Category: Housing

Cabinet meeting (Wirral Council) 22/02/2011 Part 1 – the Conservative/Lib Dem budget cometh and Labour is not happy

Well yesterday the Conservative & Lib Dem Cabinet “unveiled” their Wirral Council budget for 2011/2012. Labour’s (opposition) budget will arrive by noon on Friday the 25th February. Next Monday (1st March) the full Council will vote on the budget, although with 41 (yes I know it’s 42 including the Lib Dem Mayor but generally he … Continue reading “Cabinet meeting (Wirral Council) 22/02/2011 Part 1 – the Conservative/Lib Dem budget cometh and Labour is not happy”

Well yesterday the Conservative & Lib Dem Cabinet “unveiled” their Wirral Council budget for 2011/2012. Labour’s (opposition) budget will arrive by noon on Friday the 25th February.

Next Monday (1st March) the full Council will vote on the budget, although with 41 (yes I know it’s 42 including the Lib Dem Mayor but generally he doesn’t vote as he’s supposed to be politically neutral as part of his office) “progressive partnership” councillors to Labour’s 25 24 (edit – I sometimes forget Cllr. Knowles had switched from Labour to Tory and the independent Cllr Kirwan isn’t still with Wirral Council) councillors, I’m sure even Labour can do the maths and realise Labour’s budget will be defeated next Monday (with no need for Budget Part 2 on the evening of the 9th March) by around seventeen votes.

Can you see which bits of the Budget are from the Lib Dem side and which from the Conservative side? Yes you can see “the seams” between the two halves as we continue to be two independent political parties with minds and policy making processes of our own. If you look really hard you can see the bits influenced by yours truly and others (for example the 4-year rolling programme for 20 mph residential zones discussed last year by the party when Cllr Quinn was Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport) now carried forward by Cllr Rennie.

One Lib Dem policy coming into play is the pupil premium which means about £5 million extra for Wirral Schools to spend on children on free school meals, looked after children and service children. You should’ve heard the “wails of anguish” at the Wirral Schools Forum from headmasters/headmistresses from the more prosperous parts of the Borough when they realised £5 million would be spent on improving the educational chances of the most needy! Clearly Wirral is a place of large social divides and the extra money will be a welcome boost to the schools in Bidston & St. James.

So what may you ask is “in the budget”? Well, first to deal with the elements of the council tax that are made up by Merseyside Police’s budget and Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s budget. Both Merseyside Police and Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service froze their contributions from Council Tax compared to last year (2010/2011).

Due to increased costs and inflation (as well as a high proportion of its costs being on staff), Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service will be cutting some jobs. Their Chief Exec/treasurer explains the situation in a self-styled “podcast” (I don’t think he quite knows what a podcast is but I have to give them a few marks for trying), which unfortunately with my browser Firefox either opens a blank black window or six video windows of him at once creating an echo effect so I’ve uploaded it to Youtube (which has slightly better audio quality than five echoes).

For the purposes of any copyright lawyers out there, as the work has been made previously available to the public (and still is on Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s website at this location), this is classed as “fair dealing” under s.30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and is being done for the purpose of news reporting (and making sure you can hear what the speaker says).

Quite why councillors on Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service left it to an officer to record a video to explain the cuts is a mystery I’m sure my humble readers can enlighten me on in the comments section (or maybe I’ll just ask Cllr Ellis, Cllr Niblock, Cllr Rennie or Cllr Roberts next time I see them).

Lib Dems deliver 150,000 new affordable homes – WPH’s Bramall Construction contract & Labour Party donations

Following on from the Bidston & St. James Focus article about housing I am pleased to read that the high-rise flats Vittoria Court owned by Wirral Partnership Homes are to receive investment.

There are also plans being discussed for more social housing on the Beechwood estate. In addition the Coalition government and Council have agreed the Wirral Waters scheme.

Many Wirral Partnership Homes properties in this area have also received investment following a construction contract with Brammall Construction last year. With Labour sitting on Wirral Partnership Home’s board, perhaps there could be an explanation as to whether any declaration of interest was declared in regards to a contract awarded to Bramall Construction after a £2,000 donation was made from Brammall Construction to the Birkenhead Constituency Labour Party? A spokesperson for Bramall Construction rejects any connection and explains the donation as follows:-

“In 2000 we entered into a partnering arrangement called the Tranmere Partnership with Riverside Housing Association, Maritime Housing Association & Consultants which carried out some major works in Tranmere.

As part of our commitment to working with the local community, we sponsored an event [ED – in 2004, not 2000] at Prenton Park which was organised by the local Labour Party. Like many other local firms [ED – although the Birkenhead Labour Party records no donations or sponsorship from others], we took a table of 12 and sponsored the night by putting three bottles of wine on each table. We viewed the event as putting something back into the local community. Our donation to this event was registered by the Labour Party.

In 2004/5 we put in a bid to carry our major repair works for Wirral Partnership Homes but we were unsuccessful. The work was awarded to two other contractors. In 2007 we understood that there was a contractual issue with one of the incumbent partner contractors and in line with the framework agreement were given the opportunity to express an interest in undertaking decent homes works. After following all of the required procurement procedures we were awarded a section of works. To suggest there is a link between our sponsoring of a Labour party organised event and the awarding of a contract of WPH is a very serious allegation which we strongly reject.”

The link to the Electoral Commission website doesn’t link directly to the information, however an extract from the register is below.

Received by
  		Donor
  		Address
  		Date accepted
  		Donation
 
Conservative Party
Birkenhead 		Grange (Birkenhead) Property Co. Ltd
status: Company
company reg no: 00045284		 17a Balls Road
Birkenhead
CH43 5RF		 04/06/04 £ 500.00
Conservative Party
Birkenhead		 Tranmere Conservative Club Ltd
status: Company
company reg no: 00869082		 68 Argyle Street
Birkenhead
CH41 6AF		 10/06/04 £ 1,250.00
Labour Party [The]
Birkenhead Clp		 Bramall Construction
status: Company
company reg no: 1467161		 Unit 3D
Newton Court
Faraday Road
Wavertree Technology Park
Liverpool
L13 1EJ		 13/05/04 £ 2,000.00
Section total:£ 3,750.00
      

To be fair (as I always like to be) to Labour they are required by law to declare an interest when representing Wirral Council on outside bodies and withdraw from any discussions. The public must know that their representatives are acting in the public interest. With trust in politicians low, isn’t it about time WPH published any documents of meetings held about this?

Isn’t it time the public had a bit more openness and transparency when it comes to Wirral Partnership Homes, a company that receives £43 million in rent a year (some of this from the taxpayer from Housing Benefit claims)?

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.