Monthly Archives: February 2011

by

Cabinet meeting (Wirral Council) 22/02/2011 Part 1 – the Conservative/Lib Dem budget cometh and Labour is not happy


Well yesterday the Conservative & Lib Dem Cabinet “unveiled” their Wirral Council budget for 2011/2012. Labour’s (opposition) budget will arrive by noon on Friday the 25th February.

Next Monday (1st March) the full Council will vote on the budget, although with 41 (yes I know it’s 42 including the Lib Dem Mayor but generally he doesn’t vote as he’s supposed to be politically neutral as part of his office) “progressive partnership” councillors to Labour’s 25 24 (edit – I sometimes forget Cllr. Knowles had switched from Labour to Tory and the independent Cllr Kirwan isn’t still with Wirral Council) councillors, I’m sure even Labour can do the maths and realise Labour’s budget will be defeated next Monday (with no need for Budget Part 2 on the evening of the 9th March) by around seventeen votes.

Can you see which bits of the Budget are from the Lib Dem side and which from the Conservative side? Yes you can see “the seams” between the two halves as we continue to be two independent political parties with minds and policy making processes of our own. If you look really hard you can see the bits influenced by yours truly and others (for example the 4-year rolling programme for 20mph residential zones discussed last year by the party when Cllr Quinn was Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport) now carried forward by Cllr Rennie.

One Lib Dem policy coming into play is the pupil premium which means about £5 million extra for Wirral Schools to spend on children on free school meals, looked after children and service children. You should’ve heard the “wails of anguish” at the Wirral Schools Forum from headmasters/headmistresses from the more prosperous parts of the Borough when they realised £5 million would be spent on improving the educational chances of the most needy! Clearly Wirral is a place of large social divides and the extra money will be a welcome boost to the schools in Bidston & St. James.

So what may you ask is “in the budget”? Well, first to deal with the elements of the council tax that are made up by Merseyside Police’s budget and Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s budget. Both Merseyside Police and Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service froze their contributions from Council Tax compared to last year (2010/2011).

Due to increased costs and inflation (as well as a high proportion of its costs being on staff), Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service will be cutting some jobs. Their Chief Exec/treasurer explains the situation in a self-styled “podcast” (I don’t think he quite knows what a podcast is but I have to give them a few marks for trying), which unfortunately with my browser Firefox either opens a blank black window or six video windows of him at once creating an echo effect so I’ve uploaded it to Youtube (which has slightly better audio quality than five echoes).

For the purposes of any copyright lawyers out there, as the work has been made previously available to the public (and still is on Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s website at this location), this is classed as “fair dealing” under s.30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and is being done for the purpose of news reporting (and making sure you can hear what the speaker says).

Quite why councillors on MF&RS left it to an officer to record a video (which is below) to explain the cuts is a mystery I’m sure my humble readers can enlighten me on in the comments section (or maybe I’ll just ask Cllr. Ellis, Cllr. Niblock, Cllr. Rennie or Cllr. Roberts next time I see them).

It sounds like sound quality was the first thing to be cut at Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service! :P Perhaps next year they could invest £20 in a noise-cancelling microphone? The reference in the video to the Budget being set today is in reference to last Thursday.

About these ads
by

Merseyside Police Authority – Budget Meeting for 2010/2011


The Merseyside Police Authority’s Budget meeting was today where they set their budget for 2011/2012.

Due to reductions in their budget, Merseyside Police will see a drop in police officers from the current 4,348.8 full-time equivalent officers at the end of this financial year to 4,178.8 full-time equivalent at the end of 2011/2012. There is also going to be a reduction in police staff anticipated to be 163. A councillor at the meeting did ask what the reduction in actual police officers would be for Wirral. The Chief Constable replied that the criteria used would be population, levels of crime, deprivation, the effect of the night-time economy and the professional judgement of Chief Officers within each local authority area.

As a result of the changes to the budget, the planned Wirral Area Command Centre on a derelict piece of land near Birkenhead North railway station will now not go ahead.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 9 – Change of use from business premises to residential, Tranmere


Cllr Kenny said it would not set a precedent as each application would be decided on its merits. Cllr Kelly said he was not overly convinced that a loss of a small unit would be harmful to employment prospects. He asked for advice regarding reasons for approval and said it had been better in Claughton as there had been evidence of marketing. He said he had sympathy with the ward councillor.

An officer referred to the second paragraph of the Policy Context part of the report. He said they should be careful about releasing land designated by the UDP without proper justification.

Cllr Gilchrist said it wouldn’t be that attractive as a commercial property. Cllr Johnson said that it would enhance the street scene and that they were halfway there as there was living accommodation upstairs.

Cllr Salter said that when had been a lad it was a shop and that the upstairs had always been residential. An officer said that approval of item ten had been after evidence had been supplied that it had been marketed for commercial uses. The applicant for item ten had followed the correct process. He said approving would cause officer’s difficulties. Cllr Harney asked if the residential use predates the planning laws. The answer given was that a well established use becomes established.

Cllr Mitchell said it should be deferred for further information, so proof could be obtained regarding the ward councillor’s comments. Officers had asked twice but the information was not forthcoming.

Cllr Kenny was convinced it should be approved. Cllr Realey seconded approval. Cllr Gilchrist seconded Cllr Mitchell’s motion to defer the matter.

Eight councillors voted for approval with four against. There was a condition added that it had to be implemented within three years which was agreed by all. The Chair thanked people for coming.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 8 – Change of use from business premises to residential, Tranmere


Cllr Kenny sai he understood planning officers. However just a few yards away were residential properties. He said it was similar to item 10 and he had no objection to the application. He said exceptional circumstance dictated approval.

Cllr Mitchell asked about proof. An officer said there was a difference between items 4 and 10. He said no material had been put forward and that it had had a mixed commercial use in the last two years. He said the ward councillor was referring to letters regarding a residential use. He said there was no evidence of marketing for a commercial use.

Cllr Realey referred to the site visit and asked about the Smith & Sons letter. The officer replied that the Smith and Sons letter was in reference to marketing for a residential use.

Cllr Salter referred to the empty units on the Argyle Industrial Estate. Cllr Elderton recognised the officers were correct subject to conditions. He said he was minded to say there was adequate evidence to approve but he didn’t want to set a precedent. Cllr Mitchell said he had listened carefully. He referred to the February 2000 designation as industrial use. He said it was the “thin end of the wedge”. He said they had gone against the UDP regarding useful employment.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 7 – Change of use from business premises to residential, Tranmere


The committee then considered item 4 – Change of use to two self contained ground floor apartments with single storey extension and rear staircase in Argyle Street South, Tranmere. The officer said that it was an application for a residence in an industrial area and there was not sufficient justification.

Cllr Phil Davies (ward councillor for Birkenhead and Tranmere) asked the committee to agree to the application. He said he understood the land was primarily for industrial use and referred to the site visit the day before. Right across the road were residential popular terraced properties. Most were occupied. However this property had been vacant for two years. He said it was difficult to let as a commercial property and that there were already two flats on the first floor on the periphery of the industrial area. He said the applicant had found out that there were seventeen vacant units on the Argyle Industrial Estate and that there was not a demand for commercial property. He said it this application was refused it would be left vacant.

There was already vandalism and with no commercial tenant the vandalism could continue. He had been shown letters from an estate agents showing they would have no problem letting it as a residential property. It was close to the train station and Town Centre and there were exceptional circumstances.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 6 – Rear extension, Halton Crescent, Greasby


The committee then moved onto consider item 7 – the erection of a two storey rear extension in Greasby. The officer said the main objection had been from a neighbour at number 6. The objection had led to the relocation of the bathroom window which was now obscurely glazed. She referred to the site visit the day before.

Cllr Gardiner (ward councillor for Greasby) thanked councillors for coming to the site visit and said there had been a great deal of concern regarding the extension. She said it was by far the biggest in the area. She said it would lead to loss of light and that it was a large and over dominant building. She also said it was out of keeping and worried that it set a precedent.

Cllr Elderton said he’d been not able to attend the site visit and asked to see a site plan. He was shown a ground floor plan. Cllr Mitchell said the site visit was very beneficial and that the application was within guidelines. He said it was difficult to find reasoned arguments to turn the application down. He moved approval which was seconded by Cllr Realey. All councillors voted in favour of approval.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 5 – North West House, West Kirby


Cllr Gilchrist asked about distances and whether the nearest house was less than 30m away. He also asked what materials the canopy would be constructed of as he would prefer it to absorb rather than reflect the sound. The officer replied that the material used would be glass and that separation distances don’t apply as the use was already established by a previous permission. He also said the issue of overlooking or loss of privacy doesn’t apply.

Cllr Kelly said he didn’t know if the proposal exacerbated the problem. He said there were two views, one expressed by the petitioner that it would amplify the sound and the agents view it would not. He said if the canopy did affect the noise it could put the licence at risk.

Cllr Boult said it was a big grey area and he was not 100% sure. He referred to the Environmental Health investigation into the noise problem. Cllr Mitchell said it would be beneficial to defer it to a later date because of noise attenuation. This was seconded by Cllr Salter. Deferring was approved by all except Cllr Realey who voted against deferral.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 4 – North West House, West Kirby


An environmental health officer confirmed the petitioner’s comments that there was an officer out tonight and that there was an event on tonight. A noise analyzer had been in place since 17th January, which would be left in an extra week. He said a crucial factor was whether it was a statutory nuisance or a breach of the licensing objective by being a public nuisance.

If noise levels were found to be excessive at the residential properties then they would need to increase the insulation. If the noise was excessive and a statutory nuisance it could lead to a review of the licence. However until there was clear evidence there was not a great deal that could be done.

Cllr Elderton said it was difficult as they couldn’t confirm whether it exacerbated the noise until it was built. He asked for a picture of the canopy. He asked if it was a bridge too far taking into account the series of complaints. He referred to the concern of the petitioner that it would concentrate the sound and asked if there was going to be sound escaping.

Cllr Kenny pointed out that in the written report there were no environmental health implications and asked for further information.

The officer replied that there were current investigations by Environmental Health regarding noise disturbance. However it was still a question whether the noise caused a statutory nuisance. He said the use was already established.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 3 – North West House, West Kirby


The architect Chris Taylor then addressed some of his points. He pointed out that the area had been previously used as a balcony. He said the design of the canopy wouldn’t lead to an increase in noise.

Cllr Ellis (ward councillor for the area) said he supported Mr. Johnson’s concerns. He mentioned the house and flats close by which were all effected by this. He said he was a great supporter of development in West Kirby and that this was thriving and flourishing. He was however concerned about the upstairs and the use of the roof as a balcony. He said if the canopy was put there it would be like an amphitheatre. He didn’t agree with the architect Chris Taylor that the door was small. He said when the doors and windows were open a row was coming out. He said the bar had a poor reputation for adhering to the rules. He referred to the police being called out and asked the Committee to seek the opinion of Cliff Jones. He said there appears to be some good agreement from the residents that the noise was greater. He asked the committee to defer the matter to ask Cliff or his team to make an assessment regarding the noise amplification.

The Chair pointed out that the architect had said there was a small door originally.

by

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 2 – North West House, West Kirby


The petitioner handed round a diagram to the committee members and told them his name was Steve Johnson. He told them his parents lived nearby and that he had two objections. He felt the application for a canopy was a change of use and referred to a previous application. He felt it was not a balcony, but a roof and the balustrade was only ornamental.

He felt there was no evidence that the structure of the canopy would cause an extra problem regarding noise. He said the design was similar to an amphitheatre and it would project the noise forward and downward. He had been in correspondence with the Director of the Acoustics Research Unit which was part of the School of Architecture at Liverpool University.

He pointed out an important, existing problem with noise. He mentioned out of thirty reports to the police, nineteen had been from music. There was live music and noise from these premises. He felt the worst was the first floor which needed soundproofing. There had been investigations by Environmental Health who were tonight measuring the noise.

He felt there would be noise resulting from people under the canopy. The noise as heard from his parent’s house was 85 dB. He again pointed out that the noise would be projected forward and down. He asked for the application to be rejected because of noise and that asked that the restaurant adhere to current licensing and planning conditions.