Monthly Archives: October 2010

by

Election Spending (local elections) 2010


Well I went down to the Town Hall today to see what was spent during the election campaigns candidates/agents (or at least what was declared) on their election campaigns. The maximum amount that can be spent is £600+5p/elector (apart from joint candidates where the spending limits are lower at either £450+3.75p/elector or £400+3.33p/elector). As the number of electors varies from place to place, this varies the total amount.

These are the amounts spent between 29th March 2010 and 6th May 2010.

I only looked at candidates in four wards, those were (totals as follows):-

Bidston & St. James Labour £875.54
Rock Ferry Labour £742.54 Lib Dem £288.83
Oxton Labour £510.64 Lib Dem £221.98
Prenton Labour £775.54 Lib Dem £660.83

In three out of four of those places the candidate that spent the most money won. What was interesting though was what it was spent on and the source of the funds.

In some cases (as there was an election for the town’s MP on the same day) candidates put out joint leaflets with the parliamentary candidate. However the legislation wouldn’t class these as “joint candidates” as they are in elections to different bodies even though the election was held on the same day and voted for by the same people.

About these ads
by

Dogs, Rain, Alcohol – Crime, ASB & the Labour Party


Well, stone the crows when my wife walked the dog this morning; Labour have been sighted in Bidston & St. James delivering a leaflet.

This follows on from Cllr Harry Smith refusing to answer the question on Monday evening whether he’d visit Bidston & St. James ward on Friday/Saturday nights to see the problems that alcohol brings in the area he represents deriding the question as “political”.

I will give full marks to Cllr Smith for consistency. The independently written minutes of the Wirral Council Scrutiny Programme Board at point 33 quoted below state in response to my wife’s letter on this matter back in January (for Members read Labour councillors):-

“Members considered also a response they had received from a local resident to the Alcohol Scrutiny Review, which also offered some general observations on the issue of alcohol in the Bidston area of Birkenhead. A number of Members expressed their disagreement with a number of points in the letter, particularly what they perceived to be attacks on Council officers in relation to licensing of off-licences and test sales of alcohol to young people under the age of 18. Other Members questioned the objectivity of the response, as the respondent appeared to be promoting the issue for party political purposes.”

However you can read the actual letter from my wife to the members of the Scrutiny Programme Board who were discussing the Alcohol Strategy Review at the meeting.

The points she made that prompted this response from Labour councillors, were “A number of off licences in the area have in recent years made sales of alcohol to customers under 18. Although Trading Standards send in teenagers in test sales to check on under age sales; local shop assistants know who lives locally and will generally be able to spot these strangers.”

This is based on fact. An offlicence in Hoylake Road had had its licence revoked after making an underage sale. This is not the only one that had been selling to under-18s (in fact some still do!)

While Labour merely deride bringing up the problem as “political”, it was Liberal Democrats that asked the police to do something about alcohol related antisocial behaviour which led to the mobile police station being placed near Birkenhead Park train station. Local residents in this area were pleased that finally their complaints were heard and (finally) something was done about it!

What was the response from a party that said they were “tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”?

I personally wish I didn’t feel the need to write this post highlighting problems with crime and alcohol in the area. It feels like I’m talking down an area I live in, however as a local resident who lives here, I want the area to improve. If the Labour Party won’t even answer an easy yes/no question or merely derides residents like myself and my wife bring it up with a local councillor as “political”; is Labour there to truly represent the views of the local people or is it party politics first and the local community second?

Wirral Council’s own constitution states:-

“2.3 (a) All Councillors will: …represent their communities and bring their views into the
Council’s decision-making process”

Cllr. Harry Smith chooses to live in Oxton where he’s represented by three Liberal Democrat councillors. Doesn’t this say it all?

by

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 5) – Warehouses


The meeting moved onto an application in Bromborough for a new warehouse. The Chair was keen that the gates were retained. The officer stated that the applicant had been approached and had agreed to incorporate them in the landscaping, but that it couldn’t be added as a condition had to be reasonable and necessary. The Chair was delighted that they were to be retained as they were part of the history of the site. The Chair proposed approval, with Cllr Salter seconding. It was agreed unanimously.

The next item to be discussed was an extension to a warehouse in Hoylake. There was a petitioner who handed around a photo to the committee. He then addressed the committee stating the extension would have a detrimental effect on their homes due to its size of two stories. He asked that the extension be kept to one not two storeys. He also mentioned concerns about noise and the quality of life of residents and requested a site visit.

Cllr Elderton addressed the committee on the subject of the height of the building and asking if it set a precedent. The Chair pointed out that the proposal would lead to less noise as the delivery area would be enclosed. The Chair moved approval. 7 councillors voted for, with 5 against so it was approved.

The Committee agreed the planning applications decided under delegated powers, noted the development control quarterly report and noted the report on recent changing to planning policy regarding housing and the revocation of the North West Regional Spatial Strategy. The meeting then finished.

by

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 4) – New House in Bidston


Item 4 (demolition of a petrol station and erection of shops in Claughton ward) was unanimously approved.

The next item for decision was the erection of a new dwelling in Upton Road, Bidston. There was no petition associated with this application.

The officer described this as in filling of a plot at the end of a cul-de-sac and that there was currently a live planning consent from 2008. The footprint of the amended application was the same and there was no significant difference so the application was recommended for approval.

Cllr Harry Smith addressed the committee, and referred by name to the two residents of 292 that had objected to it. He mentioned about parking, entry/egress, health and safety, the adverse impact on the area and Monday’s site visit. He said the site was too constricted and cars would have to reverse out onto the highway. He also said that if councillors allowed the application it would cause conflict between neighbours. He said a three bedroom house was bad enough, but a four bedroom was out of the question. He asked that if approved that construction traffic go to the rear of the plot. He asked for the application to be refused.

The Chair asked the officer to answer two of the points raised by Cllr. Smith. They answered that there was parking on the site itself and although access was far from ideal, the traffic caused by one residential property was unlikely to be noticed. It was pointed out that residents of other properties had to also reverse to come out onto the road.

Cllr Johnston said he was glad he’d been on the site visit and until today had thought of no planning reason to turn it down. He mentioned a report to be discussed later by the Planning Committee on garden grabbing.

The Chair said planning permission was already in place. Cllr Johnston said that this amended application was just to keep it live. Was the amended first floor element a step too far? It was pointed out that it would rely on the consent of the owners of 290 and that there were no overlooking issues.

Cllr Kenny pointed out that planning permission had already been approved and if rejected tonight the original planning permission would still stand. Cllr Kenny was minded to refuse the application. Cllr Elderton asked if it counted as overdevelopment in relation to the footprint. The response was that overdevelopment related to the % of the site being built on.

An officer also urged caution with Cllr Kenny’s point that it couldn’t because refused because the applicant might not build what they already have planning permission for.

Cllr Elderton raised a point about massing and that since the first application the owner of 290 Upton Road had changed hands. He felt there were no reasonable grounds on which to turn it down. It was pointed out there was a small area for parking at the front of the site.

Cllr Kelly raised the garden grabbing policy and said that the reasons given wouldn’t satisfy the objectors. It was in the gift of the resident of 290 as to whether to permit access.

The Chair pointed out that the rush to develop in rear gardens should be resisted. An officer pointed out that if this was a new application then garden grabbing would apply and he would report later on PPG3. The officer pointed out a strong material consideration was that there was a live consent which is why the decision had originally been delegated to officers to make.

The Chair move approval. Cllr Keeley seconded. Nine councillors voted for and 3 against (all Labour) so the application was approved.

by

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 3) – Bebington House in wrong place


The next application to be decided was a retrospective planning application for the erection of a house and garage.

There was no qualifying petition associated with this application. The Chair asked in future that any photos should be displayed before the meeting started. He also mentioned that Cllr Williams had objected to the application earlier at 4.15pm.

An officer talked about the application and that the house had been built too close to a boundary, it should’ve been 5m away but had been 2.2m away, although the original proposal had been approved. An extra condition had been added that the proposed changes had to be made within 9 months.

Cllr Sheila Clarke addressed the committee and talked about an access road that had been made. She pointed out that in some parts this property was as close as 1.25m and that it was unneighbourly. She pointed out it was in a Conservation Area. She said it was disproportionate to the plot size and had no regard to the character of the area. She referred to page 4 of the report and circulated photos. She said there was overshadowing and loss of amenity to the neighbouring property and that a hedge at 2m was not feasible. She also pointed out that other residents had conformed to the Conservation Area requirements.

Cllr Keeley asked if an objective report had been done as to whether it was out of character in a Conservation Area. The Chair said that an independent report had stated that the amended plans didn’t conflict with policy CH2 or the Conservation Area appraisal.

It was pointed out that there were no habitable rooms on the side of the property which had been built too close to the boundary. Cllr Gilchrist asked a question about condition 4 and was told it removes all permitted development rights and that the 9 months to carry out the work was reasonable.

The Chair proposed it for approval. Ten councillors voted for and two against, so it was approved.

by

Planning Committee 21/10/2010 – Compost in Clatterbridge (Part 2)


The next item on the agenda was an application for a green waste composting area, vehicle accessway and site office in Clatterbridge.

This application also had a petition against it of 78 people, which was received late on Monday. Sue Smith spoke on behalf of the petitioners and mentioned Monday’s site visit. She talked about the animal life and that there was more traffic at other times of day. Over the last 11 years there had been eight fatalities and she saw traffic and noise as two of the reasons why the petitioners were objecting.

She pointed out that the application was for 10,000 tons/year which would equate to 32 bin lorries/week. She was against the concreting and tarmaccing of the Green Belt and asked if the Planning Committee had received her letter of objection. She pointed out the woodland on the site and that she wanted the site to remain green. She said she wanted it to be green belt land, not green waste land.

The agent then spoke and pointed out that it was a small green waste business with two owner-operators which had been seven years in business. He added that if the application was approved that the business would take on an extra employee. He thought the proposal would benefit the rural landscape, reduce the pressure of landfill and that agriculture was an appropriate use and associated activity in the Green Belt. He said the compost would be spread on the surrounding 179 acre farm, which was heavy clay soil. This would give the farmer greater yields and be used as a soil improver. Over six weeks the volume of green waste would reduce by over 50% and over a ten-year period, the compost would raise the height of the land by no more than two inches. It would not be open to the public who would be free to use the Council’s sites. He also mentioned that the Environment Agency would have to grant a licence and that a benefit would be the reduction in carbon emissions.

Cllr Jerry Williams then addressed the committee. He pointed out that the application would lead to an increase in traffic and that nearby stables meant the surrounding roads were used heavily by horses. He pointed out that the area looks onto Storeton Village and referred to the site’s opening hours. He said there had been no environmental assessment done and that his main concerns were environmental damage and highways issues.

The Chair then opened it up to debate by committee members asking for a response from officers on the three issues of speed, noise and road traffic accident history. An officer replied that on this C-road national speed limits applied which meant a speed limit of 60mph or 40mph for heavier vehicles. He pointed out the application improved access to the site as well as space to turn. A map was shown to the committee of known traffic accidents in the locality. The officer said the rate of accidents was similar to other roads in the area.

Regarding noise, they had measured the noise of the shredding equipment as heard from the nearest property 800m away. A noise of 78db on site was heard as only 37db at the nearest property which was classed as acceptable.

Cllr Gilchrist commented on the landscaping and the variety of species. He also asked what the hedge around the development would be (the answer being hawthorn). Cllr Johnston asked if any of the compost produced would be taken away or whether it would all be spread on the surrounding land. The answer was that the farmer would be using the product produced.

Cllr Elderton asked about the number of traffic movements a day this would produce. The answer given by an officer was 3 or 4 a day.

The Chair said it had been an interesting site visit and that the site couldn’t be seen from the village because of the lie of the land. The Chair (Cllr Mitchell) moved approval. Cllr Salter seconded it. Eleven councillors voted for the application and one voted against, so it was approved.

by

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 – Horses, bats and hedges (Part 1)


Planning Committee started with about 50 members of the public present as there were a number of items with large petitions opposing them.

After the usual items of minutes being accepted, declarations of interest (unusually there were none) the Chair nearly forgot about requests for site visits, but corrected himself.

There were no requests for site visits, so the meeting continued (reordered to take into account how many members of the public were present). The first item being an application by Salisbury Independent Living for demolition of some stables (and associated buildings) along with the buildings of a new stables for their clients with disabilities aged 16-65. There was a petitioner who spoke as well as two councillors – Cllr Sheila Clarke and Cllr Jerry Williams.

The petitioner, a Mr. Reed of Hillside Cottage, representing Storeton Residents Association decried the environmental damage already done to the site and the loss of wildlife. He talked about the trees that’d been cut down, the bats, the hedges ripped out and the problems with flytipping at the site’s car park. He asked for the hedges to be replaced. He also said he thought the site of 3 1/2 acres could only support 3 horses (1 horse/acre).

The agent for the applicant then spoke, saying he didn’t think traffic was a problem. He said that it would be for private use by Salisbury Independent Living and not rented out. People would arrive in a people carrier, not coaches and by 5pm they would be going back to their homes. He estimated there would be an extra 9-10 cars between 7am-10pm and the applicant would be happy to stagger the comings and goings at the site if this was a problem. He pointed out the hedge was not a material consideration. He handed to the Planning Committee a bat survey from 2008 that showed no evidence of bats. He asked that the committee approve the application so that these ignored people could have the same opportunities as the rest of Wirral.

Cllr Jerry Williams spoke next about the wildlife and fauna. He said there had been definitely bats and the hedges had now gone. He said in a nearby hedge there had been found five important species and how would a 140-year hedge be replaced overnight? He mentioned he had seen bats circling here and there had been opposition to this application from Leverhulme Estates and Wirral Green Belt.

Cllr Jerry Williams then went on to talk about the misuse of the car park after hours by flytippers, drug users and courting couples. He talked about animal welfare and the site’s historic importance as a battle had been once been fought here. He wanted the sandstone building retained.

He was against the application on animal welfare grounds, called for an environmental survey for bats and didn’t think a car park in the Green Belt was suitable.

Cllr Sheila Clarke talked about the site visit and the unadopted road. She mentioned about the site lines with respect to road safety and called for the hedge to be replanted. She asked for the opening to the building to be changed and also mentioned a policy of one horse per an acre as well as also mentioning the bats.

A question was asked of officers regarding the policy on horses. They replied that the Unitary Development Plan called for non-commercial spacing of 0.4 hectares/horse. This wasn’t on horse welfare grounds, but to prevent overgrazing and a proliferation of small stables in the green belt.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist asked if there were any orders that applied to the hedge and asked how condition 2 would restore the hedge. There was also discussion of how a large increase in traffic would affect the unadopted road and whether the maintenance of the road could be done through the use of a condition. As this was an unadopted road; this couldn’t be done and was down to the landowner.

Cllr Salter asked how much credence should be given to the bat survey as there were no dates and times in the report. He also called for the hedge to be returned to the original plan. Cllr Johnson highlighted the road safety issues and asked what would be done with the horse muck. Cllr Gilchrist thought any hedge replanted would cause problems as the roots would dry out.

Cllr Elderton said the access road would become a quagmire if heavy vehicles were using it. Cllr Kenny said he had a lot of sympathy with the opposers but pointed out refusal could be overturned on appeal if the reasons weren’t good enough.

The committee was then told that the unadopted road was in shared ownership, between the applicant and two houses at the end of the lane. Cllr Johnson asked if it could be deferred so the applicant could answer the issues. He said the three shacks were an eyesore and the sandstone building could look fabulous.

The Chair said there were no reasoned arguments for refusal and moved a recommendation for approval. He asked for a seconder, but none was forthcoming. He then asked what would happen, an officer said if they could not reach a decision then the applicant would have the right to appeal on the grounds of non-determination.

The Chair proposed approval, Cllr Johnston seconded it. There was a vote, 4 were for approval, 7 against with 1 abstention. The debate then moved onto the reason for refusal. An officer advised the councillors that the traffic issues were not a strong enough reason for refusal. A councillor moved (and it was seconded) that it should be refused on the grounds of being an unneighbourly development because of an intensified use of the site. 7 voted for refusal, 4 were against with 1 abstention.

by

Last week of blog posts – most popular


Considering I only started this blog a week ago, the fact that pages on it have been viewed a staggering 182 times I find slightly amazing.

Ordered by popularity here are the top four posts of the last week (along with the number of comments)

Town Hall Drama: Labour’s lost the plot – more playground politics 16 comments

Planning Committee site visit to land adjacent to 290 Upton Road, Noctorum 2 comments

Cabinet Meeting 14th October 2010 0 comments

Wirral’s Future: Be a Part of It 0 comments

On the last one, what’s also pleasing is that three people have clicked through from this blog to the Wirral’s Future: Be a Part of It questionnaire. Next week will probably be quieter as it’s the half-term holiday. I’ll be writing up my recollection of last night’s Planning Committee meeting later today.

by

Planning Committee – decision on Upton Road


A decision should be made tonight at Planning Committee regarding the new house on Upton Road.

I notice although the recommendation to approve it hasn’t changed, an extra condition 8 has been added (compared to last time the report was written). This extra condition is:-

“Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved,the south facing landing window
and east facing bathroom window shall be obscurely glazed and non-opening above 1.7
metres in height and shall be retained as such thereafter.”

Hopefully this should satisfy the two who objected (although I got the feeling talking to them they were against the principle of a house being built here at all). Strangely enough, even if it got turned down tonight, as the previous application was approved (and is valid) it would still probably be built. This plan just asks for a further bedroom and bathroom.

Separation distances and privacy are important things to be considered; seperation distances have been on the mind of the Planning Committee ever since in a case nearby to Upton Road someone was awarded compensation. I look forward to tonight’s meeting.

by

Corsair demolished – Bidston Village Conservation Area


Residents of Bidston Village and Beechwood had been complaining about the eyesore that’d been the closed-down Corsair pub at the centre of Bidston Village.

Unlike the other pub at the other end of the Beechwood (previously called the Seven Stiles, now the Fender) which just suffered slight vandalism when it was vacant this one had been set alight numerous times. In May the Corsair had been set alight again taking six fire engines to put out and triggering worries about asbestos as well as traffic problems .

Residents near to the Corsair had received a letter back then stating the shell of a building was to be demolished earlier this year and were puzzled when it didn’t happen. When I raised it at the June Area Forum, it turned out the owners had appealed the request for demolition; so legal proceedings were slowing things down. As far as I know it was the only derelict, arsoned pub in Bidston & St. James that was in a Conservation Area.

Since that time it’s been demolished. However the residents are asking what’s going to happen to the site now? Parking is a problem in that area (exacerbated by the loss of the pub car park). I will be making enquiries to see if there are any future plans for the site.