Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Foulkes “it was the committee system that actually put in the policies that led to the overcharging within the Klonowski report”

Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Foulkes ” it was the committee system that actually put in the policies that led to the overcharging within the Klonowski report”

Continued from Council (Extraordinary) (Wirral Council) 30th April 2013 | Revisions to the Constitution | Cllr Blakeley “Where will it end, what next? Will Wirral be twinned with Pyongyang?”

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 Foulkes “it was the committee system that actually put in the policies that led to the overcharging within the Klonowski report”

Cllr Foulkes thanked the Mayor for his introduction. He said “This is actually one of the times we’ll have a proper debate”. He said that the other two parties (Conservative and the Lib Dems) wanted effectively no change to the constitution. Cllr Foulkes said if they’d genuinely wanted to change the constitution they could’ve sat down with their mentors and brought forward proposals. He said the only person who’d done any work on it was the Council Leader [Cllr Phil Davies].

He said that Cllr Green had the audacity to talk about the brown bin tax, he [Cllr Green] had had the opportunity to move an objection at Budget Council but hadn’t do so. Cllr Foulkes said that Cllr Green had been in power along with Cllr Harney and he asked did they take the Council to Shrangri-La? He answered, “No they didn’t. They had their chance at the time, they had the opportunity, but did not do so.”

Cllr Foulkes said, “I’m going to get lectures tonight about getting rid of two committees, one of them is around Adult Social Services and adult safeguarding. We had a training session on Monday night on adult safeguarding, a very informative one, all about how the restructures, how the Council’s delivering it, the staff, the people, one event. Who turned up? How many Conservative Members [councillors] turned up to that training session? How many? Not one, not one, sadly I don’t know what’s going on within the Liberal Democrat Group, we’ve read the headlines about it, I don’t know what was going on there, but none of those turned up and sadly I have to say only five Members [councillors] turned up and well, gladly they were all Labour Members [councillors] who bothered to turn up. If that’s the measure of the all party contribution to learning about safeguarding then we still have some way to go.”

He continued, “It can be enshrined in the year’s work or the work program of the new committee that will take over that and there are lessons to be learnt for combining looking at children’s safeguarding and adult safeguarding. That is a lesson that was learnt from the past.”

Cllr Foulkes also said, “I will remind this Council though, it was the committee system that actually put in the policies that led to the overcharging within the Klonowski report. It was the committee system that made that decision. If you think the committee system is foolproof it ain’t. If you think the Cabinet system is foolproof it isn’t.”

He said, “What I am shocked at is the lack of engagement by certain senior Members [councillors] in the process we have gone through. We’ve been to the Floral Pavillion and the atmosphere is better than in this Chamber.” … “We have a training mafia who are apparently monitoring us and making criticisms of us going to training sessions.” … “It maybe that we can have localised planning decisions, it maybe that we can have localised licensing decisions…”.

Continues at 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”.

Planning Committee 9/8/2011 | Part 7 | Agenda item 13 – SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT – REEDS LANE

Cllr Bernie Mooney said there had been 26 residents opposed, but what about the other hundred, what if they say they want a play area, what are the legal implications? Cllr Elderton said this had been raised in the briefing. They were asking to take into account the views of twenty-six versus one hundred and forty. He said Cllr Lewis had concluded that everybody wants no play facility.

Cllr Lewis said the ward he represents was interesting electorally. He said the opposition outweighs the benefits and “the residents don’t want it”. Cllr Hayes pointed out the variation to the s.106 agreement regarding the water feature. Matthew Rushton said there had been an application to remove the water feature two years ago and a decision was made. The water feature had been put in because of its nature conservation value as it supported wildlife. However after the houses had been built its nature conservation value had decreased. There had been a planning application made with public consultation and it had not been part of a legal agreement. The legal adviser mentioned about maintaining the area.

The Chair said nobody was “smelling of roses”. However he said if it had gone ahead there would’ve been consultation on what it would have looked like. Matthew Rushton said if it proceeded the Parks and Countryside Service would do consultation. The wording of s.106 agreements usually required the developer to build something after a certain proportion of the housing had been completed. There was no deadline with relation to this case which was unusual and it didn’t rely on other things which was unique.

Planning Committee – 21/6/2011 – Part 1 – Introductions, application for a store in Noctorum

Present: Chair (Cllr Elderton), Cllr Mitchell, Cllr Clements, Cllr Hayes (Paul), Cllr Boult, Cllr Johnson, Cllr Kenny, Cllr Mooney, Cllr Realey and Cllr Kelly.

The meeting started with the Chair apologising for the meeting starting over five minutes late. He welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those present (including officers) to introduce themselves.

He then asked for declarations of interest or party whip. None were declared. The minutes of the last meeting were agreed. Cllr Boult asked why an application had not been received (in reference to the minutes). The Chair thanked Cllr Boult for his question and said he would arrange for it to be handed out. Cheryl Barry said she would make sure it was done. The minutes were agreed.

Site visits were requested by Cllr Hayes for item 14 (APP/11/00449 – 24 Dibbinsdale Road, Bromborough – Rear 1st floor extension) and item 18 (APP/11/00449 – 24 Dibbinsdale Road, Bromborough – Rear 1st floor extension). This was agreed, so site visits will be arranged and the items deferred to another meeting for a decision. The Chair made it clear to anybody present that decisions on these items would not be made until then.

The Chair then asked for permission to rearrange the order of business to reflect the numbers of members of the public present. This was agreed and the first item to be considered was item 6 on the agenda – APP/11/ 00065 – Townfield Close, Claughton – Demolition of an existing petrol filling station and erection of Class A1 retail unit.

Application for a takeaway (refused) – 46 Hoylake Road, Bidston & APP/11/ 00065 – Townfield Close, Claughton – Demolition of an existing petrol filling station and erection of Class A1 retail unit

Following a petition and an objection, the application for a takeaway at 46 Hoylake Road, Bidston which can be viewed on this map here has been turned down.

The reason given for refusal is below:-

" The proposal is within 40 metres of a residential dwelling located within a designated Primarily Residential Area and is considered to present potential for noise and disturbance to the amenities that the occupiers of neighbouring uses can reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy HS15 and SH4 of the adopted Wirral Unitary Development Plan and the associated Supplementary Planning Document 3 - Hot Food Takeaways, Restaurants, Cafes and Drinking Establishments. "

Once again it shows that when residents stand up against unwelcome developments in their local area, Wirral Council will turn down applications. I hope however in the near future that this empty shop (and the one next door to it) will be brought back into use.

The detail of the planning application can be read here.

At tonight’s Planning Committee meeting (starting at 6pm in Committee Room 1/2 at Wallasey Town Hall) another planning application unwanted by local residents is on the agenda, which is application APP/11/00065 for the demolition of existing petrol filling station and erection of a Class A1 retail unit. The report suggest to councillors that they should approve this application, despite the petition from over a thousand households against it. Certainly it will be the most well attended and debated item on tonight’s agenda. Interestingly (and unusually) the application has a qualifying petition for and against the proposal.

Planning Committee – 08/03/2011 – Part 1 – “We can’t hear you”

Planning committee started late. Most members of the public were still milling around the lobby by five past six after planning officers had shooed them away from Committee Room 1 & 2.

Cllr Mitchell started off by welcoming those present to the meeting. However with the seats being many further rows back only those on the front row could hear and a number of members of public were grumbling. The meeting was then delayed while an officer was sent away to find someone to turn the speakers on. Someone came in and out to do this about three times as generally the Chair’s microphone is allowed to overrule other speakers, but the person had limited the microphones to one speaker at a time rather than the usual.

The meeting then restarted at about ten past six. As this is a regular occurence you wonder why the microphones can’t be tested a few minutes before the meeting starts!

Cllr Elderton declared a prejudicial interest in items 5 and 6 by virtue of his position on the Cabinet as Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Leisure. He also declared an interest in item 12.

Cllr Keeley and Cllr Kenny both requested a site visit for item 9 (Thai Rooms, Liscard). Cllr Boult requested a site visit for item 12 (Kukis, West Kirby). The Chair informed those present that item 11 (Pinewood, Heswall) would be deferred for further information. A number of members of the public who had come for items 9, 11 and 12 left at this point.