KINGS DOCK: ANOTHER MEETING WITH JOE DWYER OF LIVERPOOL VISION.
By
Mickey Blue Eyes.

Friday, 8th March 2002, 10.00 a.m., and another meeting with Joe Dwyer, chairman of Liverpool Vision, to discuss the status of the Kings Dock project. As usual I was given a courteous and friendly welcome. The dialogue continues.

Time, as usual, for us to dispel a few myths and disinformation and confront a crude attempt by local politicians to use the project for their own narrow political motives. Development projects never run smoothly and there's no reason why this one should be any exception.

As we all know, matters have moved on since the last meeting. Given the nature of our society the road to success was always going to be strewn with rocks and vested interests. But positive thinkers are never dismayed by obstacles, they overcome them. And so far the Kings Dock development has met and overcome some formidable obstructions. However, serious questions remain to be answered.

The following notes are my own conclusions (not Joe Dwyer's) drawn from our discussion:

1.0. OBJECTIVE ONE (O1) FUNDS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION.

1.1. Liverpool Vision cannot be drawn into public presentation of the issue of underspending of O1 money on Merseyside.

1.2. However, there was no disagreement when I said the figures showed a projected underspend of between 25% to 30% of the tranche for the period 2000-2006. Of course this must be added to the large underspend for the previous tranche for the period 1994-1999. Any discussion of maximum use of European funding must take this into account. Politicians will have to explain their inaction in the matter.

1.3. The formal application for O1 money will be made by Liverpool City Council on behalf of the publicly-owned Waterfront Stadium/Arena Company. Everton FC presently have a 49% ownership in this publicly registered company.

1.4. £35 million was confirmed as the O1 application amount.

2.0. FINANCIAL/PROMOTIONAL ISSUES.

2.1. The projected cost of £155 million for the stadium/arena will be met as follows:

· Everton FC £30 million.· North West Development Agency (approx) £10 million.· English Partnerships (approx) £10 million.· Liverpool City Council (approx) £10 million.· O1 Grant £35 million.· Capital receipts from non-arena development £40 million.· Mortgage by Waterfront Stadium/Arena Company £20 million.

2.2. If the O1 grant application fails the project will likely terminate. But there are still other possibilities. Failure of the grant application is not expected.

2.3. Discussions continue with other companies for funding of non-stadium/arena development. Of necessity this is commercially sensitive and therefore not available to the public at the moment. Despite rumour, Bovis Lend Lease have NOT committed any development funds.

2.4. There are no separate calculations for payback periods for the sliding pitch and roof. Payback is included in the overall calculation for the stadium/arena.

2.5. Clear Channel Communications (formerly SFX) form no part of the development or future management of the project.

Talks continue with a major UK events promoter. Confidence is high that this will provide a much better deal than anything previously proposed.

2.6. "Due diligence" can only conclude when every part of the development is allocated and agreed. The process is continuous and includes the entire project, not just the stadium/arena.

3.0. TECHNICAL/PLANNING.

3.1. The roll-out pitch now exits along the length, not width of the stadium. This means the roll-out section will have to be in at least two sections. Alternative designs are being analysed.

3.2. There will be no "anchor stores" in the non-stadium/arena development. This is deliberate as the project is intended to complement overall planning, not promote competition with existing and proposed trading. The Kings Dock project has to take account of the proposed adjacent commercial development by Grosvenor Holdings.

3.3. Non-stadium/arena development will be mostly residential but presently includes two hotels, family entertainment and small retail facilities. Final allocation will depend upon the best commercial solution. Discussion continues with interested parties.

3.4. The planning application will be detailed, not outline. Which means construction can begin as soon as approval is received. The size of the project means there is a requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment plus other detailed technical reports and data. This is considerable work and has led to a slight delay to ensure it is comprehensive enough to avoid delays in the review and approval process. The cost of fees for this work are spread evenly across the consortium.

3.5. Design amendments will be publicly available on CD at the time of the planning application. This will be a similar product to the first conceptual design.

3.6. Emphatically, Liverpool Football Club were not approached for the development before Everton Football Club made their bid.

3.7. Joe confirmed he has heard rumours of highly speculative proposals for a project in the North Liverpool Partnership area but these aren't given much credence. (I suspect this is part of the crude political maneuvering described below). Preliminary discussion with Mersey Docks indicate that a stadium/arena will not be included in any of their proposals for waterfront land under their control.

There is no site in north Liverpool which has any less overall planning problems than Kings Dock.

4.0. POLITICAL SUPPORT/OPPOSITION.

4.1. Joe has met with the three Abercromby councillors, Anderson, Brant and Munby (nicknamed by me "the NIMBY 3") and explained the project and its implications to them. If they need any further relevant information they have only to ask for it.

4.2. Joe has also met with Peter Kilfoyle MP, temporary steward of the Walton constituency, and explained the project and its implications to him. Kilfoyle's Early Day Motion at the House of Commons came as a surprise to Liverpool Vision. There was no indication during the talks that such a move was on the cards.

In my opinion, Kilfoyle and the MPs who signed the EDM are engaged in nothing more than using the Kings Dock project as a political football. The wording of the motion means they are hedging their political bets. Leave out the first sentence and they are opposed to the scheme. All of them are classic Can't Do Won't Do mentality. So be it. All Everton fans should remember their actions if and when the project goes ahead and they try to get some kudos from it. We are also entitled to ask them where they have been since Objective 1 money first became available in 1994. I would treat them with the contempt they deserve. But that's my opinion, not Joe's.

4.3. Liverpool Vision have met with residents who have expressed opposition. They are participating in workshops intended to identify and respond to their concerns. EfKD will also make approaches to help wherever possible.

4.4. Louise Elleman, Labour constituency MP for Riverside, which includes the Kings Dock site, supports the project.

4.5. Confidence is high the other councils in Merseyside will support the application for O1 money. This is essential for the application to be successful. No objections have been received thus far.

4.6. Emphasis will also be placed on obtaining full central government support for the project.

I believe this will be forthcoming in view of the very public disasters at Wembley and Picketts Lock. The government won't want another PR catastrophe. Furthermore, Kilfoyle doesn't have much support where it matters. Again, my opinion, not Joe's.

4.7. Further political support will depend on the future of planning minister Stephen Byers and who replaces him if he goes before he has time to consider the planning issues and whether it should be "called in" to a public planning inquiry. He didn't call in the design for Arsenal's new stadium. There is confidence that Kings Dock too will not be called in.

4.8. The design has been amended to accommodate observations made by English Heritage and CABE. Despite this, neither body will formally commit themselves to support of the project.

5.0. PROJECT PROGRAMME.

5.1. The planning application will now be submitted in Summer, about July. The delay is due to design amendments and increased data requirements to supplement the application and avoid a planning inquiry if possible.

5.2. Planning approval is programmed for Spring 2003 and construction start immediately thereafter.

5.3. The stadium/arena will be constructed using construction management methods, which means in phased construction packages such as sub-structure (below ground work), superstructure (above ground structural frame), services engineering and other specialist packages.

In theory, this enables an early start even if there is a planning inquiry, since working drawings can be prepared parallel with construction activities. Which also means the completion date of Summer 2005 can be met provided the stadium/arena can be constructed in two years.

If this were Germany or the United States I would be confident of meeting the completion date. However, this is Britain, home of the most anarchy-ridden and incompetent construction industry on the planet. I therefore expect the stadium to be completed in 2006. Again, this is my opinion, not Joe's. I hope I am wrong.

5.4. The cumulative affect of the above means that EVERYTHING IMPORTANT has to be finalised by, say, July this year. There will of course be a myriad of relatively minor project management decisions to be made after that, and many sub-activities and processes to be completed.

Overall, Joe Dwyer is 60% confident of success and it increases every day. Soon, I suspect, all things being equal, the project will assume the proportions of a juggernaut and be well nigh unstoppable. I think we can assume we have reached that stage once agreement and approval is achieved with the Merseyside councils on European funding. Nothing should stop it rolling then, though a planning inquiry might cause a programme hiccup.

Once we are through that and it starts on site you can be sure of one thing: All construction projects go wrong somewhere along the line. It is an almost immutable law of human existence. The degree to which it goes wrong depends upon the construction professionals engaged and how they overcome the inevitable problems, be they technical or political with a small p. You can also be sure that the Melledrew Tendency will be out there on the periphery, whining away every time a problem is met. But a good pro pays no attention to background noise. The only thing which matters is getting it done and done properly.

If and when the Kings Dock project gets completed it will be a truly wonderful addition to our city and a magnificent opportunity for our club to regenerate its fortunes. At the moment the odds are good that it will proceed. There is still much to do, still much to consider, not least the wishes of the local residents, of which I am one.

It has been a long haul to get the project to this stage. Everybody involved in the bid is to be congratulated that it has got this far. Frankly, few of us supporters expected it. And if the process had not been so secretive I am quite sure it would not have been so painful for everyone involved, proposers, administrators, opposers and supporters. I hope this method is never used again.

For once it would be nice to see our city make a major forward move and ignore all the churlish back-biting and moaning which has dogged us for so long. We are almost there. All it needs is a final effort of good will and the dumping of the Melledrew Tendency in the Royal Blue Mersey.

And then we could get on with trying to be a successful football club again. (08/03/02)

The Kings Dock - Index              More fans views                 Images of Kings Dock             What shall we call the Stadium

Jogger's Snapshots | Young Toffees | Sting Ray | Sausage's Sandwiches 
Cod Pieces | Captain Haddock | Look-A-Likes | Tomorrow's Chip Papers  
Top Toffee Ale 'ouses| Home