Month: July 2011

Timber – Nuisance Tree removed, Feltree House, Farmfield Drive, Beechwood

Following the closure of Feltree House care home in December 2008, Wirral Council applied to itself to demolish the buildings on the site on the 25th June 2010. Wirral Council told itself that planning permission (DEM/10/00797) wasn’t required on the 23rd July 2010 and demolition was carried out between 26th July 2010 and the 29th … Continue reading “Timber – Nuisance Tree removed, Feltree House, Farmfield Drive, Beechwood”

Feltree House, Farmfield Drive, Beechwood

Following the closure of Feltree House care home in December 2008, Wirral Council applied to itself to demolish the buildings on the site on the 25th June 2010. Wirral Council told itself that planning permission (DEM/10/00797) wasn’t required on the 23rd July 2010 and demolition was carried out between 26th July 2010 and the 29th August 2010.

After the site was cleared the Feltree House site was sold by Wirral Council to Liverpool Housing Trust. On the 9th October a resident in Ladyfield got in touch with the Liberal Democrat Action Team about a very large sycamore tree overshadowing the gardens in Ladyfield and blocking light to the rear of properties on the South side of Ladyfield.

I wrote to Ian Brand, Head of Asset Management at Wirral Council who informed me it had been recently sold to Liverpool Housing Trust. I then contacted Liverpool Housing Trust, who initially stated they didn’t own any properties called Feltree House and suggested I get in touch with the Beechwood and Ballantyne Community Housing Ltd instead.

However Beechwood and Ballantyne Community Housing Ltd didn’t own the Feltree House site. The Liberal Democrat Action Team persisted and wrote back to Liverpool Housing Trust, who wrote back on the 25th November acknowledging that they did own Feltree House and agreed to a meeting on site with the residents to discuss the problem and their approach.

A meeting was held with Liverpool Housing Trust, the residents and the Liberal Democrat Action Team on the 6th December 2010. At this meeting Liverpool Housing Trust explained their plans for the site (new housing) and agreed that the tree would have to be removed and were puzzled why it hadn’t been removed when the site had been cleared.

Before removing the tree, they had to check if there was a Tree Preservation Order on it first. They did however agree to remove it (if there wasn’t a TPO) by the time it came back into leaf in the Spring.

In February 2011, Liverpool Housing Trust confirmed that the tree at Feltree didn’t have a Tree Preservation Order. They also stated that in October 2010 their employee had confirmed they didn’t have a property at Feltree House and not a piece of land called Feltree House. At this point they couldn’t give a specific date when the tree would come down.

Many months went past and the tree didn’t come down. However the resident was persistent in following it up (with myself) and Liverpool Housing Trust and eventually the tree (as you can see from the photo) was (eventually) cut down.

Although it is sad to see any tree go, the residents of Ladyfield can now enjoy their gardens and houses again and enjoy the Summer sunshine!

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

Cllr Chris Blakeley said there was a piece of work being undertaken by the Scrutiny Programme Board to look at the work processes and how flows and blockages were happening.

Ken Harrison said he would like it minuted if ok, asking if they had the manpower with sufficient staff or was it the case that existing staff were not capable? He had listened to this “time after time”.

Bill Norman said it was “part capacity and part priorities”, however it would have “a higher priority than hitherto”. Cllr Chris Blakeley asked about enlisting the help of other authorities to speed it up?

Brian Cummings said it shouldn’t be taking two to three years to deal with the public. There was no other business raised by committee members so the meeting ended.

Since the meeting the agenda on Wirral Council’s website has been reordered to remove item 6. Therefore agenda item 7 has become agenda item 6. The report for this item can be read here with the appendices here.

Please note this blog post uses the original numbering of agenda items, not the changed agenda that Wirral Council changed a day after the meeting on their website to remove item 6.

The original agenda distributed at the meeting had the following added as agenda item 6:

EXEMPT INFORMATION: EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The public may be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information.

The grounds given were paragraph 7c of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, however as you can see here by reading the legislation there isn’t a paragraph 7c.

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

Bill Norman said the content of the complaint was considered exempt which was mandatory, however it was already in the public domain so they could expect phone calls from journalists.

Cllr Bill Davies said he was conscious that Cllr Roberts was outside the room. Cllr Chris Blakeley said they should agree to note the report, however it was incumbent for him to put “on record his discomfort and distress at the time taken to resolve standards complaints”. He said this was unfair for complainants, those complained about and he would be seeking every opportunity to express to the Head of Law the extent of his unhappiness. Another complaint had been taking 19 months, a further case that was referred quickly took 15 weeks to appoint an investigating officer. He thought a bog standard complaint should take at most three to four months. He didn’t expect them to take so much time and he wanted to put on record his feeling to the Director of Law.

Brian Cummings said in reference to cases, some had taken two or three years. There were some problems and it was unfair to some complainants and some must just give up. Cllr Les Rowlands mentioned the cost. Brian Cummings said the cost was important.

Bill Norman acknowledged the criticism as valid, fairly made, related to numerous occasions and that they were not satisfied with the position. To vary how they proceed would need resources, complaints were “taking too long” and they needed to do better in the “dying days of the current regime”.

Since the meeting the agenda on Wirral Council’s website has been reordered to remove item 6. Therefore agenda item 7 has become agenda item 6. The report for this item can be read here with the appendices here.

Please note this blog post uses the original numbering of agenda items, not the changed agenda that Wirral Council changed a day after the meeting on their website to remove item 6.

The original agenda distributed at the meeting had the following added as agenda item 6:

EXEMPT INFORMATION: EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The public may be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information.

The grounds given were paragraph 7c of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, however as you can see here by reading the legislation there isn’t a paragraph 7c.

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

Cllr Bill Davies said on the report they were awaiting he had “nothing to say”. Cllr Les Rowlands said he noted the history, but “what has happened in the department”? He said a mistake had been made twice and asked how they could proceed to avoid it happening again and what improvements would be made?

Bill Norman said that future reports would be cleared by Bill Norman or the Head of Service in future before the reports go out.

Cllr Mitchell said there had been a similar situation in planning about mobile phone masts. There had been an independent review which had led to things being dealt with in stringent chronological order. This meant they stopped to check the item was dealt with and treated before moving on and he hoped a similar process regarding the workings would be made to avoid “horrendous mistakes”. These were the kind of mistakes he “wouldn’t expect from a first year apprentice”, hopefully they could “move to the right process” where things were “done in a given order” and the “boxes ticked up”.

Cllr Blakeley accepted this and referred to 2003 in Greasby where it had been revoked. Cllr Mitchell said there needed to be an independent review by an outside body so that things would be “tightened up”. Cllr Gilchrist said he was “happy this was in public” and “not exempt”. However what would Wirral Council do what it was asked to see the information for this agenda item? He hadn’t read the documents, but just skimmed through the two hundred pages written by Smith. He had deciphered it and proceeded over how people had been treated. The inquiry would ask what was this about? Where they prepared against any public action?

Standards Committee 4th July 2011 – Item 6 – Exempt Information – Exclusion of Members of the Public, Item 7 Review of a Standards Complaint

Bill Norman continued saying that the detail was not analysed, but the level of fairness in the delay in the referral and delays organising the IAP meeting (which made its recommendation in March) as well as the earlier report being “topped and tailed” meant the wrong report had been sent when it was referred to the Standards Board for England so that it only referred to three instead of four councillors.

They had “checked the files” and only the original complaint against three councillors had been used which led to no further action by Standards Board for England. When it emerged that Martin Morton asked what the result was of the complaint about Cllr Bridson that had been referred to the Standards Board for England, the thing “unravelled”. They had “appended the wrong complaint”. The wrong one had been sent to the Standards Board for England by Wirral Council. There was then a discussion on how to go ahead.

The recommendation was that there should be the same Initial Assessment Panel. This met on the 8th June and considered the second complaint and decided to refer it to the Standards Board for England. They were awaiting a decision about the full complaint. The timescale was five working days, however Standards Board for England were not compliant with this as they were “hemorrhaging staff” and were having a problem with timescales.

Bill Norman apologised for the Initial Assessment Panel receiving the wrong paperwork and was “happy to repeat it shouldn’t have happened”.

Cllr Blakeley said he accepted the apology but it had shown Wirral Council “in a bad light”.