A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers
A blog about Wirral Council's public meetings, Wirral Council's councillors, Bidston & St. James ward and other public bodies on Merseyside
Yes, there isn’t much of a Wirral Council connection, other than Merseytravel’s sponsorship of the event, but below are a series of photos I took of the Liverpool Pride event on the 4th August 2012 (mostly of the parade). You can click on each thumbnail for a high quality photo.
Yes, there isn’t much of a Wirral Council connection, other than Merseytravel’s sponsorship of the event, but below are a series of photos I took of the Liverpool Pride event on the 4th August 2012 (mostly of the parade). You can click on each thumbnail for a high quality photo.
There’s an interesting story in the Daily Post about how a government minister is ruling this out between now and 2015. After that she says it’s up to Wirral Council and the other local authorities along the route putting forward a value for money plan.
I must say it’s broadly in agreement with what Neil Scales said, former Chief Executive/Director General of Merseytravel at Wirral Council’s Cabinet.
The Bidston/Wrexham line covers two countries (Wales and England) which makes things even more complex as the Welsh Assembly have oversight for transport in Wales.
Everyone was present, so the Chair Cllr Mark Dowd started the meeting at 2.30pm by wishing everyone a very pleasant time. He asked for declarations of interest. Cllr Chris Blakeley declared an interest as a Fast Tag holder and an interest in item 5 as a recipient of allowances from Merseytravel.
The Chair declared an interest for everyone else in item 5. He asked if the minutes were ok? They were and agreed. The Chair then wanted to move a recommendation c in respect of the item on the Mersey Tunnel tolls. Cllr Chris Blakeley said he wished to move an amendment (which is below).
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
AMENDMENTS SHEET
MERSEYSIDE INTEGRATED TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Authority/Committee/Sub-Committee: Integrated Transport Authority Budget Meeting
Date: 09 February, 2012
Agenda Item/Minute No: Item 3 – Mersey Tunnel Tolls
Amendment moved by: Councillor Chris Blakeley. Seconded by: Cllr Les Rowlands
11 Recommendations
Accept all recommendations and add new clause (d)
(d) The Authority asks the Interim Director General / Director of Resources to investigate the cost implications, as well as any implications to the Tunnels Act 2004 of bring forward a further discount for Fast Tag users in order to reduce the burden of tolls on regular users of the Mersey Tunnels. The results of that investigation to be brought back to an Authority meeting in October 2012 prior to the review of the Mersey Tunnel Tolls for 2013 as per the Tunnels Act 2004.
C/MISCELL / SR / DW
23rd July 1991
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
He said he “won’t keep us too long” as he was not calling for tunnel tolls to be removed. He was not going to shout for immediate reductions. He felt that the 2004 Act had taken away some of their powers, as they couldn’t vote against an increase, but they did have the power to discount. He had trouble with the Tunnels Act but was delighted that tolls would not increase. The small reduction he asked for Fast Tag users had been circulated.
The Chair said Cllr Blakeley’s motion was ” ill-conceived” as the Tunnels Act had been agreed by Merseytravel before going to the House of Lords. He said they should be doing this anyway, so why do what they should be doing?
Another councillor said wasn’t Cllr Blakeley up for election, therefore wasn’t this political?
Cllr Blakeley said he moved an amendment every year and there was nothing peculiar.
The Chair asked for a vote on the amendment. Five voted for the amendment (including Cllr Blakeley and Cllr Rowlands). The others voted against the amendment so the amendment was lost.
All councillors ten voted in favour of the original motion.
The Chair moved the meeting onto the 2012/13 Budget.
Jim Barclay introduced the report.
A councillor asked where the £2.985 million grant came from for the ferries?
The answer given was that Mersey Ferries Limited was a limited company, the subsidy was reduced in order to trade in line with its constitution. He was thanked.
Another councillor pointed out an error on page 31 in the 4th paragraph. Jim apologised for the error.
The councillors approved the 2012/13 Budget unanimously.
The last report on the agenda was the independent review of Members Allowances. The Chair welcomed Professor Hall and also circulated a recommendation from the Labour Group to not accept an increase in the Basic Allowance or Chair’s Allowance.
Cllr Chris Blakeley welcomed what had been moved, but asked for clarification. Were they accepting the other recommendations?
Cllr Denise Realey asked if it was true they would have tidal power by 2020?
Mr. Mawdsley said that was incorrect, they had finished the feasibility study, settled on a location, technology and costed it. The total cost came to £3.5 billion for 720 MWh of power. It would last for one hundred and twenty years, but financial models only went over twenty-five years and this had a break even point at the thirty year mark. He said pension funds would have to take a long-term view, it was a green project, but they were sitting on their hands waiting for government and overseas investors. It was now over to government if it happened….
Cllr Andrew Hodson said he had done really well and he’d found the presentation interesting. Would there really be occupation next year?
Mr. Mawdsley from Peel said the remediation would run from March to November. The site needed cleaning up as it was a remnant of the industrial heritage. They also needed to investigate the geotechnical conditions. Once this was done they would build the first phase, however they needed tenants as well as to secure a loan for 50% of the capital costs.
Cllr Andrew Hodson asked if they had got the money to start construction?
Mr. Mawdsley said they had got 50% and were hoping to get the other 50% in a bank loan.
Cllr Hodson asked if they could start with just 50%?
The person from Peel said it was a joint venture and they had already put in £5-£6 million. It was difficult getting a loan from a UK bank, so they were speaking to the Bank of China.
Cllr Hodson referred to Peel’s assets of £6 billion. Cllr Stuart Kelly said he never failed to be impressed by the sheer scale, but he had his eye on the fact he’d like to see bricks and building of this long-term project. He said the other issues were there’d be a shift in the business and retail centre on the periphery. Chinese and Far East companies would have good links to the rest of the country, but was there anything they should be doing about infrastructure? High Speed 2 wasn’t enough in our direction and there was the whole mess that is the M6.
Peel responded by saying that the International Trade Centre would be a springboard into the UK and Europe. The fact it was close to the port was essential, where it was, was pretty good with the motorway and public transport. What was important was connections to London, ideally there would be a direct mainline station to Euston, but that was not going to happen. However you could get from Liverpool Lime Street to the Wirral quickly and it was very well-connected. If it was connected to Lime Street through a disused tunnel to the dock there could be a feeder service.
Cllr Tony Cox asked about the proposed automotive and rail businesses and whether they were close enough to their target market for example Vauxhall Motors?
The Chair directed those present to page 27 and agenda item 6 (APP/11/00954), 6 Millbrook Road, Poulton, CH41 1FL, Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers.
Matthew said it was for a change of use to an auctioneers which was the sui generis class. It was in a mainly industrial area on an industrial estate, the Unitary Development Plan allowed uses B1, B2 and B8 here so it was not an acceptable use as they should locate somewhere easy and sustainable. There was a shortage of land for industrial purposes. One auction was held a week on Wednesday evening. It was not conflicting with adjacent businesses, but was still not an acceptable use. There was insufficient information to justify the loss on two grounds, Unitary Development Plan EM8 and the fact it was not sustainable.
Cllr John Salter said he would declare a personal interest as he had had a chat with the owner and a discreet visit to the premises. He said the business needed a large premises and the business had been established for eight years. There was no parking problem and no problem on the one day they had sales. He wanted to draw attention to the fact that 75% of the trade at the public auction was to other businesses, local traders such as second hand shops and it was not mainly for the public.
On the subject of public transport he disagreed with officers as about hundred metres away was Birkenhead Park railway station which he had walked many times. He wanted to overturn officer’s recommendation that it was up for refusal and asked for it to be approved, he did have a form of words.
The Chair said he wanted everybody to have their say, his only concerns was supporting the Unitary Development Plan except for good reasons especially in Bromborough and Ellesmere Port.
Cllr Dave Mitchell asked whether the applicant had been in touch with the Economy & Regeneration Department over moving to more acceptable premises. He commented that the business had been running for eighteen months and said it might benefit from having a look at venues available.
The Chair asked officers if they’d like to come back on alternative venues?
Matthew said that there were vacant sites in the Town Centre, but they hadn’t pushed the applicant to go through hte process. He said it was difficult to make the case.
Cllr Stuart Kelly said it was interesting as it was a sui generis class and in Latin. He had googled it and hadn’t come across auctioneer in government advice. He said that Matthew’s advice was surrounding a change of use. He asked what assessment had been done to see if it didn’t fall into the acceptable B1, B2 or B8 categories? He said there was no mention in the Unitary Development Plan and there was an absence of advice. He had resorted to Google to see what was out there and what it really is? He said it cut across B1, B2 and B7 and referred to Cllr John Salter’s comments about the auction being once a week. The rest of the time it was storage and distribution (class B8) which they didn’t appear to have a policy for the B-class and sui generis. He asked where would they be on appeal as it was near B8 and was 50/50. The report established the numbers of cars used and that B1/B2/B8 uses which was close enough to make no difference, unless the officers came up with a good argument to the contrary.
The Chair thanked Cllr Kelly for his interesting points.
Matthew said the element of concern was the public sales as a proportion were to the general public. People movements were not supposed to happen here but to the Town Centre where there was public transport provision. He agreed that some of the use was storage and distribution (B8 class), but the sales to the general public were moving it to an A1 use. There was some case law categorising it as A1 use. However the balance of case law was that each sui generis class should be decided on its own merits. The sole issue was sales to the general public.
Cllr Brian Kenny said he would not be happy to support an application not in accordance with the planning policies, but as detailed in the application it had been running for ten years and this was a retrospective application. There were no highway issues, no health and safety implications, no environmental implications which made it difficult to oppose. In principle he was not happy in opposing the Unitary Development Plan. He asked what words they would use to support it. He reserved the right to decide.
The Chair said there would have to be an urgent reason to outweight the Unitary Development Plan.
Cllr John Salter said that 75% of the business was wholesale, there were similar business in the area such as Moreton Alarms who did lighting and were no different (in selling to members of the public). Cllr Dave Mitchell asked if Moreton Alarms were on the main road as it made a difference? Cllr Mitchell apologised for interrupting Cllr John Salter. Cllr John Salter said he wanted to move it and he’d passed a form of words to Matthew, with alterations on hours. He said it was very accessible, well established for eight years and to move elsewhere he would lose clientele.
The Chair asked if there was something to move? He said each application should be considered on its merits especially the sui generis class.
Cllr John Salter said it was a sustainable business with 78% of its trade being not to the public, but to wholesale. He added a condition that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week. These would happen on a Wednesday from 1700 to 2100 and at no other time. This would not compromise the operation regarding industrial uses in the area. He referred to policy EM6 of the Unitary Development Plan and said that public access would be limited.
The Chair said that the proposal had been proposed and seconded and that it was a unique application and the circumstances had been demonstrated.
The first vote was on approving the application.
For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Absentions: None (0)
Application APP/11/00954 was approved (10:1:0)
The Chair said they now needed to consider the conditions which he asked an officer to reiterate.
Matthew said they had one condition which was that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week and that this sole auction was restricted to Wednesday between 5pm and 9pm.
The second vote was on the condition.
For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Abstentions: None (0)
The condition was approved (10:1:0). Two members of the public left.