Planning Committee refuses plan for Tesco in Wallasey Village

A report on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 22nd August 2013 and its decision to turn down an application to build a Tesco in Wallasey Village. APP/13/00629 Classic Cars Of Wirral Ltd CH45 3LP

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Unusually I got to film the Planning Committee meeting. The first planning application was the controversial application for a Tesco in Wallasey Village (the officer’s report can be read here and here is a link that takes you straight to the start of that item in the video I took of it.

The officer introduced the item by saying a decision on the application was deferred on the 25th July for a site visit. She explained the planning history and the reasons why the officers were recommending it for approval. There was a petition objecting to it signed by over 1,200 people.

The lead petitioner gave his name as Lee Kendall and said that he was the principal transport planner at SCP (a transport consultancy based in Manchester). He referred to a technical report SCP had submitted and how they felt the level of parking was inaccurately described in the officer’s report and below the levels they’d expect. The lack of parking would lead to overspill parking in the nearby streets which in his opinion was contrary to policies SH6 and TR9.

Using an industry standard database they had estimated that the traffic would exceed the spaces in the car park leading to overspill parking which would have an impact on traffic flow and road safety. He also felt that the application should have included a proper transport statement. Mr Kendall also said that the amenities of local residents would be affected by noise during unsocial hours.

The main road it was on already had a poor road safety record and he listed the different types of accident recorded over the last seven years. Although a puffin crossing was a condition, with a school situated opposite the site there was the concern that there was the potential for an accident involving a child crossing the road by not using the crossing. In his view overspill parking would also increase the likelihood of an accident involving a child.

The first floor was only accessible via a stairwell, so he felt that this meant the application wouldn’t comply with part M of the building regulations, Disability Discrimination Acts and the Equality Act 2010. Although this was not a material planning consideration he asked why would they approve a scheme that would breach building regulations? He urged the committee to refuse the application.

Matthew Brooke (of Edgeplan, the Manchester based agents) replied on behalf of the applicant Alfa Trustees. He referred to the officer’s recommendation to approve the application and that it was an underused site. Mr Brooke said that a superstore would create jobs for local people and was a substantial change from the earlier refused proposal.

There were a lot of highways related conditions from the puffin crossing and officers could go further and put in yellow lines. He felt that the scale of development was correct but they were aware of traffic accidents in Wallasey Village. Mr Brooke said that the first floor of the store would not be accessible to the public and used for staff use only. He finished by asking the Planning Committee to approve the application.

A ward councillor, Cllr Leah Fraser also addressed the Planning Committee. She started by saying that she had asked officers for a copy of the traffic survey, but she’d been told over the phone that a survey hadn’t been done. Therefore Cllr Fraser felt the officer’s assertions in the report weren’t backed up by evidence. She’d asked how the estimated traffic level figure was arrived at. Cllr Fraser had been told that the figure was calculated using the proposed floor area.

In her opinion if parking would be contained solely in the car park she estimated that each customer would have to park, shop, pay and leave within ten minutes. This wasn’t likely to happen so overspill parking in the surrounding streets would result due to the under provision of car parking. She said a figure of twenty full-time staff had been given and that the parking needs of staff would further exacerbate the parking issue. As an example of this she said that at the site visit one of the Planning Committee had had to park on double yellow lines and there had only been fifteen on the site visit.

Cllr Fraser said that the overspill parking would affect the residents in sheltered accommodation at Granville Court as there were regular visitors and ambulances going to and from there. Customers would also park outside the nearby residential properties and the residents would see a decrease in the amenities they’d come to reasonably expect to enjoy.

She asked how the new store would employ disabled staff if the first floor was inaccessible for disabled people? Residents were also concerned about the noise of deliveries and air conditioning. The previous use of the site in her opinion had been an important buffer between commercial premises, however she didn’t consider a Tesco as a buffer.

Further concerns of hers were that there would be overlooking from nearby flats of the service area and deliveries from 7 am in the morning. Although a new store might create new jobs, Cllr Fraser felt jobs would be lost as some remaining shops would end up closing. She referred to the over a thousand people who had signed a petition against despite it being widely publicised. Cllr Fraser was amazed that the report did not include the results of a traffic survey and referred to the estimated vehicle movements and the “tremendous opposition” to the proposal. She asked the Planning Committee to refuse it on the grounds that it was contrary to policy SH6 and that the impact of vehicles and footfall had not been assessed.

The Chair invited the Planning Committee to discuss the application.

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 22nd August 2013 refuses plan for Tesco in Wallasey Village.

EXCLUSIVE: Million pound contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for ISUS scheme was never signed

A blog post about the unsigned contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for the ISUS (Intensive Startup Support) Scheme

Million pound contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for ISUS scheme was never signed

                             

ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 1
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 2
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 3
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 4
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 5
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 6
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 7
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 8
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 9
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 10
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 11
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 12
ISUS Contract Enterprise Solutions (NW Ltd) Page 13

In my previous post on a Freedom of Information Act request I made to Wirral Council I stated that it would be one of a series of blog posts on interrelated topics, this is the second on audit rights.

Each year (this year it was from 15th July to the 9th August as you can read from this notice published on Wirral Council’s website), anybody can inspect the accounts for Wirral Council for the previous financial year and any books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts. This is a right the public have enshrined in legislation. If this person is also someone who can vote in the Wirral area they also have a right to make objections to the auditor (which in Wirral Council’s case is Grant Thornton UK LLP (previously it was the Audit Commission)).

One of the areas I was interested in is to do with Nigel Hobro’s question to Cllr Phil Davies at the last Council meeting and the Grant Thornton report into the Business Investment Grants program. The end of Cllr Phil Davies’ answer to Mr. Hobro was “Errm however if it turns out that err others have been affected similarly since the report came to us I’m happy to ensure they’re properly investigated and indeed if there are any further evidence of wrongdoing or the irregularities of accountancy methods brought to my attention, then errm I am errm willing and indeed I make a commitment to refer those to others.”

On the 17th July I requested the following (using the above audit rights) “I’d also be interested to see and have a copy of any contract Wirral Council has with Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd” and on Tuesday afternoon (20th August) I was invited along to receive it (I’ve since scanned in and links to all of it are at the start of this blog post). It is for the ISUS (Intensive Startup Scheme) side of the business grants program and covers “awareness and development workshops”, monitoring the businesses that receive grants for three years after they receive grants at at least ten points over that three years and for “provision of specialist post start and aftercare adviser support”. Basically all pretty important things for Wirral Council to prove value for money for the taxpayer for these grants.

The contract states just under a million pounds of taxpayer’s money is involved and as a lot of records would rest with Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd requires them to supply information to do with the project including invoices, certificates, vouchers, books and records if required as well as keeping copies of documentation (and make them available for inspection) for seven years after the grants are awarded.

Section seventeen of the contract allows Wirral Council to vary the amount of grant payable, suspend payment of grant, withhold payment of grant or require Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to repay some or all of the grant if the terms and conditions are breached at any time before three years after Wirral Council has last paid them the grant. It also requires Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to if required to pay back money to Wirral Council to do so within fourteen days, otherwise interest at 3% above the base lending rate of NATWEST Bank plc will be charged.

However the most interesting bit of the contract is page ten. It’s not signed by Wirral Council or Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd. However invoices from Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd were paid and according to this Freedom of Information Act request Wirral Council also used Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to produce business plans for organisations wanting to take over Council assets as part of the Community Asset Transfer program (in the request’s case New Brighton Community Centre).

In that FOI request the Council admits “there was no contract with Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd” and the fact that the one drafted between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for the ISUS project (which according to the copy I’ve been given wasn’t signed by either party) how can Wirral Council prove it got value for money both to the public (and its auditor)?

Isn’t actually getting a signed contract in place, before you make any payments the kind of basic good governance that Wirral residents should expect from Wirral Council?

Is Cllr Davies’ commitment if he knows of “further wrongdoing” or “irregularities of accountancy methods” to “refer these to others” going to help matters? Referring the whistleblower’s concerns to Grant Thornton and Merseyside Police allowed Wirral Council to draw a veil over the matter and claim exemptions to legitimate questions asked by the public through Freedom of Information Act requests. Councillor Phil Davies is the Cabinet Member for Finance, he’s the elected politician at Wirral Council with democratic accountability to the public for financial matters. I clearly remember Cllr Davies saying last year that when he became leader that there would be more openness and transparency, not less.

Unless politicians (of all political persuasions) are willing to persistently ask difficult questions of senior officers at Wirral Council and put them on the spot during public meetings, instead preferring to be seen to be doing something by requesting reports (there’s the recent example of the case of the Grant Thornton report into the BIG scheme which was never published in full) I fear that all the talk about improved corporate governance and glowing peer reviews at Wirral Council won’t be believed by the public.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 22nd August 2013 Planning Applications affecting Bidston and St. James ward

A report on recent planning applications decided affecting Bidston and St. James ward and upcoming decisions on planning applications by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee affecting Bidston and St. James ward | 330B St Anne Street | Verosa, 122 Eleanor Road | Rosemead Residential Home 49-51 School Lane | Keepmoat | Cosy Cats Cattery Limited, 2 Lymm Road

cat Firstly a brief update on planning applications decided by Wirral Council officers affecting Bidston & St. James ward from 1st July 2013 to 11th August 2013.

The first is an application type I haven’t seen before called “Planning Pre-Application Enquiry”. Rather confusingly the decision is down as “pre-application reply” (and as it’s not classed as a planning application searching on Wirral Council’s website doesn’t bring up a decision either), but I presume if the applicant gets a positive response indicating that a planning application would be accepted then they’ll then go on to submit a planning application.

Application No.: PRE/13/00078/ENQ Application Type: Planning Pre-Application Enquiry
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 16/07/2013 Decision: Pre-Application Reply
Case Officer: Mrs S Day
Applicant: Mr Carl Haskalyne Agent:
Location: 330B ST ANNE STREET, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 4FQ
Proposal: Change of use from vacant offices to 2 flats (self contained)

The second (approved) is for a conservatory in Eleanor Road. As usual you can click on the planning application number for further details on Wirral Council’s website.

Application No.: APP/13/00510 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 16/07/2013 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr S Williamson
Applicant: Mr R Connolly Agent: Mr Colin Medlicott
Location: Verosa, 122 ELEANOR ROAD, BIDSTON, CH43 7QS
Proposal: Conservatory to the side of the building

The third (also approved) is to change Rosemead Residential Home in School Lane back to its former use as residential properties. Again for further details you can click on the planning application number.

Application No.: APP/13/00772 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 02/08/2013 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr N Williams
Applicant: Agent:
Location: Rosemead Residential Home, 49-51 SCHOOL LANE, BIDSTON, CH43 7RE
Proposal: Change of use from closed nursing home back to two residential semi-detached dwellings (without internal or external building works)

Unusually there are three planning applications affecting Bidston and St. James ward to be decided by the Planning Committee on Thursday (assuming that the Planning Committee doesn’t decide to go on site visits to them).

The first is Keepmoat’s plan to build 125 houses in the Milner Street/Carrington Street/Rundle Street/Laird Street area. A 20mph zone and traffic calming scheme is included as one of the conditions. Merseyside Police’s architectural liaison officer has concerns that the open nature of the scheme may increase opportunities for crime and makes some recommendations.

The area of this planning application has had houses partly demolished for some time. As tenants living in the area have been moved out and owner occupiers subject to compulsory purchase orders, it’s part of the reason why many of the nearby Laird Street have closed down. I notice also there’s a recommendation for a s.106 agreement with the developer for a very small area of public open space, although with Birkenhead Park, a play area and a games court nearby that’s why it’s smaller than the size of open space you’d expect for 125 houses. A condition (probably as a result of the police’s concerns about crime) also requires security lighting for the open space and the “proposed link to existing footpath”. Hopefully it’ll get approved (as is recommended by officers) and houses will replace the current eyesore of a site that is currently mud and half demolished houses.

The other two planning applications to be decided by the Planning Committee affecting Bidston and St. James ward are related and are both submitted by the alliteratively named Cosy Cats Cattery Limited. They are planning application APP/13/00688 for a cattery comprising of an outbuilding of fifteen small units to house a maximum of twenty cats and an isolation unit and planning application ADV/13/00689 which is for advertisement consent for a fascia sign and hanging sign (for the cattery which is planning application APP/13/00689).

Such minor planning applications would normally be decided by planning officers rather than the Planning Committee, but Cllr Jim Crabtree has removed the application from delegation following one objection to each planning application by the resident of number 2 Eleanor Road.

On the planning application for the signs, the resident objects on the basis of illumination of the signs and confusion as to where the signs will be located. However the report states the signs won’t be illuminated. The report also details where (if approved) the signs will be, one hanging from a post 1.8m high and one on the fence adjacent to the driveway facing east towards the cul-de-sac.

However the main objections from the resident of number two Eleanor Road are in relation to the proposed cattery (eleven separate objections are listed in the report). The report written by planning officers is of the opinion that the objections raised aren’t enough to refuse the application (the officers also dispute the factual accuracy of some of the objections). It’s therefore recommended it for approval, subject to conditions limiting the number of cats to twenty and the hours of operation to between 8 am and 9 pm.

Wirral Council: “Bureaucratic Machinations” and Freedom of Information

A blogpost about the Freedom of Information Act, Wirral Council and the Information Commissioners Office

Wirral Council: “Bureaucratic Machinations” and Freedom of Information

If you don’t have freedom of information and expression, you are not living in a democracy; rather it is ruled by dictatorship with many heads.

Despite there being seven public meetings this month at Wirral Council, I am instead writing about an important topic I’ve been requested to by a reader (freedom of information). This post will be the first of three parts on the interrelated topics of freedom of information, freedom of speech and audit rights.

News from the Information Commissioner (who describe themselves on their website as “the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals) is that following three months of monitoring Wirral Council’s freedom of information act request responses at the start of this year, as they were responding to less than 75% of requests within 20 days (the legal requirement on Wirral Council is that they respond to 100% of requests within 20 days) and that they had a number of outstanding, overdue requests and internal reviews that Wirral Council are to sign an undertaking (I’ve linked to a copy of this undertaking here on my blog as some browsers don’t display the undertaking properly).

This undertaking commits Wirral Council to actually responding to FOI requests within the twenty day timescale and (perhaps more importantly) dealing with internal reviews according to the s.45 Code of Practice (which is another twenty days). In addition for July 2013 to the end of September 2013 Wirral Council has to provide the Information Commissioner’s Office with statistical information on requests and the timescale they’re responded to with the aim that by the end of September Wirral Council’s rather woeful 75% will be increased to 85%. There are also some commitments over allocating enough resources, employee training and dealing with some outstanding requests.

So the good news is Wirral Council will (hopefully) respond quicker to FOI requests and there won’t be the situation there has been in the past where internal reviews have taken up to a year to happen. Unsurprisingly a lot of these internal reviews have just upheld the original decision resulting in plenty of referrals onward to the Information Commissioner and decision notices being issued (which are legally binding on Wirral Council).

Let’s take my most recent request as an example of how not to do FOI by Wirral Council. The request can be viewed here on the whatdotheyknow website. Councillors sit on various panels, statutory committees, advisory parties and working parties at Wirral Council, the FOI request is quite simply for the minutes of the previous meeting (or if that is not available the minutes of the one before). The request was made on the 29th March 2013. On the 29th April 2013 (twenty working days later) I had received no response, so I requested an internal review as to why I hadn’t received a response.

The next day (30th April 2013) I received an apology for not responding to my initial response in “a timely fashion”, the internal review stated that the request was refused as it would take longer than 18.5 hours to comply with (exemption 12(1))) on the basis that:-

The very broad scope of your request, 26 varying panels, groups or committees are included
The fact that many of the committees you mention are not administered centrally but departmentally and information is not held in a central repository
The huge volume of School Appeals each year, running into the hundreds; including a great deal of Personal Data and Sensitive Data, which would have to be reviewed and redacted were applicable.

However they did offer to supply the Members Equipment Steering Group action notes (available from 17/7/12) and the Safeguarding Reference Group minutes (although I’ve never received either of these). They pointed out that the Independent Remuneration Panel Reports were already on their website (although rather unhelpfully didn’t supply a link).

They also stated “Further advice would be, if you could reduce the scope and breadth of your enquiry and also give some time frames in your enquiry, then Officers can review it further. ”

So sure enough I responded, classing their internal review as their initial response asking for a further internal review. I pointed out I was only asking for the minutes of one meeting (not a years worth as what I’d thought was my initially clear request had stated) and considering that the Independent Remuneration Panel reports were already on their website, felt that 45 minutes was ample time to retrieve a set of minutes and scan it in (although I offered to pick up paper copies if this meant the time limit was exceeded).

This request for the internal review was made on the 30th April 2013. The section 45 code of practice (which Wirral Council has now said it will stick to states that an internal review should take twenty days and only in exceptional circumstances forty days. The response to the internal review came on 30th July (two months after the request or sixty four working days (sixty two if you don’t count the day it was made or the day it was received).

Here are some quotes from that internal review, my thoughts are in italics, (the rest of it just repeats the original request, response and request for an internal review):

You requested “minutes of the previous meetings of the following committees. If minutes whether in draft form or not are not available of the previous meeting, please provide the minutes of the meeting directly before.”

The Information Manager interpreted your request as a request for the minutes of all meetings of the committees from time of inception.

Personally I think this is not what the original request (or clarification following the initial response actually stated) and it’s getting quite frankly nigh impossible to frame a FOI request that isn’t possible of being misinterpreted by Wirral Council into being something it’s not in order to justify a refusal.

It is possible that what you were in fact requesting was the minutes of the last meeting of each of the 26 panels that took place of the 26 panels prior to the 29 March 2013. You then indicated if those meetings had not been formally minuted you wanted the minutes of the last meeting of each of those panels that took place directly before the meeting that had taken place but not yet been minuted.

Reading these two sentences I felt pleased that someone at Wirral Council (albeit with the help of the clarification of my request for the internal review making it crystal clear) could finally read and understand what I meant.

The reviewing officer considers that as framed your request was ambiguous as you referred in your first sentence to “previous meetings” which would mean all meetings since the committees were constituted. The FOI team having interpreted your request on that basis refused it.

No, no, no, no, no, to be honest this must be someone from Wirral Council’s legal department to argue on such semantics, the previous meetings bit refers to either the last meeting or the one before (whichever has minutes available). It could also be plural because there are twenty six sets of minutes requested, therefore twenty-six previous meetings.

The reviewing officer considers that given the interpretation of the email the refusal was justified for the reasons given and on the grounds stated.

Sigh, any reason to turn something down eh?

The reviewing officer has gone on to consider whether a refusal of what appears to be your request ( as clarified by your later email of April 29) i.e. for minutes of the last meeting held prior 29 March 2013 of each group you mention should have been refused under s12.

Right, a little ray of sunshine, give me some hope that the “bureaucratic machinations” are going somewhere.

The groups you mention are not all served by committee services nor are they groups on which the Council is the sole interested party; nor are they all groups which the Council chairs and an inquiry would have to be made to a significant number of persons and locations. The reviewing officer considers that a request should have been refused under s14 of the Freedom of Information Act as imposing a gross burden on Council officers in retrieval consideration and redaction.

Err what, what has who chairs them got to do with this? Considering what to redact isn’t allowed to be counted towards the time limit anyway (according to previous case law), surely (knowing Wirral Council’s love of black marker) you’ll happily black out all the names in these minutes anyway?

It is clear that many of the panels you mention will be dealing with highly sensitive personal data in particular and without limitation no.s 1-4 inclusive; 8,9, 11; 16 23 and 26. Officer time in considering those considering the exemptions and redacting,

Again officer time in considering the exemptions and redacting doesn’t count towards the time limit!

consulting with third parties (for example the independent chairperson of the Adoption panel, representatives of other bodies on the committee)

So Wirral Council is seriously stating that releasing the minutes of a meeting of the Adoption/Fostering panel would require them to consult with the independent chairperson whose name will probably be blacked out anyway citing an exemption anyway? Just for reference the adoption panel is comprised of an independent chairperson, an agency advisor, a social work team manager, a social worker, someone who has previously adopted, the medical adviser, a consultant psychotherapist and a Wirral Councillor, there are no “representatives of other bodies on the committee”.

would in the view of the Reviewing Officer mean that the request should have been refused under s14.

The minutes requested for panel 13 are available on the Council website.

This refers to the Youth and Play Advisory Service Committee (which was seemingly not spotted by their initial refusal).

The decision made in response to your initial request is therefore upheld. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, please see contact details below for the ICO, should you wish to complain:-

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Tel: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45
Fax: 01625 524510 www.ico.gov.uk <http://www.ico.gov.uk/<

So to sum it up as follows, the initial request (as sensibly interpreted) didn’t breach s.12 (going over the 18.5 hours), however was refused (incorrectly) on s.12 (going over the 18.5 hours) grounds. The internal reviewer (at least by my reading of what they wrote) then realises (once the request is interpreted for what it was meant to be) there are no longer grounds to refuse under s.12 so instead refuses under s.14 (vexatious requests). This (and the initial refusal) are both based on the assumption that officer time in considering the exemptions and redacting information counts towards the limit. They’re not. In fact the list of allowable tasks is specified in legislation and doesn’t include consulting with third parties. So, I’ll be referring this to ICO for a decision notice in the near future. Comments (and links to any relevant caselaw) from experienced FOI requesters would be appreciated.

Wirral Council’s Cabinet Agree to Consultation on Merseyside Combined Authority Plans

A report on the special Cabinet meeting of the 8th August 2013 convened to discuss the plans for a Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Yesterday in a short meeting, Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed to consult the public on plans for a new combined authority for Merseyside (and Halton) covering transport (taking over the responsibilities of Merseytravel), economic development and employment. The reason behind the plans are the promise of further funding from government if it goes ahead.

Once the consultation finishes the plans are to be discussed at an extraordinary meeting of Wirral Council on the 19th September. One of the policy and performance committees will also examine what’s proposed during the consultation period. The idea of a new authority doesn’t attract universal support among Wirral councillors, with Cllr Lewis claiming that the proposal would cost millions to bring about. Cllr Phil Davies disputed this saying it would “be cost neutral”.