Planning Committee 30th May 2013 (Wirral Council): Vote on new play area in Leasowe splits Planning Committee 7:6

Planning Committee 30th May 2013 (Wirral Council): Vote on new play area in Leasowe splits Planning Committee 7:6f

Planning Committee 30th May 2013 (Wirral Council): Vote on new play area in Leasowe splits Planning Committee 7:6

                                                                                                                                                                

If there was ever a part of a meeting that sums up both the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of Wirral Council, item 12 (and its appendix) would serve very well.

It all started as usual with an officer saying it would’ve been decided by officers under their delegated powers if Cllr Lewis hadn’t asked for it to be decided by the Planning Committee (however with a qualifying petition against it and nine letters of objection it would’ve been decided by the Planning Committee anyway). The officer continued by stating that the planning application was for a children’s play area comprising five items and dated back to a 1997 agreement with a developer building a new housing estate. The area proposed for the play area was part of an area of open space established for the residents, residents had concerns, but environmental health had no objections to the proposal despite the area being a flood risk.

A representative of the petitioners, Steven Lindsay of 5 Aintree Close thanked the Planning Committee for attending the site visit on the day before the meeting. He pointed out it had been sixteen years since the original agreement for the play area had been signed and that since then many families had grown up, he referred to a survey conducted eighteen months ago of one hundred and forty-seven properties. Ninety percent had been against the play area, six and half percent for and three and a half percent hadn’t expressed a preference. Mr. Lindsay referred to another brand-new play area nearby which was well used by children and a further play area that had been built as the result of a section 106 agreement with a developer.

The concerns of the petitioners were of vandalism, theft of the play area equipment, antisocial behaviour and people gathering there who were not from the area. Another concern was that the site of the proposed play area was too close to adjoining properties and that a nearby play area had had equipment stolen. Two other play areas at a distance of 200m and 300m were nearby as well as Leasowe Common.

Miss Jackie Smallwood, of Wirral Council’s Parks and Countryside Service addressed the committee on behalf of Wirral Council. She said that when the section 106 application had been granted that the policy had been twenty metres from property boundaries, however the policy had since changed to ten metres to property boundaries and twenty metres from the facade of buildings.

Cllr Ian Lewis agreed with the petitioner Mr. Lindsay and said it was unusual to have a planning application for a play area. He pointed out it had been sixteen years since the section 106 agreement and that since then they’d spent £75,000 on a play area as part of the Playbuilder scheme whose catchment area included this estate. He pointed out that in a further change that 23,000m² of the public open space had been sold, leaving 5,000m² and that the appendix pointed out that as a condition of the planning permission that the developer was to provide 60m² of open space per a property. He asked why the land left was well below the recommended limit of 60m²? In a survey of every home in the development by Taylor Wimpey, ninety percent of residents had been against it. As Wirral Council was the applicant, he said that they had nothing to lose and that they had to recognise the cost of maintaining a particularly small play area which was not wanted as Wirral Council would be taking on a further liability. He asked the Planning Committee to refuse the application. He passed around details of the sale of some of the public open space.

Cllr Elderton said that the petitioner and ward councillor had shown that times had changed, that the site visit had shown it was in an established residential area and the evidence of the petitioner showed that the residents would prefer not to have it developed as a play area. He suggested that they refuse the application on the grounds that it was no longer necessary. Cllr Elderton also pointed out the fact that as the Council was the applicant that it couldn’t sue itself and that they should go along with what residents want.

Matthew Davies said that the original permission (OUT/1994/6791/D) had been granted sixteen years ago and that the Planning Committee in August 2011 had revisited the issue. He said that the developer had paid money for the installation of a play area, which had been approved in 1997 and 2011, therefore the play area could be erected under permitted development, however the developer had wanted the details to be considered as a standalone item. If they refused the planning permission, they would have to reimburse £50,000 plus interest which would come to £75,000. Officers had assessed the existing play areas and felt that they were not acceptable or accessible as they were separated from the development by busy roads.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said that the training that councillors on the Planning Committee had received meant that they should consider each planning application on its merits, without any consideration as to the applicant. He said he hadn’t been a member of the Planning Committee back in 2011 and that whilst a survey had taken place that they had to be ultra careful if they were turning it down for this reason. Cllr Foulkes pointed out that the nature of the estate might change, that it was a “viable planning application” and that the play area “might well be seen as an asset”. He said he understood there were fears and pessimism, but if they went down that route then there wouldn’t be any play areas. Cllr Foulkes said that it was a bit of a cop-out that the Council wouldn’t appeal its own decision, that he had seen the site and location and that areas that were well looked at and overseen didn’t tend to attract antisocial behaviour. Cllr Foulkes asked “Is it a good thing?” and then answered his own question with the answer being “probably yes”.

Cllr Simon Mountney said it was reminding him of the George Orwell novel 1984 and that [Cllr Foulkes] was sounding like the Politburo. He pointed out that the residents wanted them to spend the money elsewhere and enforcing a play area on them was not right. Cllr Mountney referred to the “massive consultation”, the result had told them “please don’t give us” [a play area] with the public telling us [the Planning Committee] “thanks but no thanks”. Cllr Mountney said that they couldn’t make an assumption over the nature of the estate over twenty years. He received applause for his points.

Cllr Wendy Clements said that at 4.9 in the report, that before development progressed Wirral Council would have to consult the local community, therefore public opposition to the scheme was a material consideration in determining the planning application.

Cllr Elderton said he agreed with Cllr Wendy Clements, that times had changed and they had to make sure it was appropriate. He pointed out that things had moved on from sixteen years ago and that he’d been on the Planning Committee in 2011. Cllr Elderton said they should consider the current position rather than bury their heads in the sand. He said that he didn’t like to see councillors overturn the will of the local community to merely support something from sixteen years ago and that wasn’t the reason why he’d become a councillor. Cllr Elderton said they should support the aspirations of all local communities.

Matthew Davies said that the appendix had come as a report to the Planning Committee in 2011 and that they’d heard the comments from petitioners and Cllr Ian Lewis then, which was more recent than sixteen years ago. He cautioned them against refusing permission and that the permission granted sixteen years ago could take twenty, thirty or forty years before it was built. Mr. Davies said that as it had been approved it could be built without further consent which they needed to be aware of.

Cllr Mountney said they were there to support residents. The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney said they were there to uphold planning policy and that the policy was still the same.

Cllr Mountney asked who was going to build the playground? Matthew Davies said that as the developer had made the contribution that the Council would put the play equipment in place. Cllr Mountney expressed concern that they were “riding roughshod over the public”. The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney said it had to be agreed and that the only reason it was back here was to approve the type, amount and the age group.

Cllr Foulkes asked if it was refused, would the old planning permission take precedence leaving it as a decision for the Executive [Cabinet]?

Cllr Hayes referred to the 60m² of open space per a resident and asked a question about commuted sums and the section 106 agreement. Matthew Davies answered that it was something to consider when drafting the section 106 agreement whether or not to accept commuted sums, which could be used to upgrade existing facilities, however when it was drafted in 1997 they decided not to go for a commuted sum. He said the fact the land was sold had no bearing as the green space and play area were separate issues.

Cllr Muspratt said it was quite compact and had concerns about the guidelines on different age groups mixing. Matthew Davies said there were guidelines but they were outside the planning remit. He said that colleagues in parks and leisure tended to put an upper age limit of twelve on play areas as this was when people tended to stop using them.

Cllr Brightmore said that the residents were asking them to refuse the application. Matthew Davies said they could refuse this application as it was a standalone application, therefore they could refuse this specific play area. Cllr Wittingham referred to the petition of twenty-nine households but said he would be uncomfortable to refuse the application as it would mean children would have to cross Reeds Lane.

Cllr Stuart Wittingham moved accepting the planning permission and Cllr Joe Walsh seconded it. Cllr Foulkes said he didn’t enjoy councillors trying to make a fool of him. He said that he didn’t like being set up or being pilloried.

The Chair asked for a vote of those in favour of the planning permission. Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Brightmore, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Stuart Wittingham and Cllr Irene Williams vote for (7).

The other councillors (6) voted against, so the planning application was approved by 7 votes to 6.

Wirral Council writes off £11 million of bad debt by using £millions of financial reserves

How Wirral Council wrote off £11 million of bad debts by using £millions of financial reserves

Wirral Council writes off £11 million of bad debt by using £millions of financial reserves

Reading these two articles, Wirral Council social services in £27m ‘toxic debt’ shock (Wirral Globe) and Wirral council failed to collect £10m of debts (Daily Post) you may be a little confused about what the true financial situation is at Wirral Council.

I’ll deal first with the Wirral Globe article, the figure of £27 million for DASS (Department of Adult Social Services debt) seems to be incorrect. According to page 2 of the independent report and this table here, the figure for outstanding DASS debt was £24.7 million (not £27 million) on New Years Eve 2012 (the figure as of last month is £11.8 million).

This explains why the figures quoted in the article (14.8 million and “more than £10m” (which is £10.9 million) don’t add up to £27 million, but £25.7 million. There is also a discrepancy of a million pounds between this figure and the £24.7 million in the independent report as the figures for collectable debt (£14.8 million) and debt to be written off (£10.9 million) don’t add up to the figure given in the report (£24.7 million) but £25.7 million.

The independent report itself dated 15th March 2013 (ten days after the 2013/2014 Budget was agreed) states “The recent review concluded that only £14.8 million is collectable and recommended writing off £10.9 million of debt of which £4.8 million is already provided for in the financial accounts.” This reads to me that the 2013/14 Budget had a provision for writing off £4.8 million of debt which needs to be increased to £10.9 million (an increase of £6.1 million which would need to be found either from reserves and/or cuts to services).

However this report going to the same Cabinet meeting written by the Interim Director of Finance Peter Timmins states at 9.4 “There is a Bad Debt provision of £4.8m, against estimated bad debts of £10.9m. The further write-off of £6.1m was built into the 2013-14 budget, as part of the exceptional items that featured in the 2013-14 budget process.”

Now, seemingly they can’t both be right as they’re saying different things. How would a £10.9 million bad debt provision (which appeared in a report dated ten days after the Budget for 2013/2014 was agreed) be “built into the 2013-14 budget)? Of course it is possible that Wirral Council received earlier drafts of the report prior to March 5th hence why the report is entitled “Final report”.

So what figure was used for bad debt when this year’s budget was agreed?

This report to Budget Council entitled “Budget 2013/16 – Chief Officer Financial Statement” states at 7.3 in table 3 “Review of outstanding debts – potential write-off” “To be funded from reserves per the Revenue Monitoring report to Cabinet 24 January”.

This report, which was later revised does give a figure (both reports give the same figure) of £6.55 million of “unachieved income” in the Department of Adult Social Services. The report recommends using the £7.941 million in the “Debt Restructuring Fund” reserve to cover the shortfall in income. At the same meeting the Chief Executive estimates the bad debts to be £10 million, that their current provision for bad debts is £4 million, with the impact on the 2013/14 Budget as being £6 million. Interestingly he also states “Mr Sullivan had indicated that he would complete the investigation by mid February and his report would be available initially to the Cabinet and publicly shortly afterwards”. Mr. Sullivan’s final report is dated mid March and as to “his report would be available … publicly shortly afterwards”, a whole two months have passed between the date on his report and its publication in mid-May.

Annual Meeting (Part 1) (Wirral Council) 14th May 2013 Highlights of Mayor Gerry Ellis’ year

Annual Meeting (Part 1) (Wirral Council) 14th May 2013 Mayors Communications | The Mayor Gerry Ellis gave an update on the highlights of his year in office

Continued from Annual Meeting (Part 1) (Wirral Council) 14th May 2013 Mayors Communications, Mayor of Wirral Cllr Gerry Ellis “It’s been an amazing, exciting, unbelievable experience”.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Highlights of Mayor Gerry Ellis’ year

Annual Meeting Part 1 (Wirral Council) 14th May 2013 Civic Hall Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis arrives

The Mayor said he would tell people of some of the highlights of his Mayoral year. A few days after becoming Mayor he had been introduced to the Queen as she came off the Yellow Duckmarine in Liverpool. He said to her, “Did you enjoy your trip on the Duck?”, the Queen didn’t answer the question and it was later pointed out to him that it was a breach of etiquette to ask the Queen a question.

Another event he’d been to had been in Woodchurch when it was raining, so sheets had been used to stop them getting wet. Unfortunately one of the sheets had blown over sending water cascading down over the Mayor. The Mayor continued his speech and referred to a good relationship with other cultures, the work of the Wirral Multicultural Organisation and the monthly citizenship ceremonies.

Remembrance Sunday was the first time the Mayor had been to the “splendid” Remembrance Service in Birkenhead, as in previous years he’d attended the Remembrance Service held in West Kirby. The Cockleshell Heroes event “turned out to be one of the highlight’s of the Mayoral year” and the “best publicity Wirral had”.

He loved going to theatres and the Mayor was Honorary President of a couple of theatre groups. The Chrysanthemums Pantomime Society were particularly pleased that he was Mayor as he was a former member.

Annual Meeting (Part 1) (Wirral Council) 14th May 2013 Mayors Communications, Mayor of Wirral Cllr Gerry Ellis “It’s been an amazing, exciting, unbelievable experience”

Annual Meeting (Part 1) (Wirral Council) 14th May 2013 Mayors Communications | The Mayor thanked various people that had helped him during his year in office and gave an update on fundraising for the Mayor’s charities

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Annual Meeting (Part 1) 13th May 2013 (Wirral Council) Part 1

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Gerry Ellis “It’s been an amazing, exciting, unbelievable experience”

Annual Meeting Part 1 (Wirral Council) 14th May 2013 Civic Hall Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis arrives

The Annual Meeting (Part 1) is the only Council meeting to be held in the Civic Hall. As you can see from the photo hundreds of people are invited not just to the public meeting itself, but to the social event held afterwards.

The Mayor Gerry Ellis entered along a red carpet preceded by the Mace-bearer in a scene that reminded me of Black Rod at the State Opening of Parliament. Once he got to the stage he welcomed people and gave a short speech. He referred to the year he had been Mayor as an “amazing, exciting and unbelievable experience” and that if he was to write a book about it he’d call it “Ellis in Wonderland”.

He thanked various people, Cllr Jeff Green and the senior Conservative councillors for choosing him and Cllr Phil Davies for seconding the motion. The Mayor also thanked Cllr Phil Davies for his support as Leader and went on to thank various Town Hall staff. He thanked Sue Carroll, Sonia Norman and his drivers and attendants specifically referring to Alan’s wit. The Mayor also thanked Shirley Hudspeth, Surjit Tour, Tony Hope (from the press office) and all the Town Hall desk staff (Peter, Tom, Phil, Nick, Hazel, Mike and Greg) who he remarked were “always friendly and helpful”.

He also thanked Carol Jackson for helping to run the Mayor’s charity fundraising and Cllr Phil Davies’ Secretary Barbara Turner. The Mayor also thanked Margaret McGee and a number of councillors including Cllr George Davies, Cllr Brian Kenny and Cllr Steve Williams. He also thanked Cllr Geoffrey Watt’s wife Ann for selling a quarter of the tickets to the Mayor’s Ball.

On the fundraising for the Mayor’s charities, they had passed £40,000, but there were still funds to come in. They had given a cheque for £10,000 to three charities, as well as cheques to thirty-five others ranging from £50 to £500. He said he was “very sorry not to help every charity” but that it “had been amazing to see the charity work that goes on, on the Wirral”.

The three charities that had received £10,000 were YMCA Wirral (for their work with the homeless), Wirral and West Cheshire Prostrate Cancer Appeal and the Wirral Scouts and Guides Association. He then went on to give a brief speech on his year as Mayor.

Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Darren Dodd “this is what the people of Wirral have been asking for for a very long time”

Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Darren Dodd “this is what the people of Wirral have been asking for for a very long time”

Continued from Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr John Hale “these proposals should be consigned to the dustbin where they belong”.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Darren Dodd “this is what the people of Wirral have been asking for for a very long time”

Cllr Darren Dodd was next to speak and told people he had been along to many meetings was surprised that some councillors hadn’t gone to one. He said he had been elected almost three years ago and ever since then councillors had been talking about change, he referred to several difficult reports received all calling for change. Cllr Dodd said they had voted unanimously for change on several occasions and that “this is what change looks like” [referring to the constitutional changes]. He said, “Let us not forget this is what normal Councils do, this is what normal looks like”.

Cllr Dodd said that the Tories had raised concerns about power being taken away from councillors, but he felt the new arrangements gave “more opportunity to raise issues of concern, not less”. He said, “It’s always been my view that of all the meetings I attend, full Council meetings are often pointless.” Cllr Dodd said it’s not because full Council doesn’t make important decisions, but that they nod through business as quickly as possible to get to the Notices of Motion.

He said the Notices of Motion are always on important things, but often carry little weight, at the end of the meeting “usually a lot of hot air has been expelled”, but very little action agreed. Cllr Dodd pointed out that out of fifteen to twenty motions, often only one or two are properly discussed and that the new arrangements would be “clearly a better system” and “this is what the people of Wirral have been asking for for a very long time”.