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.