Sandhills station

[davek]

I'm not going back on any claims at all.... I've worked on several major transport schemes, I know precisely how they work and the outcome of this planning process is well-documented. I clearly stated my concerns and reservations years ago, when you were still claiming it wouldn't happen, or were going on about Dock Walls, Wind Generators and patterns in Brickwork..... or speculating/arguing that others were going to pay.... this is just your latest pet peeve.

As I said at the beginning, if you can show that the authorities or any agency have reneged on any agreed provision or investment, then feel free to show it. If I have missed it, then I would certainly welcome it. You haven't done that! You're still making claims, speculating about the subjectivity of who's responsibility it is to do whatever, after the fact. That fact is (that holds up to all scrutiny), the plans WERE AGREED and as far as the club and various authorities are concerned they are adequate.... with their fallback wiggle room taken up by "walking"....! You can go round and round about who should pay for what..... but it is meaningless, when that was all agreed several years ago!

Whatever the club spent is irrelevant. All that will have been covered in the initial negotiations and the subsequent planning process. All that matters in terms of legal responsibility and obligations is what was agreed. All the council had to say during the whole process is they're skint or that they have far bigger priorities than funding infrastructure for a fortnightly event venue owned by a billionaire etc, and any improvements would have to be fully or partially funded by the club, as was the case for both Spurs or Arsenal and their respective planning authorities. You can go round and round about who should've paid for what..... but it is meaningless when that was all agreed years ago!

As regards other transport projects, they can also say that they have their own timeline based on CBRs and are dictated by available funding/budgets etc, and/or that those budgetary priorities were the roll out of a whole fleet of new trains etc. Again, regardless of that, Vauxhall Stn is not part of the ACTUAL transport plan.

If/when it turns out that the Transport Plans are inadequate, or worse and it decends into chaos at the next test events, or later when operational (when the new matchday habits begin to establish)..... then the club/authorities will probably say that they clearly stated that the stadium required the 60:40 modal shift, or less people walked than our consultation process suggested etc.... Who knows, there may even be capacity-capping clauses agreed (By all parties), as there were with Destination Kirkby.

The Ten Streets (non)development is the outstanding issue here.

The transport plans included a number of 'committed developments' the LCC wanted including in that document that could drive - in conjunction with the stadium - the regeneration of the north docks and surrounding neighbourhoods. Primary among these was the Ten Streets Spatial Regeneration Framework:

"...it is important to take the SRF into account within this TA given its proximity to Bramley-Moore Dock and its potential influence on the area, particularly from a transport perspective.

"...the SRF recognises the pivotal role the Ten Streets Neighbourhood will play in facilitating good connectivity to Bramley-Moore Dock and the new stadium."

All the stakeholders signed off on that. That was "agreed"

Now they (LCC) may have not included timelines and viewed that as aspirational, but all who signed off on the document knew it was a major 'connecting' project that needed to be finally addressed to deal with the transportation issues that would arise from the stadium build. The LCC "requested" that the Ten Streets development be included in the plan.

The council have a had a decade and the certainty for 6 years ago about a stadium being built next door to get moving on their own plans for the Ten Streets scheme.

This is not about legally binding documents, as you well know. It's about partners committing to a series of mutually beneficial developments and bringing them to fruition in a holistic way for the benefit of north Liverpool. The stadium and Ten Streets have been interlinked throughout out these last 6 years and the club delivered and LCC didn't.

For the purposes of this discussion it's about who shoulders the blame for the transport mess. It isn't Everton FC, but you wish to argue that. The local state have not matched this club's endeavours to honour its commitments...and that's why we have a mess.

 

[mahermi1]

The Ten Streets (non)development is the outstanding issue here.

The transport plans included a number of 'committed developments' the LCC wanted including in that document that could drive - in conjunction with the stadium - the regeneration of the north docks and surrounding neighbourhoods. Primary among these was the Ten Streets Spatial Regeneration Framework:

"...it is important to take the SRF into account within this TA given its proximity to Bramley-Moore Dock and its potential influence on the area, particularly from a transport perspective.

"...the SRF recognises the pivotal role the Ten Streets Neighbourhood will play in facilitating good connectivity to Bramley-Moore Dock and the new stadium."

All the stakeholders signed off on that. That was "agreed"

Now they (LCC) may have not included timelines and viewed that as aspirational, but all who signed off on the document knew it was a major 'connecting' project that needed to be finally addressed to deal with the transportation issues that would arise from the stadium build. The LCC "requested" that the Ten Streets development be included in the plan.

The council have a had a decade and the certainty for 6 years ago about a stadium being built next door to get moving on their own plans for the Ten Streets scheme.

This is not about legally binding documents, as you well know. It's about partners committing to a series of mutually beneficial developments and bringing them to fruition in a holistic way for the benefit of north Liverpool. The stadium and Ten Streets have been interlinked throughout out these last 6 years and the club delivered and LCC didn't.

For the purposes of this discussion it's about who shoulders the blame for the transport mess. It isn't Everton FC, but you wish to argue that. The local state have not matched this club's endeavours to honour its commitments...and that's why we have a mess.

Tbf Dave has a point here, when we were building and still are, we have created a lot of work for local/ non local businesses, we have created hundreds of new jobs whilst the build is in progress, local people which was agreed with the Council at the time. The point is the very least the Council could do is provide transport to and from the Stadium that is fit for purpose. Don't know what is being provided from Lime St station but that would be a start.

 

[Tom Hughes]

The Ten Streets (non)development is the outstanding issue here.

The transport plans included a number of 'committed developments' the LCC wanted including in that document that could drive - in conjunction with the stadium - the regeneration of the north docks and surrounding neighbourhoods. Primary among these was the Ten Streets Spatial Regeneration Framework:

"...it is important to take the SRF into account within this TA given its proximity to Bramley-Moore Dock and its potential influence on the area, particularly from a transport perspective.

"...the SRF recognises the pivotal role the Ten Streets Neighbourhood will play in facilitating good connectivity to Bramley-Moore Dock and the new stadium."

All the stakeholders signed off on that. That was "agreed"

Now they (LCC) may have not included timelines and viewed that as aspirational, but all who signed off on the document knew it was a major 'connecting' project that needed to be finally addressed to deal with the transportation issues that would arise from the stadium build. The LCC "requested" that the Ten Streets development be included in the plan.

The council have a had a decade and the certainty for 6 years ago about a stadium being built next door to get moving on their own plans for the Ten Streets scheme.

This is not about legally binding documents, as you well know. It's about partners committing to a series of mutually beneficial developments and bringing them to fruition in a holistic way for the benefit of north Liverpool. The stadium and Ten Streets have been interlinked throughout out these last 6 years and the club delivered and LCC didn't.

For the purposes of this discussion it's about who shoulders the blame for the transport mess. It isn't Everton FC, but you wish to argue that. The local state have not matched this club's endeavours to honour its commitments...and that's why we have a mess.

So, there are no legally binding agreements or Docs. There is no planning application for Vauxhall Station? It is just part the Long term Transport Strategy, as are multiple other suggested projects.....

And It is not part of our Transport Plan?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Tbf Dave has a point here, when we were building and still are, we have created a lot of work for local/ non local businesses, we have created hundreds of new jobs whilst the build is in progress, local people which was agreed with the Council at the time. The point is the very least the Council could do is provide transport to and from the Stadium that is fit for purpose. Don't know what is being provided from Lime St station but that would be a start.

Yes, we can argue about what is the "least the council could do" for evermore.... but it would be futile, because the fact is, this is what was agreed through the planning process. If not, the club will be able to take the council to task on it.

 

[davek]

So, there are no legally binding agreements or Docs. There is no planning application for Vauxhall Station? It is just part the Long term Transport Strategy, as are multiple other suggested projects.....

And It is not part of our Transport Plan?

No, there is no "legally binding agreement" that if x happened then y would follow from the council.

But everyone knew that the two schemes were locked into each other. It was incumbent on the local state to provide 'connectivity' to the stadium and the city centre via their own long drawn out Ten Streets development project. But they failed to do that and now we have a mess.

It's all about getting our pieces in order on this discussion over who takes the blame for transportation. The failure over Ten Streets begat the stadium transport issues.

Going back to the Spurs and Arsenal examples: you suggest a difference there to BMD and LCC whereby the relevant local councils in London insisted on the clubs financing a restructuring of the transport plan themselves or those stadium developments, presumably, would not have gone ahead or would have been delayed.

Well LCC had that very same option, didn't they? The example you use tends to draw our attention to why they didn't: and the answer to that is that they saw Everton as a driver for regeneration and never ever pushed the issue of making the stadium work efficiently on transport from the off - something that many lay people could have told them...and their transport experts KNEW from the off. As the local authority they had the responsibility to ensure EVERYTHING was nailed down on that planning application. It wasn't, and they winged it with all other parties (including EFC) from then on to make the project a reality.

It simply wont do to hand a free pass out to the local state because "they didn't legally agree" to make transportation move like clockwork for the new stadium. That's a specious argument. And your insistence on bringing this issue up is the act of someone who's never fully got their head around - and accepted - that the move from Goodison was the right decision to make, and so you've made the transport issue a proxy war to carry on that fight.

I think that's the weight of it all.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No, there is no "legally binding agreement" that if x happened then y would follow from the council.

But everyone knew that the two schemes were locked into each other. It was incumbent on the local state to provide 'connectivity' to the stadium and the city centre via their own long drawn out Ten Streets development project. But they failed to do that and now we have a mess.

It's all about getting our pieces in order on this discussion over who takes the blame for transportation. The failure over Ten Streets begat the stadium transport issues.

Going back to the Spurs and Arsenal examples: you suggest a difference there to BMD and LCC whereby the relevant local councils in London insisted on the clubs financing a restructuring of the transport plan themselves or those stadium developments, presumably, would not have gone ahead or would have been delayed.

Well LCC had that very same option, didn't they? The example you use tends to draw our attention to why they didn't: and the answer to that is that they saw Everton as a driver for regeneration and never ever pushed the issue of making the stadium work efficiently on transport from the off - something that many lay people could have told them...and their transport experts KNEW from the off. As the local authority they had the responsibility to ensure EVERYTHING was nailed down on that planning application. It wasn't, and they winged it with all other parties (including EFC) from then on to make the project a reality.

It simply wont do to hand a free pass out to the local state because "they didn't legally agree" to make transportation move like clockwork for the new stadium. That's a specious argument. And your insistence on bringing this issue up is the act of someone who's never fully got their head around - and accepted - that the move from Goodison was the right decision to make, and so you've made the transport issue a proxy war to carry on that fight.

I think that's the weight of it all.

Ten Streets is an entirely separate project on a different time line. Vauxhall Stn is not the subject of a planning application is not in the transport plan..... so they're not "locked in" at all! However much you wish to fantasise.

The Arsenal and Spurs examples also prove the point that a local authority is not automatically responsible for stadium infrastructure at all....Whether or not a local authority grants planning permission will depend on several factors, how desperate they are for the development, and what they can leverage from it in negotiation.... what they are ultimately responsible for after that, is precisely what is agreed. Nothing more, nothing less. That's really the end of your whole argument, and you know it!

In the case of Destination Kirkby. The Transport Plan was totally unworkable. Knowsley wanted the development, so would've given planning permission regardless.... and if the stadium did not achieve the dispersal time/congestion targets and modal shift as stated in their multi-revised Transport Plan, they covered their political arses with Capacity-capping clauses, (that were not revealed at the time). It was no skin off their noses either way. In this case, the transport plan clearly includes a 30 min walk fallback option to the city centre, which unlike Kirkby, comfortably has all the public transport capacity to meet their stated required modal-shift. Maybe that initial negotiation resulted in the reduced capacity, we don't know.

Your accusations towards me are groundless for the reasons previously stated.... and a further example of your strategy for mounting endless strawman arguments of little or no substance.

 

[davek]

Ten Streets is an entirely separate project on a different time line. Vauxhall Stn is not the subject of a planning application is not in the transport plan..... so they're not "locked in" at all! However much you wish to fantasise.

The Arsenal and Spurs examples also prove the point that a local authority is not automatically responsible for stadium infrastructure at all....Whether or not a local authority grants planning permission will depend on several factors, how desperate they are for the development, and what they can leverage from it in negotiation.... what they are ultimately responsible for after that, is precisely what is agreed. Nothing more, nothing less. That's really the end of your whole argument, and you know it!

In the case of Destination Kirkby. The Transport Plan was totally unworkable. Knowsley wanted the development, so would've given planning permission regardless.... and if the stadium did not achieve the dispersal time/congestion targets and modal shift as stated in their multi-revised Transport Plan, they covered their political arses with Capacity-capping clauses, (that were not revealed at the time). It was no skin off their noses either way. In this case, the transport plan clearly includes a 30 min walk fallback option to the city centre, which unlike Kirkby, comfortably has all the public transport capacity to meet their stated required modal-shift. Maybe that initial negotiation resulted in the reduced capacity, we don't know.

Your accusations towards me are groundless for the reasons previously stated.... and a further example of your strategy for mounting endless strawman arguments of little or no substance.

This ^^^ is just a series of claims with no foundation.

1/ Ten Streets not being in the same timeline: it's mentioned in Everton's application and one that LCC requested be considered alongside the BMD plan to strengthen it!!

Unbelievable you claim some sort of "separation" of the two.

2/ you're actually using the recently demolished Spurs/Arsenal example you made to double down on its 'explanation' / 'exoneration' of LCCs performance.

You're right, LCC or any other council is not automatically required to fund transportation upgrades for football clubs. But they are there to carry out their function as local authorities and make sure there's the avoidance of chaos if it's threatened by such a large construction project...something we now know has materialised (and most including LCC knew would happen back in 2019) with the BMD stadium build. You actually deride (correctly) KBC for not doing their job at Kirkby in that respect, but you then try and smuggle LCC in under the radar of good/acceptable governance by implying the 30 minute walk fall back allows them to come out of this with credibility...a 30 minute walk solution, btw, that you yourself derided here in this thread a few days ago.


Tom, your position is unsustainable. You're in a thicket of your own making and the more you thrash about the more you become entangled.

The local state have been appalling in their conduct concerning this stadium. They've brazenly claimed it as an example of the dynamism of the local economy but they haven't lifted a goddam finger to avoid the building becoming a marooned piece of real estate 2 miles from the city centre of a bustling European city.

Stop talking BS.

 

[Goat]

This ^^^ is just a series of claims with no foundation.

1/ Ten Streets not being in the same timeline: it's mentioned in Everton's application and one that LCC requested be considered alongside the BMD plan to strengthen it!!

Unbelievable you claim some sort of "separation" of the two.

2/ you're actually using the recently demolished Spurs/Arsenal example you made to double down on its 'explanation' / 'exoneration' of LCCs performance.

You're right, LCC or any other council is not automatically required to fund transportation upgrades for football clubs. But they are there to carry out their function as local authorities and make sure there's the avoidance of chaos if it's threatened by such a large construction project...something we know now has materialised (and most including LCC knew would happen back in 2019) with the BMD stadium build. You actually deride (correctly) KBC for not doing their job at Kirkby in that respect but you then try and smuggle LCC in under the radar of good/accepatable governance by implying the 30 minute walk fall back allows them to come out of this with credibility...a 30 minute walk solution, btw, that you yourself derided here in this thread a few days ago.


Tom, your position in trying to sustain a view of this council is unsustainable. You're in a thicket of your own making and the more you thrash about the more you become entangled.

The local state have been appalling in their conduct concerning this stadium. They've brazenly claimed it as an example of the dynamism of the local economy but they haven't lifted a goddam finger to avoid the building becoming a marooned piece of real estate 2 miles from the city centre of a bustling European city.

Stop talking BS.

Not to hide away from the appalling job.

But could finances not play a part in this?

As im sure you know, funds in this and many regions have been massively cut over the last few years, you only have to walk the streets to see the utter eyesore the entire region is rapidly becoming due to underfunding.

 

[davek]

Not to hide away from the appalling job.

But could finances not play a part in this?

As im sure you know, funds in this and many regions have been massively cut over the last few years, you only have to walk the streets to see the utter eyesore the entire region is rapidly becoming due to underfunding.

If LCC and EFC couldn't make the figures work in 2019 it should have been shelved. That's what the logical thing to do was.

But the local state wanted this done. They thought 'Tomorrow Never Comes' and that something would turn up funding wise by magic...but they had that fall back of Shank's pony to firewall them from criticism if nothing did turn up and it was a transportation calamity.

...something our friend Tom is diligently going to bat for them on right now in this thread.

 

[Rita_Poon]

This ^^^ is just a series of claims with no foundation.

 

[Tom Hughes]

This ^^^ is just a series of claims with no foundation.

1/ Ten Streets not being in the same timeline: it's mentioned in Everton's application and one that LCC requested be considered alongside the BMD plan to strengthen it!!

Unbelievable you claim some sort of "separation" of the two.

2/ you're actually using the recently demolished Spurs/Arsenal example you made to double down on its 'explanation' / 'exoneration' of LCCs performance.

You're right, LCC or any other council is not automatically required to fund transportation upgrades for football clubs. But they are there to carry out their function as local authorities and make sure there's the avoidance of chaos if it's threatened by such a large construction project...something we now know has materialised (and most including LCC knew would happen back in 2019) with the BMD stadium build. You actually deride (correctly) KBC for not doing their job at Kirkby in that respect, but you then try and smuggle LCC in under the radar of good/acceptable governance by implying the 30 minute walk fall back allows them to come out of this with credibility...a 30 minute walk solution, btw, that you yourself derided here in this thread a few days ago.


Tom, your position is unsustainable. You're in a thicket of your own making and the more you thrash about the more you become entangled.

The local state have been appalling in their conduct concerning this stadium. They've brazenly claimed it as an example of the dynamism of the local economy but they haven't lifted a goddam finger to avoid the building becoming a marooned piece of real estate 2 miles from the city centre of a bustling European city.

Stop talking BS.

I'm claiming nothing.... I'm stating the simple facts of the matter, that you have been completely unable refute, and have had to resort to misrepresenting my comments, due to the complete lack of substance in your argument.

Briefly mentioning a future aspirational project (or non-project, as you yourself called it) in the supporting docs, with no funding secured for its transport element, that also has no planning application, is not including or "locking into" the Stadium Transport Plan for BMD..... it's fluff! Nowhere is it mentioned about how many fans will be expected to use Vauxhall Stn..... etc, because the club knew from the start that it wasn't happening.

Where have I said that I am happy or anyway compliant with the Plan's over reliance on the 30 min walking catchment? I have stated clearly many times from the start that it is not good enough, and that the Transport Plan is purposely vague and weak...... while you've been largely howling at the moon about who you think should be paying for what. I merely recognise that it is their fallback, get out of jail card that you don't have to read between the lines to understand what it's about.... and that the likes of Kirkby didn't have.

You claimed that the Council had a responsibility to provide infrastructure funding, simply because the club "held up their part" of the bargain by building the stadium. Then when faced with the Arsenal/Spurs example you had to accept that it is not the local authority's automatic responsibility at all..... and furthermore you then accepted that there was no documental evidence to suggest that that the council had failed or reneged in any of their legal obligations (literally their part of the bargain), as clearly laid out in the club's own submitted Transport Plan.

So I'm sorry, but it is only you who can be seen to be "thrashing around in the thicket of your own making".... and let's face it, it's something of a recurring theme, and just the latest example of Contrary Dave!

 

[barneygumble]

Had some spare time yesterday due to a cancelled train home; so walked to Sandhills, along the Dock Road.

I've done it before for events on BMD before the stadium and it felt closer, being a nice day, i thought it'd be a breeze, but probably still took me 25 mins.

Don't mind doing that on warmer days, but not a bloody chance I'm walking to the ground from town in the middle of Winter .

I have zero confidence in Merseyrail, as ironically, I'm now sat at home as my first train to town was cancelled this morning

 

[davek]

I'm claiming nothing.... I'm stating the simple facts of the matter, that you have been completely unable refute, and have had to resort to misrepresenting my comments, due to the complete lack of substance in your argument.

Briefly mentioning a future aspirational project (or non-project, as you yourself called it) in the supporting docs, with no funding secured for its transport element, that also has no planning application, is not including or "locking into" the Stadium Transport Plan for BMD..... it's fluff! Nowhere is it mentioned about how many fans will be expected to use Vauxhall Stn..... etc, because the club knew from the start that it wasn't happening.

Where have I said that I am happy or anyway compliant with the Plan's over reliance on the 30 min walking catchment? I have stated clearly many times from the start that it is not good enough, and that the Transport Plan is purposely vague and weak...... while you've been largely howling at the moon about who you think should be paying for what. I merely recognise that it is their fallback, get out of jail card that you don't have to read between the lines to understand what it's about.... and that the likes of Kirkby didn't have.

As I said in the last post: the more you struggle the more you entangle yourself:

You're now - after defending throughout the right of LCC to do nothing about the transportation mess as they're not legally obliged to (the notion of legality having being smuggled in by you, btw) - you now state that their request add to the P.A. their own 'connecting' project next door to the stadium as "fluff" and they'd been "purposely weak" with their fall back position of an 'active transport plan' which is largely the 30 minute walk back into town. Either they had no need to address it at all and didn't or they did but they purposely put forward "vague and weak" proposal and therefore were a bad faith actor in this.

Which is it?

You claimed that the Council had a responsibility to provide infrastructure funding, simply because the club "held up their part" of the bargain by building the stadium. Then when faced with the Arsenal/Spurs example you had to accept that it is not the local authority's automatic responsibility at all..... and furthermore you then accepted that there was no documental evidence to suggest that that the council had failed or reneged in any of their legal obligations (literally their part of the bargain), as clearly laid out in the club's own submitted Transport Plan.

So I'm sorry, but it is only you who can be seen to be "thrashing around in the thicket of your own making".... and let's face it, it's something of a recurring theme, and just the latest example of Contrary Dave!

Spurs/Arsenal: no I didn't "ignore" that point, I accepted it but then simply turned the comparison back toward you and asked you whether LCC had the same power to delay or reject a stadium plan as Harringey/Islington did if the club didn't commit to financing transportation improvements that would ensure there'd be no access/egress chaos and local area gridlock. And the answer to the question, of course, is yes - they did have that same power. They didn't exercise it though for the reasons I've outlined concerning the need for regeneration and wanting desperately for this club to boost the north Liverpool districts which are struggling to bounce back. In other words: they got Everton on the hook as a driver for regeneration while sitting on their hands and doing nothing for 6 years after the P.A. was accepted.

I said earlier - and I was 100% right - all roads lead back to the local state on this.

But you'll still reach for a legal document that says so when the debate was never about legality. It was a dishonest attempt to muddy the waters and protect people like Rotherham and the leaders of LCC from criticism of their own inaction - and by doing that you do a disservice to every Evertonian who will struggle badly to attend events at the new stadium.

 

[Jacko93]

If LCC and EFC couldn't make the figures work in 2019 it should have been shelved. That's what the logical thing to do was.

But the local state wanted this done. They thought 'Tomorrow Never Comes' and that something would turn up funding wise by magic...but they had that fall back of Shank's pony to firewall them from criticism if nothing did turn up and it was a transportation calamity.

...something our friend Tom is diligently going to bat for them on right now in this thread.

I mean, a fair bit has changed in terms of available funding from central and/or local Govt since 2019 like....

 

[Jacko93]

For me, the real pressure can now be applied jointly by any potential investors on the remaining land and surrounding areas. If the land can't be sold due to well publicised transport issues, then LCC and LCR are negatively affecting their potential income streams. As it happens, this development is already built and will generate income now regardless, causing will still be full and we as fans will just crack on and find a way.