Category: Cllr Harry Smith

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

Dogs, Rain, Alcohol – Crime, ASB & the Labour Party

Well, stone the crows when my wife walked the dog this morning; Labour have been sighted in Bidston & St. James delivering a leaflet.

This follows on from Cllr Harry Smith refusing to answer the question on Monday evening whether he’d visit Bidston & St. James ward on Friday/Saturday nights to see the problems that alcohol brings in the area he represents deriding the question as “political”.

I will give full marks to Cllr Smith for consistency. The independently written minutes of the Wirral Council Scrutiny Programme Board at point 33 quoted below state in response to my wife’s letter on this matter back in January (for Members read Labour councillors):-

“Members considered also a response they had received from a local resident to the Alcohol Scrutiny Review, which also offered some general observations on the issue of alcohol in the Bidston area of Birkenhead. A number of Members expressed their disagreement with a number of points in the letter, particularly what they perceived to be attacks on Council officers in relation to licensing of off-licences and test sales of alcohol to young people under the age of 18. Other Members questioned the objectivity of the response, as the respondent appeared to be promoting the issue for party political purposes.”

However you can read the actual letter from my wife to the members of the Scrutiny Programme Board who were discussing the Alcohol Strategy Review at the meeting.

The points she made that prompted this response from Labour councillors, were “A number of off licences in the area have in recent years made sales of alcohol to customers under 18. Although Trading Standards send in teenagers in test sales to check on under age sales; local shop assistants know who lives locally and will generally be able to spot these strangers.”

This is based on fact. An offlicence in Hoylake Road had had its licence revoked after making an underage sale. This is not the only one that had been selling to under-18s (in fact some still do!)

While Labour merely deride bringing up the problem as “political”, it was Liberal Democrats that asked the police to do something about alcohol related antisocial behaviour which led to the mobile police station being placed near Birkenhead Park train station. Local residents in this area were pleased that finally their complaints were heard and (finally) something was done about it!

What was the response from a party that said they were “tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”?

I personally wish I didn’t feel the need to write this post highlighting problems with crime and alcohol in the area. It feels like I’m talking down an area I live in, however as a local resident who lives here, I want the area to improve. If the Labour Party won’t even answer an easy yes/no question or merely derides residents like myself and my wife bring it up with a local councillor as “political”; is Labour there to truly represent the views of the local people or is it party politics first and the local community second?

Wirral Council’s own constitution states:-

“2.3 (a) All Councillors will: …represent their communities and bring their views into the
Council’s decision-making process”

Cllr. Harry Smith chooses to live in Oxton where he’s represented by three Liberal Democrat councillors. Doesn’t this say it all?

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.

Town Hall drama: Labour’s lost the plot – more playground politics

Town Hall drama: Labour’s lost the plot – more playground politics

Town Hall drama: Labour’s lost the plot – more playground politics

                              

Last night’s full council meeting at Wallasey Town Hall certainly had some firsts:-

a) the first time a Labour councillor has refused to answer a question at Public Question Time
b) the first time two journalists have been asked to leave (highly irregular and illegal) from the Council chamber merely for exercising their rights under Wirral Council’s constitution to ask questions (and as a result irking Cllr. Harry Smith).

As I really doubt Cllr. Harry Smith is aware of the law on this I will quote it here (with a little underlining of the relevant points):-

"Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960

1 Admission of public to meetings of local authorities and other bodies.

…….

(4) Where a meeting of a body is required by this Act to be open to the public during the proceedings or any part of them, the following provisions shall apply, that is to say,—

(c) while the meeting is open to the public, the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting and duly accredited representatives of newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for those newspapers shall, so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report and, unless the meeting is held in premises not belonging to the body or not on the telephone, for telephoning the report at their own expense."

As Cllr. Smith well knows the press table is situated in front of the Labour benches in the Council Chamber. There are no "reasonable facilities" in the public gallery as there’s no large flat surface to write on.

It got so bad that to sum up the words of one member of the public (previously a councillor) in the public gallery "My brain hurts and I’m going home". Cllr. Foulkes gave long speeches about how he believes in scrutiny and democracy. However not it seems in respect of any Labour Party councillors. His own councillors heckled both members of the public during the time they asked questions, Cllr Adrian Jones slandered me (why can Labour never get their facts right?) and behaved like spoilt children who’ve had their toys taken away throwing a temper tantrum merely because a couple of people asked one of their councillors questions.

As if Labour councillors wasn’t bad enough and I am being serious now (surely you can’t be serious I hear you say) a senior officer was even heard making racist remarks about my wife. Officers are supposed to be politically neutral and adhere to the officer’s code of conduct.

I am a person who believes in freedom of speech; but until the Labour Party learns some respect and manners; I will continue to be ashamed that I’m represented in Bidston & St. James ward by three Labour Party councillors.

However, I here is a list of the notices of motion/amendments at last night’s meeting, which can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

Bill Norman was made the new Returning Officer. Jim Wilkie will carry on for the next 9 months as Interim Chief Executive.

P.S. I am getting well used to the fact that a 15 minute adjournment ends up being half an hour; why don’t they just say they need 30 minutes to start with?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.