Blue
Kipper has been involved with the "Everton for Kings Dock"
movement from the start.
Following
the EfKD interview with City
Council Leader Mike Storey, he requested us to provide space to respond
to the questions in a more formal way.
Councilor Storey's willingness to engage the issue in this way is, we
believe, as creditable as our earlier interview with Labour councilor
Joe Anderson. Any Evertonians who decide to make direct contact on the
issue with either councilor should therefore do so with the kind of
courtesy, common sense and commitment we were shown during each interview.
Other than that, we have no further comment to make other than that
already posted in our accounts of
the interviews.
Make up your own mind.
QUESTIONS
FOR MIKE STOREY, FRIDAY, 4th OCTOBER 2002.
1.0.
ORIGINS.
1.1. When did you join the board of Liverpool Vision?
Has already been answered
1.2. Do you vote at board meetings when the Kings Dock project is discussed?
Has already been answered
1.3. How detailed is your knowledge of current project details?
Has already been answered
1.4. Has the Kings Dock site ever been discussed with or offered for
use to Liverpool Football Club as their home stadium?
Has already been answered
1.5. What were the deciding factors in allocating "preferred bidder"
status to Houston Securities? According to an article in the North West
Insider business magazine dated March 2002 it is a small [Gregg] family
development company worth £1.8 million and with no experience
whatsoever of large scale developments similar to the Kings Dock.
Has already been answered
2.
DETAILS.
2.1. What is the status of the proposed trams system? Is it to go ahead?
If so, when?
The Tram proposals are currently with the Secretary
State and Merseytravel are awaiting the outcome of the Government's
deliberations as to when the Tram approval will be given. We are advised
that this is imminent but we have no firm date.
2.2. What consultation has taken place with local residents at Kings
Dock and in what format?
The formal consultation that has taken place with
residents around Kings Dock include the following:2 public meetings
one held at St George's Hall and one at the Moat House. A series of
smaller meetings with the business community, residents from Albert
Dock and surrounding areas and other interested traders in and around
the L1 area. There has been a meeting of Area Committee F which was
linked to the wider public meetings. There has been a series of smaller
meetings that have taken place with stakeholders and interested parties
on a rolling basis over the last 12 months. Combined with the involvement
of the Liverpool Vision Panel, (which is a group of some 400 strong)
that was originally used to act as a sounding board for the Strategic
Framework Document, the consultation to date has been around the original
concept, some of the other use proposals and using the information from
this consultation to feed into any changes to the original plans for
Kings Dock. Post the planning application being submitted, there will
be further consultation which will form part of the statutory process.
2.3. Does the project have the support of the Government Office of the
North West?
The Government Office has been supporting the
project.
2.4. Are all the Merseyside local authority councils now in favour of
the project?
All the Merseyside local authorities are now in
favour of the project.
2.5. What outright political opposition have you identified in Liverpool
and Merseyside?
Has already been answered
2.6. Is the project supported/approved by English Heritage/CABE?
The project is still the subject of ongoing discussions
with English Heritage & CABE. Whilst the initiative is in its developmental
phase contact with English Heritage and CABE has focused on some of
the design, massing and heritage issues. There has been considerable
progress made with the 2 agencies to allay initial fears that they had
about the proposal and these have been conducted in a very positive
and mutually collaborative/supporting environment. Whilst at present
there is no formal approval from either English Heritage or CABE we
are engaging with them throughout the planning preparation to ensure
that any submission is one that is met with approval by those two agencies.
2.7. Apart from funding, what information is outstanding from Houston
Securities?
Houston Securities have yet to submit on behalf
of the consortia a planning application. There are clearly issues around
financial proposals that are still outstanding as well as, the final
TIA and EIA arrangements to support any planning application.
2.8. On what grounds did you extend the "preferred bidder"
status of Houston Securities after it theoretically expired in March
of this year?
Has already been answered
3.
FUNDING.
3.1. Can you confirm the funding "split" for the stadium/arena:
Construction cost - £150 million, consisting
of
European Objective One funding - £35 million.
Houston Securities - £30 million.
English Partnerships - £25 million.
North West Development Agency - £10 million.
Liverpool City Council - £10 million.
Development receipts from non-arena development
- £40 million.
The funding split identified in the questions
as an amalgam is appropriate albeit that the individual public sector
split/apportionment of the funds are not as identified although the
overall quantum is about right. Any potential investment will be linked
to shareholding rights and these have yet to be finalised.
3.2. Who originated the above funding model and when? Was it included
in the original Houston Securities proposals?
The original funding model and proposals for 50-50
split in the ownership on the Stadium emerged from discussions that
were held by Liverpool Vision and Houston Securities in their capacity
as the successful preferred development partner. It did not form part
of the original Houston Securities proposal.
3.3. What is the source of Liverpool City Council's funding?
Has already been answered
3.4. Has any Houston Securities share of consultants fees ever been
paid from public funds for any reason? If yes, what are the details
and reasons?
The Consortium involved in this development has
discreet arrangements for paying for fees. Houston Securities share
of that apportionment is met by them and the public sector meets its
share of the apportionment based on the proposed shareholding arrangements
for WSAL.
3.5. Have all of the public sector partners approved their share of
capital expenditure (as item 3.1) at board or council level? Is that
money now "ring-fenced"?
All the public sector partners will need to secure
final approval for both any capital investment and/or the take up of
shares in WSAL. To date whilst there has been approval for expenditure
of resources to meet the feasibility stage of the work involved in this
initiative, final formal approval from all of the public sector has
yet to be secured. It is anticipated that this will come only when all
of the financial details and planning arrangements have been finalised.
3.6. When do you expect to make application for European Community Objective
One funds? Who will prepare and submit the application?
Initial application for European Objective 1 funds
has been drafted and an outline submission deposited with the Government
Office via the City Council on behalf of the Consortia. This submission
will be the subject of on going discussion before a full and final appraisal
is submitted on behalf of the Consortium when the financial and planning
stages are complete.
3.7. Why has the project not obtained a private partner for the non-stadium/arena
development?
The arrangements for securing a private partner
for the non-stadium/arena developments are already in place and Houston
has within its consortium secured a range of partners both for the non
arena infrastructure and for the arena infrastructure proposals.
3.8. Who underwrote or guaranteed the Houston Securities £30 million
during the due-diligence process?
This commercially sensitive and therefore you
need to pose that question to Houston Securities.
3.9. What was the original method of payment of Houston Securities'
£30 million? Has it changed? If yes, what is the new requirement?
The arrangements for payment by Houston Securities
of its proportion of the investment is again commercially sensitive
and should be directed to Houston Securities.
3.10. At what stage of the due-diligence process did you become acquainted
with the fact that the Houston Securities funding depended partly upon
proceeds from the sale of Goodison Park?
Has already been answered
4.
PLANNING AND PROGRAMME.
4.1. When did you first tell Houston Securities that they might not
get planning approval for a retail development on the Goodison Park
site?
Has already been answered
4.2. Why did you not suggest an outline planning application for the
Goodison Park site when you became aware the sale was part of the funding
equation for Kings Dock?
Any proposals for planning application on Kings
Dock have always been linked to a need to take a planning application
for Goodison in tandem. This is clearly an issue that is not confined
to the City Council's Planning Committee alone and would probably form
the part of a separate public inquiry. The detail as to whether Goodison
Park form part of the funding for Kings Dock is a matter for Everton
and not for the City Council.
4.3. Will the planning application be dealt with as a "normal"
application or will it be given additional scrutiny and analysis by
an external consultant? Under normal circumstances how long would you
expect the project to receive a formal planning decision?
All planning applications of this side and magnitude
are conducted in the normal way. This would involve external consultants
appraising the City Council on the key issues as well as, securing legal
views as to many of the details contained within that application. The
application in turn would then be dealt with by the Planning Committee
but would be subject to extensive consultation and therefore, it would
be anticipated that the deliberations on the planning application would
take some months to be completed. This would ensure that any issues
of call-in and/or public inquiry were covered, in order to ensure that
the statutory planning obligations were discharged appropriately.
4.4. When do you now expect the planning application to be submitted?
It is hoped that a planning application may be
submitted towards the end of the calendar year. However, it has always
been agreed by the partners involved in this particular development
that the planning application has to be right. Therefore in a similar
vein to other major planning applications for large scale developments
it is possible that this may slip if it is necessary to ensure that
the detail is correct. Discussions are ongoing about the timetable.
4.5. What is the latest construction start date to enable the scheme
to achieve all its targets, including receipt of Objective One funds?
It was originally anticipated the arena would
be completed for the 2005/6. However as stipulated above, this is dependant
on ensuring that the planning application is correct. It is therefore
possible that this date may slip if it ensures we get no hinderance
with the said application. Therefore the latest construction start date
will finally be dependant upon when the planning application is submitted
and the likelihood about any possible public inquiry. With regard to
receipt of Objective 1 funds providing the draw down of Objective 1
funds is initiated by 2006 there is a period of normally between 2 -
3 years for the completion of the scheme and the full drawn down of
any Objective 1 resources.
4.6. At what stage will you consider there is no point proceeding any
further with Houston Securities as "preferred bidder" and
decide to seek alternatives?
At present there are no other plans to seek a
further alternative to Houston Securities. However you can never predict
what might happen with regard to all eventualities and therefore the
public sector partners regularly review all of their major developments
to ensure the key sites are not left blighted. (21/10/02)
OUR
CITY - OUR FUTURE - OUR CLUB
EVERTON FOR THE KINGS DOCK
