Category: Conservatives

Full Council last night & Scrutiny Programme Board

Full Council last night & Scrutiny Programme Board

Full Council last night & Scrutiny Programme Board

                                     

The Scrutiny Programme Board in a three-minute meeting decided to send the Hoylake lifeboat call-in to the Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

All the stops were pulled out an hour later for invited guests (and councillors) at Wirral Council’s meeting last night, where Steve Maddox was awarded Freedom of the Borough. Before the meeting from the public gallery you could hear drunken laughter echoing through the corridors of the Town Hall.

Despite myself and Leonora being invited; we were both prevented from speaking to councillors or Steve as Town Hall staff had been left with instructions as usual. All I managed to get was a hello to Steve as he walked past through the lobby.

For the first time in a long time, Labour councillors behaved and didn’t jeer/heckle through anybody’s speeches. After the last full council meeting where Cllr Harry Smith got two people booted out of the Council Chamber I half thought he’d jump up and say, "I object to the dozen or so member of the public sitting in the Council Chamber (some in front of the Labour benches obscuring our view of Tory councillors) including Steve Maddox, his family, the High Sheriff, Her Majesty’s Lord Lieutenant, Mayoress and others and insist they’re thrown out of the Council Chamber and sit in the public gallery." but he didn’t.

So much for Harry’s assertion last time that it was usual procedure of members of the public to be bullied into moving about contrary to Wirral’s constitution!

However, someone must have told Harry to behave because I didn’t even hear one heckle or jeer out of him.

There were around thirty in the public gallery, I’ll write a longer report on last night including a summary of the speeches by the three leaders. The atmosphere was quite different to usual; partly because all the political parties agreed.

The only thing that seemed to go wrong (with a night that was meticulously planned by officers who got rather stressed) was the Mayor’s microphone wasn’t working.

Standards and why we need them at Wirral Council

I have had an interesting read of the full document pack relating to the Standards Hearing Panel of the 2nd/22nd November.

I was at the meeting referred to in July and had an unimpeded view and to what went on and heard what was said, although I’m not going to say what happened. Since then (unfortunately) there have been many full council meetings where similar things have happened.

Why it takes 16 months for a complaint (or complaints) in this case about a councillor to go from the complaint being made to a meeting to consider a decision as to what happens next is to beyond me. Surely (especially if a councillor is considering standing down in the next year) this is just giving them a licence to misbehave without consequences?

Needless to say, during this sixteen months (and most complaints seem to take that long), officers’ time, councillors’ time and in some cases when the report isn’t written "in-house" many thousands of pounds is spent.

It seems there are two possible reasons why it is dragged out so long (even after five councillors make a complaint).

Either

a) there is deliberate political “meddling” in the complaints process, whether directly or through officers or

b) processing complaints about councillors is not seen as a priority (or both a) and b))

The new procedure for complaints about councillors (which is to be decided by councillors and independent members of the Standards Committee this week), will hopefully make the system more understandable.

Since the MP expenses scandal, one wonders why local councils such as Wirral haven’t been forced to be more open about the expenses they pay to local councillors? Whereas I realise some may not like the extra scrutiny this would bring when staying at hotels and going on trips abroad at the taxpayer’s expense; as it stands the whole system is open to abuse.

Mind you; as some can’t even get basic arithmetic right on their election expenses forms; one wonders how they manage to fill out their expenses forms.

Two open questions to the readers (please answer in the comments – it’s not multiple choice so you can pick more than one):-

Do elected politicians behave badly because:-

a) it gets them more attention,
b) their colleagues are so they see it as acceptable,
c) they can get away with it and/or
d) they know if they do get caught nothing can be done to stop them doing it again?

Does the media act as a watchdog on our elected representatives?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Sometimes

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 5) – Warehouses

The meeting moved onto an application in Bromborough for a new warehouse. The Chair was keen that the gates were retained. The officer stated that the applicant had been approached and had agreed to incorporate them in the landscaping, but that it couldn’t be added as a condition had to be reasonable and necessary. The Chair was delighted that they were to be retained as they were part of the history of the site. The Chair proposed approval, with Cllr Salter seconding. It was agreed unanimously.

The next item to be discussed was an extension to a warehouse in Hoylake. There was a petitioner who handed around a photo to the committee. He then addressed the committee stating the extension would have a detrimental effect on their homes due to its size of two stories. He asked that the extension be kept to one not two storeys. He also mentioned concerns about noise and the quality of life of residents and requested a site visit.

Cllr Elderton addressed the committee on the subject of the height of the building and asking if it set a precedent. The Chair pointed out that the proposal would lead to less noise as the delivery area would be enclosed. The Chair moved approval. 7 councillors voted for, with 5 against so it was approved.

The Committee agreed the planning applications decided under delegated powers, noted the development control quarterly report and noted the report on recent changing to planning policy regarding housing and the revocation of the North West Regional Spatial Strategy. The meeting then finished.

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 4) – New House in Bidston

Item 4 (demolition of a petrol station and erection of shops in Claughton ward) was unanimously approved.

The next item for decision was the erection of a new dwelling in Upton Road, Bidston. There was no petition associated with this application.

The officer described this as in filling of a plot at the end of a cul-de-sac and that there was currently a live planning consent from 2008. The footprint of the amended application was the same and there was no significant difference so the application was recommended for approval.

Cllr Harry Smith addressed the committee, and referred by name to the two residents of 292 that had objected to it. He mentioned about parking, entry/egress, health and safety, the adverse impact on the area and Monday’s site visit. He said the site was too constricted and cars would have to reverse out onto the highway. He also said that if councillors allowed the application it would cause conflict between neighbours. He said a three bedroom house was bad enough, but a four bedroom was out of the question. He asked that if approved that construction traffic go to the rear of the plot. He asked for the application to be refused.

The Chair asked the officer to answer two of the points raised by Cllr. Smith. They answered that there was parking on the site itself and although access was far from ideal, the traffic caused by one residential property was unlikely to be noticed. It was pointed out that residents of other properties had to also reverse to come out onto the road.

Cllr Johnston said he was glad he’d been on the site visit and until today had thought of no planning reason to turn it down. He mentioned a report to be discussed later by the Planning Committee on garden grabbing.

The Chair said planning permission was already in place. Cllr Johnston said that this amended application was just to keep it live. Was the amended first floor element a step too far? It was pointed out that it would rely on the consent of the owners of 290 and that there were no overlooking issues.

Cllr Kenny pointed out that planning permission had already been approved and if rejected tonight the original planning permission would still stand. Cllr Kenny was minded to refuse the application. Cllr Elderton asked if it counted as overdevelopment in relation to the footprint. The response was that overdevelopment related to the % of the site being built on.

An officer also urged caution with Cllr Kenny’s point that it couldn’t because refused because the applicant might not build what they already have planning permission for.

Cllr Elderton raised a point about massing and that since the first application the owner of 290 Upton Road had changed hands. He felt there were no reasonable grounds on which to turn it down. It was pointed out there was a small area for parking at the front of the site.

Cllr Kelly raised the garden grabbing policy and said that the reasons given wouldn’t satisfy the objectors. It was in the gift of the resident of 290 as to whether to permit access.

The Chair pointed out that the rush to develop in rear gardens should be resisted. An officer pointed out that if this was a new application then garden grabbing would apply and he would report later on PPG3. The officer pointed out a strong material consideration was that there was a live consent which is why the decision had originally been delegated to officers to make.

The Chair move approval. Cllr Keeley seconded. Nine councillors voted for and 3 against (all Labour) so the application was approved.

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 3) – Bebington House in wrong place

The next application to be decided was a retrospective planning application for the erection of a house and garage.

There was no qualifying petition associated with this application. The Chair asked in future that any photos should be displayed before the meeting started. He also mentioned that Cllr Williams had objected to the application earlier at 4.15pm.

An officer talked about the application and that the house had been built too close to a boundary, it should’ve been 5m away but had been 2.2m away, although the original proposal had been approved. An extra condition had been added that the proposed changes had to be made within 9 months.

Cllr Sheila Clarke addressed the committee and talked about an access road that had been made. She pointed out that in some parts this property was as close as 1.25m and that it was unneighbourly. She pointed out it was in a Conservation Area. She said it was disproportionate to the plot size and had no regard to the character of the area. She referred to page 4 of the report and circulated photos. She said there was overshadowing and loss of amenity to the neighbouring property and that a hedge at 2m was not feasible. She also pointed out that other residents had conformed to the Conservation Area requirements.

Cllr Keeley asked if an objective report had been done as to whether it was out of character in a Conservation Area. The Chair said that an independent report had stated that the amended plans didn’t conflict with policy CH2 or the Conservation Area appraisal.

It was pointed out that there were no habitable rooms on the side of the property which had been built too close to the boundary. Cllr Gilchrist asked a question about condition 4 and was told it removes all permitted development rights and that the 9 months to carry out the work was reasonable.

The Chair proposed it for approval. Ten councillors voted for and two against, so it was approved.