Objectors referred to pay and display parking in Hamilton Square, Birkenhead and the reduction in visitors once charges for parking had started. Many objectors thought that car parking charges would put people off from visiting New Brighton. Some objectors thought that what charging would be unlawful. Others felt that Wirral Council ordering the pay and display ticket machines before the consultation on the proposed traffic regulation order started pre judged the outcome of the consultation.
The most detailed objection from Singleton Clamp & Partners Limited sent on behalf of the Wilkie Leisure Group stated:
However that minor quibble aside, what does this decision mean? Firstly the current traffic regulation order consultation process is “discontinued”. This means the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel will now not meet in September to make a recommendation on it.
The decision also states “that the approved proposal to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, New Brighton not be implemented”.
Interestingly the decision also states in the reasons for the decision (paragraph 2.5 refers to the report that accompanies the decision) “As described at paragraph 2.5 above, factors which were not known by Cabinet at the time of the approval of the budget proposal have become known during the Traffic Regulation Order consultation process.”
“2.3 As part of the 2015/16 Budget Proposal, Cabinet and Council also agreed to review car parking charges across the Borough to help support business needs.
2.4 In order to implement the parking charge at Fort Perch Rock, the Council has been undertaking consultation as part of the required Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process. Whilst it is not considered that there are any objections or other representations received which would prevent the TRO proposal being implemented, there are objections relating to traffic regulation which would require consideration of the outcomes of the consultation regarding the TRO by the Highways and Transportation Representations Panel.
2.5 However, it has recently come to light that the legal agreement which was signed between the Council and Neptune Development as part of the Marine Point Development included a clause which stated that should the Council introduce on street car parking charges in New Brighton and/or charges for the Fort Perch Rock Car Park, then the other car parks which formed part of the Marine Point Development could also not unreasonably be prevented from introducing car parking charges.
2.6 The wider introduction of car parking charges to New Brighton could potentially have an impact on visitors and businesses in the area. Given the outcome and budget decision regarding reducing car parking charges throughout Wirral in order to support businesses, this could potentially have a conflicting impact.
2.7 It is therefore proposed that the work to undertake a TRO be halted and that the proposal to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, New Brighton, not be implemented.”
The legal agreement referred to above means the lease. Maybe it’s only recently come to light to the author of the report, but I published the three pages of the lease on December 22nd 2014 so it’s hardly recently come to light has it? However as Wirral Council is the landlord for this lease isn’t this a prime example of “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing” or to put it another way silo working.
So how are the books now going to balance? Well the report states that for this year “income for off-street parking is forecast to be greater than budgeted.” and “The overall budget saving of £35,000 will be included in the planned budget for 2016/17, from further efficiencies which will be identified during the current year.”
The decision to not charge at the Fort Perch Rock car park will take effect from the 8th August 2015 (assuming that the decision isn’t called in which is highly unlikely).
I’ll start this piece by declaring an interest. My wife is in receipt of a Blue Badge.
The pages below are from the lease between Wirral Borough Council & Neptune Wirral Limited & Neptune Developments Limited & Neptune Projects Limited dated 20th June 2011.
Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 1 of 2
NEW BRIGHTON PHASE II – DRAFT CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
CAR PARKING ZONES
Car parking within the New Brighton Phase 2 development will be divided into the following 4 zones.
The Hotel Zone – comprising approximately [60] spaces.
The Supermarket Controlled Zone – comprising approximately [423] spaces.
The Health and Fitness Club Controlled Zone – comprising approximately [100] spaces.
The Uncontrolled Zone – comprising approximately [151] spaces.
CAR PARKING ZONE DEMISES
The Supermarket Controlled Zone and the Uncontrolled Zone will be demised to the supermarket operator.
The Health and Fitness Controlled Zone will be demised to the Health and Fitness Club Operator.
The Hotel Zone will be demised to the Hotel operator.
CAR PARK OPENING HOURS
The intention is that the car park will be open 24 hours a day. However good estate management practice may mean that it could become necessary to physically close the Supermarket Controlled and Uncontrolled Zones. On Mondays to Saturdays the car park zones may only be closed 15 minutes after the last commercial use within the development closes for business and shall re-open 30 minutes before the Supermarket opens for trade. On Sundays and Bank Holidays the car park shall remain open from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. as a minimum.
With regard to the Health and Fitness Controlled Zone, on Mondays to Saturdays the car park may only be closed 15 minutes after the facility closes for business and shall be re-opened 30 minutes before the facility opens for use by members of the public. On Sundays and Bank Holidays, the car park shall remain open from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. as a minimum.
Opening hours of the Hotel Zone shall be at the absolute discretion of the Hotel Operator.
In the event of a flood warning the operators of all Zones will be entitled to close the Car Park.
LIMITATION ON FREE PARKING
Within the Supermarket and Health & Fitness Controlled Zones, free parking will be limited to 3 hours between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. It should be noted that disabled parking spaces will not be subject to this limitation.
Users of the Floral Pavilion Conference Facility will not be subject to the time restriction when using the Supermarket Controlled Zone. The mechanism by which such users are
g:cvm6711182new brighton phase II drafal car parking management plan.doc
Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 2 of 2
identified will need to be agreed by the supermarket operator acting reasonably but it likely to involve the issuing of passes for display within the vehicles. The mechanism will be administered by the operator of the Floral Pavilion Conference Facility. It should be noted that the exemption on time limit will not apply to users of the Theatre.
Enforcement of the time limit will be by means of foot patrol or number plate recognition systems. The uses of clamping will not be permissible. Details of the enforcement method to be adopted shall be submitted to the Council for approval such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CAR PARKING STRATEGY
The Supermarket and Health & Fitness Club operators may submit proposals for amending or refining the Car Parking Management Plan from time to time. WBC will give such proposals appropriate consideration and will, at its absolute discretion, determined their acceptability and notify the operator(s) accordingly.
However, if the Council introduced on street car parking charges and/or charges for the Fort Perch Rock car park, then the Supermarket and Health & Fitness Club operators will be permitted to amend the Car Parking Management Plan relating to the introduction of charges and/or revisions to reduction in the 3 hour free parking time provided to introduce similar changes to those introduced by the Council. The proposed revisions shall be submitted to the Council for approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
g:cvm6711182new brighton phase II drafal car parking management plan.doc
So in other words, when Wirral Council start charging for parking in the Fort Perch Rock car park (which has already been agreed), it could mean an end to the 3 hours free car parking in the 423 space Supermarket Controlled Zone Car Park & 100 space Health and Fitness Club Controlled Zone car park. It could also lead to charges for these car parks as high as what Wirral Council is charging for Fort Perch Rock.
Of course when the Future Council Budget consultation was happening earlier this year, I don’t think this was spelt out to the public in the option, but let’s face it would Wirral Council go to the bother of checking what’s in one of its own leases before issuing it as a budget option? After all the budget options were issued in the name of the Chief Executive and it’s not him, but the Assistant Chief Executive that has responsibility for land/leasing matters.
This option would introduce pay and display parking charges into the Fort Perch Rock car park at New Brighton, where there are presently no charges. The option will generate income from a well utilised car park and requires some investment in providing cash payment ticket machines. There are currently traffic problems developing around the successful New Brighton redevelopment, which it is thought would be eased through this approach. Prior to implementing this option the Council would work closely with local businesses and traders.
Charging would allow the council to continue to offer public car parks into the future in a fair and sustainable manner, particularly given the financial strains on other areas.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTS
May lead to displaced parking into adjacent areas, and may have an adverse impact on visitor numbers and the local economy.
Disabled badge holders do not need to pay for parking as long as they display a valid disabled badge.
IMPACT ON PARTNERS
Prior to implementing this option the Council would work closely with local businesses and traders. Policy already exists for permits to be provided to traders for their employees, and these remove the inconvenience of using pay and display machines each day, and are provided at a small discount. Lead officers for regeneration programmes can brief business partners to this effect prior to the public consultation on budget options.
Interestingly the proposed changes to charge for the Fort Perch Rock car park were opposed during the consultation at one of the overview and scrutiny committees by one of Labour’s councillors for New Brighton Cllr Rob Gregson.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Public notice for proposed changes to parking on Birkenhead Market Service Road (deadline 26th September 2014)
Public notice for proposed changes to parking on Birkenhead Market Service Road (deadline 26th September 2014)
In an update to yesterday’s story about the proposed changes to parking behind Birkenhead Market, here is the public notice about it published in the 3rd September 2014 edition of the Wirral Globe. I’d better declare again that my wife Leonora Brace regularly parks in the Birkenhead Market Service Road with her Blue Badge and is someone that will be affected by the proposed Traffic Regulation Order.
This the public notice about the proposed traffic regulation order about the Birkenhead Market Service Road published on page 61 of the Wirral Globe on the 3rd September 2014.
The tale which explains why they’ve had to re-advertise this Traffic Regulation Order (I’m sure the Wirral Globe doesn’t mind the extra money as it’s now been advertised twice) for the second time in the Wirral Globe is covered in this story from August 8th 2014.
One does wonder why they don’t make the plans available at the nearby Birkenhead One Stop Shop in Conway Street? Perhaps Wirral Council still have somewhat of a “beware of the leopard” mentality when it comes to people actually viewing the proposals!
METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – (BIRKENHEAD CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE) – (WAITING, LOADING & PARKING PLACES) ORDER 2008 – AMENDMENT NO 1, 2014
Notice is hereby given that Wirral Borough Council in exercise of its powers intends to make the above order under Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 32, 35 and 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and of all other enabling powers.
The general nature and effect of this order will be to amend the existing order Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, (Birkenhead Controlled Parking Zone) (Waiting, Loading & Parking Places) Order 2008 by prohibiting parking and loading along sections of Birkenhead Market Service Road and to allow loading and unloading for vehicles within designated bays. The effect of this order is to improve access for vehicles servicing the Market Hall and Grange Precinct.
A copy of this Notice, the proposed Order, map, the order proposed to be amended and a statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing to make the Order, may be seen during normal office hours at Cheshire Line Buildings, Canning Street, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 1ND and on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 9am to 5pm and Wednesday 10am to 5pm at the One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe CH44 8ED.
Any objections to the Order, together with the grounds on which they are made, must be sent in writing to the undersigned (quoting reference KO) by Friday 26 September 2014.
Unless otherwise stated, all Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Public Notices are published by Surjit Tour, Head of Legal and Member Services, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Merseyside CH44 8ED and all notices are dated this 3rd day of September 2014.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people
12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School
12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Planning application (APP/14/00011:Great Meols Primary School, Elwyn Road, Meols, CH47 7AP: Erection of a sports hall and relocation of store buildings) starts at 2:45 in the video above
Twelve councillors on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes) vote to refuse a planning application for sports hall at Great Meols Primary School
Sheila Day explained the reasons why officers were recommending this planning application was approved. She explained that it was for a sports hall and for moving a storage building. The sports hall had the potential for community use. Sports England response to being consulted on the application had been that its size with only one court and lack of changing facilities would limit its potential for use by the community.
The proposed height of the sports hall roof was seven to eight metres, however there was an amended design for the roof different to the original application. It would be at least forty-five metres away from the nearest houses with greater separation distances in other directions.
A condition proposed limited the use of the sports hall on Monday to Friday from 7am to 9.30pm, Saturdays 9am to 6pm and no use at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays without the prior approval of Wirral Council. Wirral Council’s traffic and transportation division had no objection to the application on highway safety grounds. There was a qualifying petition of fifty-three residents opposing the application being granted.
He quoted from the report which stated “The scale of the proposed sports hall is considered appropriate to surrounding two-storey dwellings” and disagreed with this opinion as in his view it was of an inappropriate scale. Mr Davidson asked the Planning Committee to look at a photo of the existing school buildings which were all at a low-level and built with traditional residential materials.
Mr Robert Davidson was also concerned about a change in ground levels between the school and housing and described the proposed sports hall as a “featureless rectangular box” with “industrial cladding” that looked like it was “straight off an industrial estate”. He did not feel it had any place in a residential landscape. Mr Davidson said that the school had started as a village school and that fourteen previous planning applications for the school were unopposed. The local residents had asked the school to compromise by reducing the height and changing the materials used. However the school had refused to do this.
Mr Davidson referred again to policy RE1 (Criteria for Urban Recreation Facilities) and quoted from section two that “the proposals would not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise or other disturbance, particularly to areas of residential property”. He referred to the proposed condition limiting its use, however access to the school would be along small residential roads. The school was surrounded by housing and was a quiet environment when the school was closed and at night there was darkness and silence.
In his view, the community use of the sports hall would be the opposite of this as it could be permanently open with noisy aerobics classes and cars coming and going. He referred to the view expressed in the report by an environmental health officer that any noise or light pollution could be dealt with under existing environmental health legislation. Mr Davidson felt however that this should be addressed as part of the planning process. He urged the Planning Committee to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it was not of an acceptable scale and design and finished with a quote from the architect for the Shard (Renzo Piano) “Architecture is a very dangerous job. If a writer makes a bad book, people don’t read it. But if you make bad architecture, you impose ugliness on a place for a hundred years.”
The applicant chose not to address the Planning Committee, however a ward councillor for Hoylake & Meols Councillor John Hale did. He referred to the “excellent summary” by the petitioner and also referred to policy HS15 (Non-Residential Uses in Primarily Residential Areas).
Councillor Hale said that HS15 allowed small scale developments in residential areas, but only ones that had no detrimental impacts on the character of the area or the amenities of the occupiers. The proposed height of the sports hall was twice the height of the existing buildings and a little higher which Cllr Hale described as an “alien feature” like the buildings found on an industrial estate. In his view it was out of character for that residential area.
He felt that the community use of the sports hall and the resulting noise meant that it couldn’t comply with policy RE1. Although the residents expected noise form the school during the day from children, noise in the evening was a different situation. The school was a local amenity appreciated by the residents but he felt that as the maximum age of the children at the school was eleven that all that was required was a single storey building as a sports hall. Cllr Hale said that very few children he knew could hit a shuttlecock higher than the height of a normal ceiling. His objection was to the Planning Committee approving an application for a “monstrosity” in a residential area.
Cllr Tony Norbury asked what the reason was for the height of the sports hall? Sheila Day replied that the height was a recommendation by Sports England as it would be used for badminton. Cllr Simon Mountney asked to see elevations of the proposed buildings. Cllr David Elderton said that he lived about half a mile away from the school and that he had lived in the area since the 1950s. In his opinion it was of a “grossly intrusive industrial style” and based on what he’d seen on the site visit would affect the visual and local neighbourhood amenities. He said he was all in favour of facilities but that it was a “bridge too far”, “too big” and that he’d prefer they go away and come back with something more sympathetic. Cllr Elderton said he would be voting against approval.
Cllr Christina Muspratt asked why they were no changing facilities? Sheila Day answered that the school had existing changing facilities elsewhere on the site. Cllr Phil Brightmore described the sports hall as “huge” compared to the surrounding buildings. Sheila Day replied that the officer’s opinion was that the height of the proposed sports hall was similar to the heights of the surrounding houses.
Cllr Eddie Boult asked what the extra height added to the existing building would be if planning application for the sports hall was approved? As it was a sloping roof on the sports hall an officer answered that it would be an extra 3.5 metres at one end and 2.5 metres at the other. Cllr Eddie Boult said he had listened to people’s point of view and was proposing refusal of the application based on his view that the height and bulk of the building was unsympathetic and that it affected the amenities of the surrounding area contrary to policy HS15. Cllr Simon Mountney seconded refusal of the application.
Twelve councillors voted to reject the application (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes). No councillors voted against refusal but Cllr Anita Leech abstained. The planning application for the sports hall was refused.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
