take place at Goodison Park. After discussion, it was agreed by the Group that this should take place on Wednesday 16 April at 6pm.
MK said that given the discussion, the focus for the next meeting would be around traffic, jobs and training, and community activity. Relevant experts would be invited to speak, included a key adviser on the TIA.
IM asked about the prospect of making TIA amendments available, while accepting that the impact assessment was work in progress. He raised the idea of circulating the amendments to attendees in advance of the meeting as a means of ensuring focussed discussion.
The meeting concluded and was closed at 7.15pm