Category: Birkenhead

Cabinet 12/4/2012 Agenda Item 13: Child Poverty: Budget Option

Frank Field MP addressed Wirral Council’s Cabinet asking for all-party support for his proposal. He wanted to set up a free school in Birkenhead, providing a service from the twelfth week of pregnancy. Frank Field hoped that the free school proposal would also attract extra money from other sources. Mr. Field talked about his visits … Continue reading “Cabinet 12/4/2012 Agenda Item 13: Child Poverty: Budget Option”

Frank Field MP addressed Wirral Council’s Cabinet asking for all-party support for his proposal. He wanted to set up a free school in Birkenhead, providing a service from the twelfth week of pregnancy. Frank Field hoped that the free school proposal would also attract extra money from other sources.

Mr. Field talked about his visits to schools and that how everyone wanted to be good parents, yet they were witnessing a breakdown in good parenting. He said [in reference to the Children and Young People’s Director] that he wouldn’t want his job “for all the tea in China”. Frank Field continued by saying that a child’s life chances were determined in the first days after birth. They had received their first grant for school readiness and were also looking at the business of how to impart the knowledge to young people about how to be good parents. St. Anselm’s College and Prenton High were part of an initial pilot in trying to incorporate parenting skills into the curriculum. He hoped the political parties would be a part of it. Frank Field said that as no one else had yet done this that they couldn’t give a hundred pages of what other people had done, however he believed people should be behind it and see it through.

Cllr Green said he was “really excited by the idea”. He said that certain families had no way to break out of the cycle [of poverty] and that this wouldn’t end poverty but would make a start and was an opportunity for Wirral to be at the forefront. Would they know the results in 18-20 years time? He asked Frank Field what indicators they were looking for?

Frank Field said that he wanted to see success before then, but there was a longer term aim to break the intergenerational nature of poverty. He continued by pointing out that recently they had found that inequality took shape early on and that schools could raise ability but not change class differences. Frank Field wanted to make increasing numbers of children school ready, he criticised the labelling of some families as “hard to reach” by professionals and said that “producing fine citizens is one of the key things we want”.

Cllr Clarke thanked Frank Field said that the Child and Family Poverty Working Group had worked hard but there was no magic bullet.

Frank Field said the work couldn’t be done by budgets and it would not work unless there was a Herculean effort including the voluntary sector. In his view statutory services were not the best way to reach the families dubbed “hard to reach”, but organisations like Home Start could.

Cllr Harney thanked Frank Field and declared an interest as Chair of the Governors of Observatory School, he went on to raise the issue of low expectations and self-confidence.

Frank Field said that social skills and soft skills were crucial in getting a job.

Cllr Green expressed the view that the voluntary, community and faith sector organisations could have a key role.

Cllr Rennie referred to a previous career in dealing with difficult families and that the same family names were coming up in contact with Social Services. These were the children of the families she’d dealt with years ago.

She also referred to the work of the Mersey Maritime Board and how some couldn’t look their interviewer in the eye at a job interview. Cllr Rennie also referred to a Fire Service project focussed on teaching young people skills. She asked how the outcomes would be measured?

Frank Field said it would be outcome focussed.

Cllr Dave Mitchell said that he had mentioned funding for the first two years, but how would it continue after that?

Frank Field replied that they wanted to apply for free school status so the money would come direct from central government, but they didn’t want to apply until they could show the government it was working.

Cllr Green thanked Frank Field for his “fantastic proposal” and moved a resolution thanking the Child Poverty Working Group. His resolution also recommended to the Working Group that £300,000 would be put towards the establishment outlined in Frank Field’s proposal.

You can read Liam Murphy’s article on the same issue in the Wirral News by following this link.

What Everybody Ought to Know About A-Boards & Shop Displays

An article about the licences granted for A-boards and shop displays on the Wirral by Wirral Council.

Following on from an earlier story about flytipping at the back of shops on Hoylake Road, Bidston (which has thankfully now been partly rectified by the owner building a wall there), a resident has been in touch with me about concerns they have (mainly about one particular shop on Hoylake Road) and more widely on the subject of A-Boards and shop displays on pavements in general on the Wirral.

Here, Wirral Council is the highways authority and can grant permission (in the form of a licence) for shops to display A-boards advertising their premises on the street outside. Shops can also get permission to display some of their wares and cafes can be granted permission to use part of the pavement (although pavement cafes usually require planning permission too). There’s a page on their website that explains how businesses go about this.

This licencing is supposed to make sure that a minimum width of pavement is left so that pedestrians can pass in both directions easily. Certain classes of walkers such as those using one or more walking sticks, or wheelchair users need extra space, which is why Wirral Council recommend a clear path of at least two metres around obstacles, such as lamp posts (these minimums are increased if the area is next to a pedestrian crossing, in a pedestrianised area or in a busy area). Businesses are also supposed to display the licence granted in their shop windows (although many don’t seem to).

Below are some photos of A-boards locally on Hoylake Road, Bidston and a shop display from further down Hoylake Road in nearby Moreton. On the first photo is two large A-boards outside the All-American Car Wash which are sensibly placed well out-of-the-way of the dropped kerbs. The second is an A-board advertising a barber’s shop, again placed sensitively with the needs of pedestrians in mind, but the third is placed on the opposite side of the road from a cafe, therefore unless they have a bespoke licence this isn’t permitted. The fourth is an example of a shop display outside a fruit and vegetable shop on Hoylake Road, which due to the nearby lamp post constricts the available pavement left.

Wirral Council’s Technical Services Department does have enforcement officers that respond to complaints raised if a business seems to be exceeding the terms of its licence. However even if a business is visited and found to have breached the terms of the licence, it seems Wirral Council don’t revoke the licence if the situation is remedied to what it should be. The police do have powers they can use against if “a person without lawful authority or excuse, in anyway wilfully obstructs the free passage along the highway”, which can be punished by a fine of up to £1000, but generally the police seem to refer people back to the highways authority, Wirral Council.

So what do you think about the current situation? How should the compliance by Wirral Council with licences be enforced? Should businesses that regularly exceed the terms of their licence have them revoked and have you got any examples of good or bad practice you’d like to share? If so, please leave a comment.

Licensing, Health & Safety and General Purposes Committee (Wirral Council) Part 1 19/3/2012 Agenda items 1(Declarations of Interest), 2 (Minutes), 3 (Sex Establishment fees) & 5 (Local Election fees 2012/2013)

Well on the 19th March 2012, I attended the well-attended Licensing, Health & Safety & General Purposes Committee in Committee Room 1. There were the usual people there such as taxi drivers and union reps and a few new faces from Merseytravel, as well as the committee of councillors and officers.

The committee composed of the following councillors (Cllr Ian Lewis (Conservative) was absent):-

Labour (5)
Cllr Bill Davies (Chair)
Cllr Patricia Glasman
Cllr Chris Jones
Cllr Steve Niblock
Cllr Irene Williams

Conservative (3)
Cllr Sue Taylor (Conservative spokesperson)
Cllr Kate Wood
Cllr Tom Anderson

Liberal Democrats (1)
Cllr Bob Wilkins (Lib Dem spokesperson)

The following Wirral Council officers were there to support the committee:-
Committee clerk: Anne Beauchamp
Legal adviser: Mr. Ken Abraham
Others: Margaret O’Donnell, Mr. Robert Beresford + others I don’t know the name of

The meeting started late with the Chair apologising for the wait as they were waiting for their legal team in regards to item 3 (Proposed election fees 2012/2013). He apologised again for the wait and said they would skip item 3 until Surjit Tour arrived.

He started the meeting with item 1 and asked for any declarations of interest.

Cllr Sue Taylor (Conservative spokesperson) apologised for Cllr Ian Lewis who was not present.

No declarations of interest were made, so they moved to item 2, which was the minutes of the last meeting.

Cllr Steve Niblock objected to the list of people attending the last meeting as he had not been at the last meeting due to being at the Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting which was also held on the 8th March.

He said he couldn’t be in two places at the same time, so he had sent Cllr Salter in his place as deputy. Therefore he asked for the minutes to be changed and his name replaced with Cllr Salter. The Chair said they would make sure it was changed. With the amendment to the minutes, the minutes (item 2) were agreed and the Committee skipped item 3 to item 4 (Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences).

The Chair explained they would also skip item 4 and deal with it at the end.

At this point a councillor’s mobile phone started ringing and the Committee moved to item 5 sex establishment fees. Margaret O’Donnell introduced this report about the licensing of sex establishments and referred to various pieces of legislation including section 27 of the “Police and Crime Act 2009”, although she actually meant the Policing and Crime Act 2009. She asked the Committee to consider what fees should be charged by Wirral Council for receiving applications. She suggested £1,200 per an application based on an estimate of what costs would be incurred.

At this point 6.15pm Surjit Tour arrived fifteen minutes late and sat down.

Cllr Niblock asked if the £1,200 was just for a new one or the same for a renewal too?

Margaret replied that yes, she suggested £1,200 for both.

Item 5 was agreed that Wirral Council would charge £1,200 for new applications and £1,200 for renewals of sex establishment licences.

The Chair asked Surjit Tour to explain to the meeting his report,item 3 (proposed election fees for 2012/2013).

Surjit Tour asked the Chair if he wanted him to go ahead so they could agree the suggestions? The Chair agreed. Surjit Tour apologised for being late, he had thought the meeting started at 6.15pm, Ed – it was supposed to start at 6.00pm, he apologised again for his late arrival.

He explained that the election fees were proposed fees and were payments made to staff by the Returning Officer. There was no specific guidance or formula used as this was a local issue. According to scientists, the results of the study indicate that at https://summitps.org/accutane-isotretinoin/ accutane isotretinoin creates the necessary conditions for useful populations of Propionibacteria and other bacteria that reduce the likelihood of acne. The way it had previously been arrived at by the previous Chief Executive/Returning Office Steve Maddox was a yearly increase to take into account inflation. The increase for this year was therefore 3.9%, however it was calculated on the basis of individual wards. Neighbouring authorities fees were included in the report for comparison.

The Merseyside Electoral Administration team also discussed such matters at a meeting. However because of difficulties facing staff he proposed the following changes to those figures in the report.

(a) polling station inspector increased from £190 to £565.

(b) Deputy Returning Officer fee increased from a flat fee of £459.42 (per ward)  to 50% of the Returning Officer’s fee (£5,127.98 * 50%) = £2,563.99 (per ward)

The Chair thanked him for the report. The committee agreed the recommendations and changes. He thanked Surjit Tour again.

Related articles

Planning Applications decided (Bidston & St. James ward) APP/12/00032, 16 Hartnup Way & APP/12/00042, Price Street

Planning applications decided involving Hartnup way and a school in Price Street.

If you have come to this page looking for details of a planning application for Target Road, Heswall please follow this link.

There have been two planning applications decided recently, and are both listed below. Both were approved.

Application No.: APP/12/00032

Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 24/02/2012

Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr M Rushton
Applicant: Mr Gareth Walsh

Agent:
Location: 16 Hartnup Way, Prenton, Wirral, CH43 7ND
Proposal: Retrospective application for retention of alterations to the levels of the rear garden, including
dwarf retaining wall.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Application No.: APP/12/00042 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 06/03/2012 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Miss S McIlroy
Applicant:

Agent: Aedas Building Consultancy
Location: Our Lady and St Edwards RC Aided Primary School, PRICE STREET, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 8DU
Proposal: Single storey extension to rear of school to create new library, practical, storage and withdrawal
areas.

Planning Committee 6/3/2012 Part 2 – APP/11/00715 2-4 Laird Street, 212-214 Park Road North and 38, 39 and 40 Bray Street, Birkenhead, Wirral CH41 8BY

A report on the Planning Committee’s decision on the 6th March 2012 to allow demolition of houses in Laird Street, Birkenhead and nearby roads to facilitate new housing

The committee then moved to consider the first of two planning applications involving Bidston & St. James ward. The first involved the demolition of a number of vacant community buildings in Laird Street, along with a number of properties on Park Road North and Bray Street.

The officer said the planning application was for demolition of two buildings which was a brownfield site in a regeneration area which would be redeveloped for affordable housing. He said Keepmoat Homes already had a separate developer’s agreement with Wirral Partnership Homes. He said retaining these buildings was not a cost effective option and that the recommended separation distances were not wholly achieved. There was a qualifying petition.

The Chair invited the petitioner to talk to the Planning Committee.

Professor Robert Lee introduced himself as the Chair of the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He said he had been told by officers it was not possible to give a Powerpoint presentation, but asked how many had seen the houses? Professor Lee said they were not listed buildings and weren’t able to be listed, but had been built in 1882 by the Laird family and had been standing for 134 years.

Professor Lee told those present that at the Wirral History and Heritage Fair they had collected an extra eighty-five signatures on their petition, which showed the depth of concern. He said that those signing held the Planning Committee responsible and that “public opinion was clear”. The professor pointed to the quality of the buildings, which were of superior quality, a “rich period character” and pointed out that these were all comments of Wirral Council’s Conservation Area staff.

Professor Robert Lee was keen to emphasise the importance of neighbourhood planning as well as the opportunity for voluntary and community groups to shape proposals. He said that only one public event had been run for the whole site which less than thirty people had attended and that the developer had never consulted the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He went on further to say that the Presbyterian Church had been “kept in the dark” and that a Hugh Jones (treasurer, deacon and secretary) had quoted a Welsh hymn by saying that they were “living in a wilderness”. The professor said there had been serious deficiencies of process and that the key issue was a refurbishment option and the way it had been dismissed.

Professor Lee referred to the report highlighting the long-term settlement and poor condition of the boundary wall as well as a funding gap of £322,000. He said the Friends of Birkenhead Park wanted an independent survey, which had been refused, as the report had been commissioned by the developer to facilitate demolition. Their report said that if it was not demolished, then it would cast delivery of the project into doubt if planning permission was not forthcoming. He questioned the figures used and said that the comparable sale values in taking into account terraces in Cavendish Street were incorrect as these were a lower quality. If it had been done by one of his students, he would’ve failed them.

He wanted the developer to look at a realistic figures to eliminate the funding gap and at the option of flats. Professor Lee said that Birkenhead Park was a key prospect for World Heritage status and this bid was supported by Peel. If in the immediate buffer zone properties were demolished or new construction was not fitting they would fail in their bid. He referred to a claim of the new Cabinet Member for Leisure and Tourism and asked the Planning Committee to reject the application and to ask the developer to reconsider and to consider refurbishment.

The Chair thanked Professor Lee and said they would look at it on its merits, he wanted to clarify that the houses were great as they are but not listed. He asked the applicant to speak in support of the applicant.

The applicant introduced himself as Alan McGuinness, Regional Development Manager for Keepmoat Homes. Mr. McGuiness said they had been consulting with the Planning Department over various regeneration sites in the Laird Street and Birkenhead area, to look at how to present a proposal in keeping with the street scene. He said they had consulted with the Planning Department over what proposal was in keeping and as benefit going forward, he wanted to respond to some of the points raised by Professor Lee.

Mr. McGuinness said they had looked at the condition and viability and taken stock of the refurbishment costs versus the value of the property delivered compared to the price they’d be able to sell it at and found it wasn’t viable. He said they had tried to replicate a nice facade, they had consulted, but couldn’t be held responsible for the numbers turning up to a consultation event.

The Chair asked if there was a ward councillor present. There wasn’t.

Cllr John Salter said that he knew the houses well and the area. Fourteen properties had been written to and it had been advertised in the press as well as an open day. He supported Professor Lee and would love to keep the empty buildings, but where would the money come from? Cllr Salter said the country was “in dire straits” and that he would support the application.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said that it was a major thoroughfare and a gateway and that they couldn’t dismiss it. He said they were “splendid looking buildings” and referred to the Conservation Area over the road.

The Chair asked to see an elevation.

The officer showed the elevation and said that the corner building would be replaced with a block. The Chair referred to the points made by the objector and the concerns about heritage status. He said that the refurbishment option was not viable or commercial and there had been comments about the condition. He said they had a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Cllr Stuart Kelly asked a point of clarification about the block shown in the elevation and whether it was flats? The officer said that was what was proposed.

Cllr John Salter and Cllr Dave Mitchell proposed and seconded approval of the application.

Councillors except Cllr Patricia Glasman and Cllr Stuart Kelly voted for. Cllr Glasman and Cllr Kelly voted against so the application was approved.

Professor Lee then made a plea to the developer to carry out a digital report prior to demolition. The Chair said it was not normally a debate, however asked the Planning Committee if they would add it as an extra condition, which they were happy to do so.