Planning Committee refuse Magenta Living application for 11 houses and 2 bungalows in Upton (Kenilworth Gardens)

Planning Committee refuse Magenta Living application for 11 houses and 2 bungalows in Upton (Kenilworth Gardens)

Planning Committee refuse Magenta Living application for 11 houses and 2 bungalows in Upton (Kenilworth Gardens)

                                                             

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.

The Kenilworth Gardens item starts at 8 minutes 19 seconds in the video clip above and continues to the video clips below of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 20th November 2014.

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.

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.

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.

Cllr Matthew Patrick explains to Wirral Council's Planning Committee why they should reject planning application APP 14 00951 in Kenilworth Gardens Upton 20th November 2014
Cllr Matthew Patrick explains to Wirral Council’s Planning Committee why they should reject planning application APP 14 00951 in Kenilworth Gardens Upton 20th November 2014

The long running saga of planning application of planning application APP/14/00951: Unused Land, KENILWORTH GARDENS, UPTON, CH49 4ND – proposal to develop the site with residential units for affordable housing use, providing 11 no. two storey 2 bedroom houses, and 2 no. 2 bedroom bungalows (including 1 fully disabled access unit) finally reached a decision at Wirral Council at the Planning Committee meeting of the 20th November 2014.

The applicant was Wirral Partnership Homes Limited (T/A Magenta Living) and the agent Ainsley Gommon Architects.

Wirral Council had received this planning application on the 18th July 2014. At the Planning Committee on the 25th September 2014 a site visit was agreed. After that took place it had been due to be decided at the Planning Committee on the 22nd October 2014. However at the Planning Committee meeting on the 22nd October 2014 it was deferred to the Planning Committee meeting on the 20th November 2014 (making it over 4 months for a decision on this planning application to be reached.

Wirral Council planning officers had recommended in a report that the planning application be approved with various conditions.

The Planning Committee heard from the lead petitioner Jean Robinson, Chair of the Overchurch Residents Association who spoke against the planning application being approved. She referred to heritage reasons, ecological reasons and highway reasons why she thought the planning application should be refused.

The petitioner in favour of the application did not speak.

Rob Ware of Ainsley Gommon Architects (the agent on behalf of the applicant Wirral Partnership Homes Limited T/A Magenta Living) spoke after and explained the reasons why he thought that councillors should accept the planning application. He referred during this to a 34 year old tenant of the applicant with spinal injuries that was in need of a bungalow and would benefit from such a planning application being granted. He also referred to the highway concerns.

Cllr Matthew Patrick (ward councillor for Upton ward) also addressed the Planning Committee. He referred to the petition against the planning application, the petition in favour, the protection of urban greenspace, the uses that local residents put the land which included Easter egg hunts and litter picking.

He pointed out that trees on the site were protected by tree protection orders and how he felt that the application should be rejected because of policy HS4 as in his opinion it did not meet all the criteria for new housing as it would change the character of the area as well as another criteria in HS4.

Cllr Patrick also referred to the need to reduce crime, allow emergency vehicles access and the issue of bats, in fact three different species of bat! He felt the lighting would disturb the insects that the bats feed on and referred to a letter written from Wirral Wildlife in 2007 about the bats. He referred the Planning Committee to their legal obligation with regards to species protection and went on to refer again to policy HS4.

He wondered how the proposed disabled tenant would be able to safely access the property by foot as the proposed pavement was too narrow and finished by referring to the strength of feeling from the Overchurch Residents Association as residents had contacted him by phone, email and letter about this planning application. He urged the Planning Committee to reject the application.

After much discussion over many issues to do with the planning application ranging from highway issues, disability issues, bats and wildlife, emergency vehicle access, refuse vehicle access and garages, someone asked one of Wirral Council’s solicitors for legal advice about the issue of the application needing to rely on a future decision to unadopt the highway to proceed.

The solicitor referred to the proposed condition 9 which meant approval was conditional on the access road being formally stopped up and unadopted. She referred to the other reasons (other than a development) as to why the highway might be unadopted.

After much further debate, Cllr Stuart Kelly (Lib Dem spokesperson) moved refusal. This was seconded by Cllr Denise Realey (Vice-Chair).

All thirteen councillors present on the Planning Committee voted in favour of refusal.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Wirral Council councillors agree to change of polling station and to consultation on medical requirements for taxi drivers

Wirral Council councillors agree to change of polling station and to consultation on medical requirements for taxi drivers

Wirral Council councillors agree to change of polling station and to consultation on medical requirements for taxi drivers

                                                     

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.

Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee Wirral Council 19th November 2014  L to R Cllr Steve Williams, Cllr Geoffrey Watt, Cllr Andrew Hodson and Anne Beauchamp
Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee Wirral Council 19th November 2014 L to R Cllr Steve Williams, Cllr Geoffrey Watt, Cllr Andrew Hodson and Anne Beauchamp

Wirral Council’s Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee met on the 19th November 2014. The agenda and reports for this meeting can be read on Wirral Council’s website.

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.

1. MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 0:22
There were no declarations of interest made.

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.

2. MINUTES 0:30
The minutes of the meeting held on the 19th June 2014 were agreed.

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.

3. POLLING STATIONS: FURTHER UPDATE 0:43
Cllr Geoffrey Watt then declared a non pecuniary interest in item 3 (Polling Station – Further Update) as it refers to polling district QC which is in West Kirby & Thurstaston ward (which he represents on Wirral Council). Get Propecia free trial on http://www.trendingdownward.com/propecia-finasteride/ and try for hair loss treatment.

Kate Robinson explained that this report was about polling stations for polling district YC (Moreton West and Saughall Massie) and QC (West Kirby & Thurstaston).

The (Acting) Returning Officer’s report recommended the following polling stations:

YC (Moreton West and Saughall Massie): Foxfield School (Douglas Drive)
QC (West Kirby & Thurstaston): St Bridget’s Church of England Primary School (St Bridget’s Lane)

Councillors discussed the (Acting) Returning Officer’s recommendations.

The decisions as to where polling stations would be for the May 2015 elections were made by councillors on the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee as follows:

YC (Moreton West and Saughall Massie): Foxfield School (Douglas Drive)

There was a petition of “more than twenty-five names” about the decision for polling district QC. However Cllr Geoffrey Watt said that the petition had unfortunately been lost. There was also a letter from the headteacher of St Bridget’s Church of England Primary School which he had circulated to those on the committee which was about the polling station for district QC.

Councillors discussed whether the polling station for district QC should be St Bridget’s Church of England Primary School (St Bridget’s Lane) or St Bridget’s Centre (St Bridget’s Lane).

QC (West Kirby & Thurstaston): St Bridget’s Centre (St Bridget’s Lane) proposed by Cllr Geoffrey Watt, seconded by Cllr Andrew Hodson. This proposal was agreed.

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.

4. UPDATE ON ELECTORAL ACTIVITIES 9:59

Kate Robinson advised the Committee that Wirral Council would be writing to 2,930 postal voters and 6 proxy voters during December to ask for refreshed signatures. If no response was received, a reminder would be sent. If no response was received to the reminder then the postal vote would be cancelled. She said that councillors may get inquiries about this and that they should encourage electors to respond.

Councillors discussed many interrelated issues to do with postal votes, the electoral roll, application forms, One Stop Shops, surgeries, internet access and local free newspapers.

Kate Robinson updated councillors on the results of the changes to individual registration. 91% of those on the voting lists had been matched with Department for Work and Pension data. People who had been automatically matched didn’t need to re-register. The plan was to send polling cards out in March [2015], but before that to do an audit of the electoral register in January with a mini canvass. Every household that was now registered would be sent a letter asking if the information held was right or wrong. This would save Wirral Council staff being “inundated with changes”.

Councillors Hodson and Sullivan asked her questions or commented on that item, the purpose of which was to keep councillors on the Committee updated on Electoral Services activities).

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.

5. HACKNEY CARRIAGE VEHICLE PROPRIETOR LICENCE ALLOCATION POLICY 21:35

Margaret O’Donnell introduced this item and the reasons for the proposed change.

Councillors agreed the new policy.

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.

6. MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE DRIVERS

Margaret O’Donnell introduced this item and the reasons for the proposed consultation.

Councillors suggested changes to what was consulted on. One councillor asked for legal advice on whether the current requirements should be a consultation option.

With the changes made to what was being consulted on councillors agreed the changes.

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.

7. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS ACCEPTED BY THE CHAIR

A councillor raised the issue of taxi drivers not adhering to the dress code. Margaret O’Donnell suggested that the dress code requirements could be sent out with the consultation on medical requirements for hackney carriage and private hire drivers.

The Chair raised the issue of deregulation. Margaret O’Donnell said she could provide an update, however the Bill had not yet received Royal Assent. She explained that one of the proposed changes after lobbying by the Local Government Association had been removed from the Bill.

A councillor said that he didn’t understand.

The Chair referred to emails. Margaret O’Donnell referred to a piece of work by the Law Commission which was unlikely to have effect this side of the May 2015 election.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

UPDATED: Last day of 4-week Lyndale School closure consultation: request for consultation responses

UPDATED: Last day of 4-week Lyndale School closure consultation: request for consultation responses

UPDATED: Last day of 4-week Lyndale School closure consultation: request for consultation responses

                                                       

Councillor Tony Smith at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Lyndzay Roberts

UPDATED 19/11/2014 16:12 to include anonymised consultation response received.

First copy of a response to the consultation (he or she wishes to remain anonymous) is added here:

“I am writing in response to the consultation. As a Wirral resident, I believe that this school should remain open. I am not convinced that it will be in the best interests of the children of Lyndale or the other two schools for Lyndale to close. Further, I have not seen evidence that the independent consultants report was based on an in depth analysis of the children’s needs. The consultant appears to have spent little time with the school staff or parents. These children have really specialist needs and the Council should take into account that the most vulnerable children must be protected the most. This is a matter of humanity. The financial argument is not convincing so why close? ”

Today is the last day of the four-week consultation on closure of the Lyndale School from January 2016. The details are currently on Wirral Council’s website.

Shortly before Christmas on the 17th December 2014 Wirral Council’s Cabinet will meet to discuss (and probably) decide what to do next.

I was planning tomorrow to make a FOI request to responses to this current consultation. Wirral Council refused my FOI request for responses to the previous consultation that ran from 2nd April 2014 to 25th June 2014. I requested an internal review as they stated on the 29th July 2014 they would publish them in September (but never did). I’m still waiting for the internal review.

On the basis I’m sure I’ll get a similar response if I make a FOI request tomorrow for responses to the four-week consultation closing today, if you have responded to this consultation and would like me to publish your response (whether anonymously or not), please email me at john.brace@gmail.com.

I’ll do my best to publish consultation responses I do receive on this blog ahead of the Cabinet meeting on the 17th December 2014.

UPDATED 27/11/2014 You can now read the second consultation response from Cllr Phil Gilchrist here.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Bureaucrats ask councillors to agree filming/photo/audio recording ban at public meetings of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority

Bureaucrats ask councillors to agree filming/photo/audio recording ban at public meetings of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority

Bureaucrats ask councillors to agree filming/photo/audio recording ban at public meetings of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority

Merseyside Fire and Rescue crew in James Street, Liverpool 2nd September 2014
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service crew in James Street, Liverpool 2nd September 2014

Above is the sort of photo for Merseyside fire stories that I’ll have to use if politicians agree to ban filming at future public meetings of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority

Ed – updated at 12:46 8/12/14 to include link to petition and slight rewording of text.

In case it isn’t obvious, I will declare an interest as author in this article as a person who films public meetings of the Mersey Fire and Rescue Authority and reports on them as part of my job.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have come up with a draft MFRA Meeting Reporting Protocol and Procedure for politicians to sign off on at some future public meeting (which is presumably the Policy and Resources Committee meeting next week (however as the agenda has since been published and it’s not on it is must be a different meeting)).

What’s interesting is how draconian it is and how whoever wrote it seems to unaware of a some of the existing laws surrounding public meetings.

Currently the link to it on MFRA’s website is broken. Technically it is only in draft form until agreed by politicians. However the trade unions will probably have a few choice words to say to me about it when I discuss this with them!

It’s split into two sections Procedure for attendance and recording of meetings of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority"PROTOCOL ON REPORTING AT MEETINGS" and "Procedure for attendance and recording of meetings of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority".

Some of it is just common sense that I agree with such as trying to start public meetings on time. Some public authorities of course are known for starting their meetings before the scheduled start time or up to an hour after the scheduled start time.

Personally I was always taught that punctuality is just good manners but the public sector sometimes forgets to put its clocks back/forward or has watches that are a few minutes slow or fast. Councillors also seem to have great difficulty in getting to meetings on time. In fact I have known in the past some councillors arrive to meetings so late that the meeting has actually finished before they arrive.

However moving on from the perennial, "Wouldn’t it be nice if meetings actually started on time question?" to more serious points.

Here’s a quote from the draft document linked above:

"Temporary Building Works

Due to current building works which are ongoing until Spring 2015, The Authority are temporarily short of meeting and available waiting space. Please bear with us in accommodating you during this period.”

Now you’d think if that was the case the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority could have its meetings somewhere else in Merseyside. For example a room in one of Merseyside’s fire stations (they still have plenty of these don’t they?). Or is this just too much to ask?

"There will be a designated area in the meeting room for you to observe the meeting and to allow you to film, photograph and/or audio-record it. Wherever possible you will have access to a seat (although this may depend on how much space is available)."

Nice to know seats are optional. I don’t mind standing and filming meetings, but I’m sure others in the press expect an organisation to provide seats (especially to the disabled). Maybe this is the parlous state of the public sector in Merseyside though, they can’t even afford a few chairs any more.

"The Chair of the meeting will be informed if the reporting includes filming, photographing and/or audio-recording. Those attending the meeting who are not Members or officers will be made aware that they have the right to object to being filmed, photographed and/or audio-recorded by you."

Oh people can object all they like. I’ve heard objections before. Here’s one of the current councillor representatives from Wirral Council on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Cllr Steve Niblock objecting to me filming a meeting back in June 2014.

I don’t mind people objecting, they can object all they like. Just makes meetings a little longer!

"You must not start filming, photographing and/or audio-recording until the Chair opens the meeting."

Usually I don’t anyway. Trouble happens is when does the meeting actually start (which can be before or after the time on the agenda)? Do I just start recording at the time on the agenda when the meeting could actually not start for a further ten minutes? What does “opens the meeting” actually mean? How do I even recognise a Chair?

Does the Chair saying, "We’re waiting for X, Y and Z to turn up so we’re going to wait another 5 minutes” count as the public meeting starting or not?"

Then it gets to the interesting bit:

"The Chair will announce at the beginning of the meeting that the meeting is being filmed, photographed and/or audio-recorded. He or she will then ask attendees whether they agree to be filmed, photographed and/or audio-recorded to allow them to register a personal objection. If anyone has a personal objection then the Chair can temporarily suspend filming, photographing and/or audio-recording to allow attendees to have their say.
Note: this does not apply to Members and officers."

Oh boy. This is going to be fun isn’t it!

You’re going to get councillors and officers object, then be told they can’t make an objection.

There could be between one and a dozen members of the public present. That could be half a dozen "personal objections". During the meeting itself the Chair has no say over suspending filming.

In order to suspend filming, the Chair would have to actually suspend the meeting or exclude the press and public (and if they did the latter how would the objections be heard)?

It goes on:

"If the Chair considers that the filming, photographing and/or audio-recording is disrupting the meeting he/she can instruct you to stop doing so. Therefore, it is worth noting that your equipment should not be noisy or otherwise distracting (e.g. flash and spotlights can be problematic)."

Ahh so this makes Chairs of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meetings editors right? I’m just glad that my equipment films silently, I don’t carry spotlights with me and I don’t tend to use flash. This makes it even more unclear, earlier on it states the Chair can "temporarily suspend filming, photographing and/or audio-recording" now it states "he/she can instruct you to stop doing so."

There’s a big difference between being instructed to stop filming, photographing and/or audio-recording and temporarily suspending filming.

I’ve seen these "temporarily suspending filming" issues before. By temporary they can mean about two years.

If you refuse to stop filming, photographing and/or audio-recording when requested to do so, the Chair may ask you to leave the meeting.

That’s fascinating, what if I refuse to stop filming and just leave the room? Unless I stop it the equipment carries on recording in my absence…

I could leave the room, then come back. The equipment would still be recording.

"If you refuse to do so then the Chair may adjourn the meeting or make other appropriate arrangements for the meeting to continue without disruption. There are provisions in the Authority’s Constitution that allow this.

When the meeting is officially closed by the Chair you must stop filming, photographing and/or audio-recording."

In other words, we’re back to the old fallback position of Schrödinger’s cat. Public meetings can be filmed (in fact there’s a legal right to do so), but if someone tries to film one and someone objects they will no longer be classed as public meetings. They will be adjourned or some or all of the public will be excluded from the meeting. Or alternatively the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would ask the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service to call the Merseyside Police who would then presumably turn up to the meeting. If that happens, we’re probably heading for #daftarrest territory…

So to summarise:

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority thinks it can stop filming because despite knowing it was coming in February 2014, the new regulations on filming have taken them by surprise because they didn’t expect anyone would exercise their right to film some of their public meetings.

In total in this calendar year there are 29 public meetings scheduled of Mersey Fire and Rescue Authority.

As the new regulations came into effect on August 6th, only 11 of those can be filmed.

So far 7 public meetings of the Mersey Fire and Rescue Authority have happened since August 6th (plus a number of consultation meetings).

I’ve filmed one of the public consultation meetings and 3 out of 7 of the public meetings (four public meetings in total).

It would have made more sense for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (who knew 9 months ago the regulations were coming into effect) to make the necessary changes to their constitution (as advised to by the government). Now we’re basically in the Liverpool City Council position.

The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority met on October 2nd 2014, but changing their constitution wasn’t even on the agenda.

The law has changed, but bureaucrats still cling to an unchanged bit of a constitution and state this gives politicians the right to stop filming of public meetings. Everyone is still clinging to the past and not moving on. It doesn’t work like that now, whether at the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, Wirral Council, Liverpool City Council, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Merseytravel or the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel. The last thing anyone should do is try to put politicians in charge of the press. That’s the way of a totalitarian regime.

If that ever happens they’ll censor anything “politically sensitive” from being published or ending up in the public domain. Say for instance like, trying to close fire stations. All they’d need to do is invite one member of the public along to make an objection and that would be it, no filming at the public meeting (or else).

There are a bunch of human rights issues this raises to such as:

a) whether searches by a public body of equipment the press have to do their job before they enter a public meeting is indeed lawful as the press/public have a legal right to be there.

Even the Merseyside Police aren’t allowed to start erasing journalistic material we’ve recorded, so why should Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority be given access to our equipment either before, during or after a public meeting?

b) whether indeed the proposed policy/procedure is actually lawful on Human Rights Act 1998 (freedom of speech grounds)

c) as public bodies have to have some kind of legal power to do stuff like this, as the laws on preventing filming at public meetings of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have been repealed exactly what legislation they think they can stop filming under and how they can justify it’s adherence to the Human Rights Act 1998 specifically s.6(1) in relation to Article 10 in Schedule 1 which states:

"Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

So I shall request to speak at the public meeting next week, I may even have organised a petition, but until the agenda is published I can only tell you when and where it meets and which councillors are on it:

Thursday 27th November 1.00pm
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Policy and Resources Committee
Temporary Meeting Room, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Headquarters, Bridle Road, Bootle

Cllr Leslie T Byrom CBE (Chair, Sefton Council) 01704 574859/ 0783 662 1059
Cllr Peter Brennan (Liverpool City Council) 0151 225 2366
Cllr Roy Gladden (Liverpool City Council) 0151 226 6708
Cllr Ted Grannell (Knowsley Council) 0151 546 2633
Cllr Denise Roberts (Wirral Council) 0151 652 3309
Cllr Jean Stapleton (Wirral Council) 0151 201 5057
Cllr Sharon Sullivan (Liverpool City Council) 0151 225 2366
Cllr Lesley Rennie (Wirral Council) 0151 644 8137/ 0779 545 0497

You can click on each councillors’ name above if you wish to email them with your views on this proposed policy. If you don’t have email their phone numbers and addresses are also included. After all these 8 councillors are supposed to be there to represent your views in the decision making process! Alternatively please leave a comment to let me know what you think.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Wirral Council's Pensions Committee agrees to create new Pensions Board for Merseyside Pension Fund

Wirral Council’s Pensions Committee agrees to create new Pensions Board for Merseyside Pension Fund

Wirral Council’s Pensions Committee agrees to create new Pensions Board for Merseyside Pension Fund

                                            

Pensions Committee 17th November 2014 Committee Room 1 Wallasey Town Hall L to R Peter Wallach Cllr Paul Doughty Colin Hughes
Pensions Committee 17th November 2014 Committee Room 1 Wallasey Town Hall L to R Peter Wallach Cllr Paul Doughty Colin Hughes

I’ll start this write-up of the Pensions Committee of 17th November 2014 by declaring an interest in the Pensions Committee (which governs the Merseyside Pension Fund administered by Wirral Council). My father is one of the retired members n the Fund and is paid a pension from it.

Just before I start, there is now a brass plaque outside Committee Room 1 (where the Pensions Committee meeting was held), referring to Committee Room 1 as the Mark Delap Room in memory of Mark Delap, who was a Wirral Council employee that took minutes at public meetings who sadly passed away this year.

Links to the agenda, supplementary agenda and reports for this meeting are on Wirral Council’s website.

Video of the first nine agenda items of the meeting can be viewed in the Youtube video below.

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.

Pensions Committee (Wirral Council) 17th November 2014 Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall starting at 6.00pm

First a bit of background about who’s on the Pensions Committee, what it does and why. There are ten councillors from Wirral Council (6 Labour, 3 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem). Two of these couldn’t make it so sent deputies. Cllr Eddie Boult (Conservative) was deputising for Cllr Mike Hornby (Conservative) and Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) was deputising for Cllr Chris Carubia (Lib Dem spokesperson).

The others from Wirral present were Cllr Paul Doughty (Chair, Labour), Cllr Harry Smith (Labour), Cllr Treena Johnson (Labour), Cllr Cherry Povall (Conservative), Cllr Geoffrey Watt (Conservative spokesperson), Cllr Ann McLachlan (Labour), Cllr George Davies (Labour) and Cllr Adrian Jones (Labour).

In addition to the Wirral Council councillors there are councillors representing the other councils on Merseyside. There was Councillor John Fulham (Labour) from St. Helens Council and Councillor Norman Keats (Labour) from Knowsley Council.

There are also other representatives on the Pension Committee, such as the representative for retired members, trade unions et cetera.

The Pensions Committee governs the running of the £multi-billion Merseyside Pension Fund (which is administered by Wirral Council).

The meeting started and a number of councillors declared interests.

1. Declarations of Interest
Cllr Norman Keats (Knowsley) declared a pecuniary interest as a member of the Merseyside Pension Fund.
Cllr Paul Doughty (Wirral Council) declared an interest as his wife is a member of the Merseyside Pension Fund.
Cllr George Davies (Wirral Council) declared an interest as his wife is a member of the Merseyside Pension Fund.
Others on the Pension Committee declared interests as members of the Merseyside Pension Fund.

2. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on the 15th September 2014 were agreed.

The Chair brought people’s attention to item 37 (Annual Employers Conference) that was being held on Thursday 27th November 2014 at Aintree Racecourse.

An officer explained that he, Peter Wallach and Yvonne Caddock would be speaking at the conference. However there would also be external speakers from industry. Lunch would be provided and he encouraged attendance. The Chair said that he was looking forward to it. No one had any questions.

3. LGPS Update

Yvonne Caddock (Principal Pension Officer) spoke to her report.

Cllr Harry Smith asked her a question about the reference in the report to the Working Party. Yvonne Caddock apologised and explained that the reference was to the Shadow Board creating a Working Party.

Cllr Ann McLachlan asked if a response was made to the consultation. Yvonne Caddock said that it hadn’t been their intention to respond because they had responded in June and the revised provisions had reflected the comments they had made in June.

She continued that part of the consultation was on cost management which had been discussed at a CIPFA conference last week and that Bob Holloway had said that there were only five people in the country that understand the cost management process so they were best placed to leave that to the actuarial firms to comment on that.

Cllr Geoffrey Watt (Conservative spokesperson) asked about 2.5 in the report for Yvonne Caddock to explain the change over who can sit on the Local Pension Board.

Yvonne Caddock explained that the published draft regulations had removed the previous requirement about majorities on the Board. It was in her view now permissible for councillors to be on the Pension Board and in her report it stated that they could as long as the councillor was not also a member of the Pension Committee or had responsibility for the discharge of any LGPS function.

It was agreed that the contents of the report were noted.

4. Creation of New Pension Board

Yvonne Caddock introduced her report on the new requirement for a Pension Board.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked if a councillors on a “select committee” could be part of the decision making?

Yvonne Caddock answered that members of the Pension Committee were not allowed to be members of the Pension Board due to the conflict of interest. She also gave more detail as to the type and number of those who would be on the Pension Board and how they would try to balance it across the different types of employers in the Merseyside Pension Fund.

Cllr Dave Mitchell thanked Yvonne Caddock for her answer and moved the recommendations at 14.0 which were:

To note the contents of the report and in particular the requirements for the Council to establish a Pension Board by 1 April 2015.

That Members authorise fund officers to work with the Administering Authority to develop arrangements for the establishment of a Pensions Board which ensure the requirements in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State are fulfilled. Details of those arrangements will be reported to a future meeting of this Committee.

The recommendations were agreed and the meeting proceeded to item 4 (Creation of New Pension Board).

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: