Bramley Moore Dock. The work to come.

Article on the planning process and potential environmental issues that Everton need to overcome

Following Everton, Peel and Liverpool City Council’s announcement that Everton will commence the planning process for a new stadium at Bramley Moore dock a number of questions have arisen on the process Everton have to go through at this point to achieve planning permission and start building. This article attempts to break down the likely hurdles that they are going to have to overcome both prior to the planning process and after.

Firstly, a word on procedure. Everton will have to apply for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) in order to build the development. In very simple terms, this will consist of details of the development, an assessment of the environmental effects (EIA/Environmental Statement) and how they intend to mitigate the negative impacts.

This planning application will then be assessed by the local planning authority who then decide whether or not to grant the scheme permission, in this case- Liverpool City Council (LCC). So far so good, all the major players are pro-development of a new stadium so there shouldn’t be any problems right? Unfortunately there are likely to be a number of complications. Everton have bitter experience of this with the Destination Kirkby scheme which was ‘called in’ by the government.

Normally, a project gets ‘called in’ by the government when a project is given permission but fails to comply with local, regional or national policy in one or more ways. It can also occur when consultees (statutory or non-statutory) object to a project and the planning authority choose to either ignore or not fully take into account the advice from the consultee and the government decides to intervene. Note- it is almost never possible on any project to get complete agreement from every consultee. More on that later.

The final acceptance of a scheme will depend on whether a project complies with relevant planning policies, statutory and non-statutory consultee agreements, and of course funding of infrastructure improvements. This funding of infrastructure improvements is commonly referred to as a ‘Section 106 agreement’. Tottenham Hotspur’s Northumberland Development Project with their new stadium is a perfect example of this. They were required to fund a number of infrastructure improvements including social housing as a pre-requisite for permission (this was later watered down). Expect something similar with Everton, with social housing and legacy already being mentioned.

Statutory Consultees

The planning process designates a number of statutory stakeholders who in normal circumstances would advise the planning body (LCC) on whether an application is acceptable or not. These include-

• Historic England- Advisers on cultural heritage, archaeology and issues surrounding the World Heritage Site (WHS) and it´s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV).
• Natural England- Terrestrial and marine wildlife
• Environment Agency- aerial and water emissions, pollution and flooding.
• Local planning body- LCC on pretty much every matter
• Department for Transport- Responsible for trunk roads

A good, smooth planning application will include records of the agreements with the stakeholders and consultees. A full record of agreements with consultees will ensure that the planning application runs much smoother and is less likely to be subject to a challenge.

Environmental Statement

Accompanying the planning application will be an Environmental Statement (ES). An ES is the assessment of the significant environmental effects (both positive and negative) from a development, otherwise know and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

An ES typically starts with a description of the project and assessment of alternatives considered (i.e. other sites) with potentially less environmental impact. Financial or business reasons are perfectly acceptable reasons for discarding other sites, but there does have to be logical reasoning behind this choice of site or the validity of it could be called into question.

The assessment covers a broad range of environmental issues including socio-economic impacts (e.g. economic boost to an area), impacts on water and air quality, noise impacts and transport. An EIA typically is carried out alongside the design process by setting boundaries on what is/is not acceptable in environmental terms to allow an initial design to be produced, followed by a loop process where iterations of designs are produced and assessed and impacts are reduced. The aim of this process is not to remove impacts, it is to mitigate impacts as far as reasonably possible.

In addition to the assessment of the environmental impacts of the site itself, the club will also have to complete an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the development with other developments currently in planning. In essence, Everton will have to assess, and mitigate the joint impacts of their project with the impacts of Liverpool Waters.

Below is a look at the key impacts a stadium is likely to have, and potential sticking points.

Noise

Assessments will be done of a a typical match day noise from a stadium, and worst case noise emissions (a last minute Tom Davies winner in the derby on a Wednesday night). From there, it is a simple task of calculating any noise mitigation that may be required for any local properties. This will not be anticipated as a significant issue, and can usually be resolved by money, either by putting in more noise mitigation into the stadium or at properties. The relative lack of residential properties currently in existence and the high levels of noise associated with being in a city makes it a non-issue.

Transport

The transport assessment of the scheme will be carried out taking into account the current baseline, the infrastructure currently in place and planned and what is required to complete the scheme.

Dispersion times for supporters after games, increased traffic congestion, parking space and rail capacity will all form part of the assessment on both the local and wider network. This could be a limiting factor on the capacity of the new stadium.

A worst case assessment will be carried out taking into account, for example, an Everton home game coinciding with rush hour and an event at the Echo arena and a fully built Liverpool Waters scheme. Whilst Everton could theoretically fill a 65,000 seater for the biggest games, if the transport infrastructure cannot cope and disperse the fans even after improvements then it won’t be built to that capacity. Note LCC´s report stating a 50,000 stadium is currently being considered.

A likely outcome of this is Everton/Peel being required to fund or contribute to transport infrastructure in the local area, after cumulative assessments are carried out.

Cultural Heritage/World Heritage Site

Potentially the most controversial issue relating to the new stadium being built is the issues surrounding the UNESCO World Heritage Site status. To fully understand the issues Everton will face here it is necessary to look back a bit in history and understand the current status of the site.

The Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City is the name given to the UNESCO designated World Heritage Site in which the Bramley Moore Dock lies in. The Pier Head, Albert Dock and William Brown Street, amongst a number of other famous landmarks in the city make up the rest of the site. It was designated as ‘the supreme example of a commercial port at a time of Britain's greatest global influence’ It is world recognised and is advertised widely in tourism leaflets and brochures for the area. How much tourism it actually brings in is a debate for another time.

Since the inception of the Liverpool Waters site in 2007 the WHS status has caused significant friction between heritage bodies such as ICOMOS, Historic England, Peel and LCC. The heritage bodies had, and still do have, significant concerns about the Liverpool Waters site and their effect on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the site- a key feature of the WHS designation.

These concerns became so serious that the WHS was placed on the UNESCO endangered list alongside such sites as ISIS- threatened Palmyra in Syria. The site remains on this list to date. The statutory advice given by Historic England to LCC was that the draft application for Liverpool Waters was non-compliant with with the council´s own planning guidance, and that the OUV of the site was jeopardised. The inference being that planning should not have been granted.

With respect to the Bramley Moore element of the WHS one aspect is that there are a number of listed building present- such as the clock tower and dock walls. It is It should be possible to construct the stadium without destruction of some of the dock wall, or other listed assets. In any case in planning terms, these things are not impossible if there are no alternatives- but a theme we will keep on coming back to in this matter is the cumulative effects.

Another key aspect of the WHS is the ‘setting’ of it and the authenticity it possesses as a dockland landscape. Heritage asset reports talk of the ‘spirit of the site being represented by a mosaic of spirit of place of the site is also created by the mosaic of smaller ancillary structures, such as the gatehouses and air‐raid shelters, fixed dockland furniture including capstans, bollards and bridges, and the use of traditional natural materials.’

The previous designs for the area around Bramley Moore and Nelson Dock consisted of a number of mid-rise buildings, with no or little infilling of the dock. Back to the heritage reports- ‘Mitigation by thoughtful and careful design to break up the buildings’ impact will be essential, so as not to recreate a fanciful and wholly artificial image of this part of the dockland. Without this, the authenticity of the dock space will be severely damaged.’

How can a stadium fit into this environment? The impact is clearly a lot higher, which is where the problems start.

The announcement, made yesterday jointly by LCC, Peel and Everton was very encouraging- they are all partners in this project and it is doomed without the complete support of all of them. They will have to come up with designs across the whole of Liverpool Waters, including the new stadium that does not effect the OUV, as the political costs of losing the WHS may be intolerable for central government, leading the planning application to be called in and rejected.

The political implications of the government endangering 5.5bn investment in a northern city post-Brexit is another thing entirely however, and I suspect may go in favour of Everton. Eric Pickles MP, secretary of state for these matters when the Liverpool Waters Scheme outline planning application was made decided that it was a decision best made by councillors. Everton will hope the current government take a similar line when the time comes.

This is going to be a slow and painstaking process, the hurdles that need to be overcome are significant, challenging and by no means guaranteed success. They have however made an excellent start, and I am confident that they are managing the risks associated with this and have the best possible advisers on board.