Tag: Cllr George Davies

Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on one of 3 options for Lyndale: keep it open, close it or change it to an academy

Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on one of 3 options for Lyndale: keep it open, close it or change it to an academy

Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on one of 3 options for Lyndale: keep it open, close it or change it to an academy

 

Phil Ward (Wirral Council's SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014 (who chaired the consultation meeting at Acre Lane on the 16th June)

Phil Ward (Wirral Council’s SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014 (who chaired the consultation meeting at Acre Lane on the 16th June and is referred to in some of the consultation responses)

Well the papers for the special meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet to decide on the next steps about Lyndale School have appeared on Wirral Council’s website.

Despite an officer refusing a month ago my Freedom of Information request for the consultation responses on the basis that they would be published (which implies that they would be published as part of the papers for the special Cabinet meeting) the consultation responses (a majority of responses are against closing the school) aren’t included in the papers for the Cabinet meeting.

In an exclusive for this blog I did publish them on Tuesday, but that’s not really the point.

I hate to labour the point, but this is how consultations are “supposed to work”. An idea or policy is proposed, you have a consultation on it, you then publish the consultation responses in an open and transparent way so that the decision makers take them on board.

Not including the consultation responses with the Cabinet papers for the special meeting, gives the impression that officers don’t want material published that would lead to say “awkward questions”. Surely doing consultations isn’t rocket science, surely Wirral Council has run so many consultations they know how to do it by now?

The “bureaucratic machinations” go beyond just this “oversight” of not including the approximately three hundred pages of consultation responses. After all some of those responses are very critical of the way the consultation was actually run.

Let’s take how officers deal with the large petition. This gets a brief mention in appendix 5 on the last page.

I quote “A petition was received in support of Lyndale School containing 10,692 entries, of which 2,580 were duplicates, illegible or un-named, missing or non-existent addresses and 3,178 were resident outside Wirral. The remaining 4,935 entries comprised 702 “written” entries and 4,233 “epetition” entries.”

Last time I checked, Wirral wasn’t its own country with a big twenty-foot wall on the border and rumours of “barbarians” outside Wirral that well, you don’t have to listen to. The school is in Eastham which is on the edge of Wirral! Of course there are going to be people outside of Wirral are going to sign the petition (some of whom will probably live far nearer the school than I do living in Bidston). To callously state or imply that the views of over three thousand people don’t count because they don’t live here, I mean well doesn’t this sum up an attitude that has caused some of the problems and got Wirral nicknamed the “insular peninsula”? Family members of those attending the school could be living outside the Wirral, so could staff or other people closely associated with the school.

Moving on to duplicates, there was a written petition and an e-petition, obviously some people will have signed both versions. As to “illegible or un-named, missing or non-existent addresses”, well (I’m writing this as someone who has in the past gone door to door collecting petition signatures but I’ll point out not this petition) there are many adults in today’s society that couldn’t write their own name and address even if they wanted to (a sad reflection of our education system). It doesn’t mean their views don’t count!

The report goes on to state “Note that the Wirral Council Petition Scheme says a valid e-petition entry requires name, postcode and e-mail address. The e-petition was submitted as part of the consultation with name and postcode but without e-mail address”, so basically what this is saying is that out of 10,692 petition signatures, a Wirral Council officer only classes the 702 on a written petition as “valid” and feels happy enough to just disregard the views of the other ten thousand people.

There is a breakdown of the petition signers by ward, obviously the ward where the school is based Eastham attracts the highest number.

However moving on to the crucial question of what is the actual recommendation of officers as to what to do next (and what’s the result of the independent report into whether the options meet the SEN Improvement Test)?

Well in a U-turn from previous statements about being minded to recommend closure, page 19 states “In January 2014 Cabinet agreed to undertake a consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School, the consultation closed in June 2014. This report recommends that Cabinet considers the contents of this report and makes a decision on this matter.” which probably to most people is a recommendation that is about as clear as mud as to what officers want but at least they’re trying to be impartial.

The reason given is “The Council has a responsibility to manage resources effectively for all schools and the school population. We would like to affirm our continued intention to work positively with the children and families affected by any recommendations, and reassure parents of our continued commitment to their child’s wellbeing and education.”

I will translate these two into plainer English for those not as familiar as myself with “Council speak”:

“In January* politicians decided to ask the public for their views on closing Lyndale School. Consultation with the public happened and finished in June. This report (written from the perspective of officers) tells you what we think happened during that consultation and it’s now time for politicians to make a decision.”

* Note: since January the politicians on the Cabinet have changed as Brian Kenny lost his seat in the May elections to the Green Party and Cllr Harry Smith has also left meaning there are two different Labour councillors taking these places (Cllr Stuart Whittingham and Cllr Bernie Mooney).

“It is about money, but don’t blame us senior officers for all this as we’re trying to put children first.”

So, what’s likely to happen and which of the options have been ruled out as they don’t meet the SEN Improvement Test?

Well this is detailed in the “independent” report.

This report states in section 5.2 “In reality the only viable course of action is Option 7, to close the Lyndale
School and expand Stanley School and Elleray Park School to provide 220/230 places.”

However the report is more detailed than that. Let’s analyse each of the options in detail:

Option 7.1 which are variations on retaining Lyndale

Retain Lyndale and change funding bands

The report states that it is unlikely that the funding bands will be reviewed until after the end of financial year 2014/15, which let’s face it by the time a review and consultation is undertaken on this, Lyndale could’ve been closed down. Even though the banding decision is a political one that politicians could change their minds (if they so wished) on at any time and a final decision on next year’s school budget has yet to be made. The independent report refers to the deficit, but many schools operate with a surplus or a deficit (they don’t get earmarked for closure though). As this is “no change” option, the SEN Improvement Test is met.

Retain Lyndale School and restrict places at Elleray Park and Stanley

The report author seems to be against this option on grounds of parental choice “Restriction of places at either of the schools will restrict parental choice. This may result in appeals by parents to the SEN Tribunal. Restriction of places also goes against Government policy which encourages the expansion of popular schools.”

Retain Lyndale School and extend to full range of CLD

The report author states that if Lyndale School took on children with CLD then these would be children they would receive less money for (per a child) than the children with PMLD which would worsen their financial situation rather than improve it.

Retain Lyndale School and school commits to take full range of CLD. Stanley and Elleray Park admissions kept to place numbers

This option also includes changing the funding bands for children at Lyndale. There aren’t any major quibbles the report author seems to have with this option and quotes statistics (based on July 2014 figures) of Stanley with 100 children and ninety places, Elleray Park has 94 children and 90 places. So both schools are currently oversubscribed based on their places.

It mentions that Stanley School could take as high as 120 children and once the building work at Elleray Park is completed in September 2015, that its capacity will increase to 110.

Option 7.2 Lyndale becomes a 2-19 school

The report author goes into detail as to this option, but points out that it could take about seven years for numbers to reach about fifty. The report author sees this as a “high risk option” as it would require capital investment in the school and run the risk of not working out. Four parts of the SEN Improvement test are quoted as not being met for this option. Although this is an option parents want, it seems highly unlikely this will happen.

7.3 Federate (hard or soft) with another school with Lyndale remaining on current site

There is nobody obvious that Lyndale would federate with and this option is ruled out as not meeting three of SEN Improvement Test requirements.

7.4 Co-locate Lyndale School with another special school (which also covers co-locate and federate with another special school)

As with 7.3 there’s no-one obvious that Lyndale would federate with, this option is looked at in detail and ruled out as not meeting three of the SEN Improvement Test requirements.

7.5 Lyndale becoming an Academy/Free School

Such a decision is for the Department for Education and parents, the report author still thinks that Lyndale will have problems with funding but cannot demonstrate how it would/wouldn’t meet the SEN Improvement Test.

7.6 Close Lyndale School. Open two SLD bases in Primary schools for 6/8 pupils each. Expand
Elleray Park and Stanley schools to 100 each

This has a number of sub options which are

Close Lyndale
Close Lyndale and open SLD bases in two primary schools
Close Lyndale, open SLD places in two primary schools and expand Elleray Park and Stanley to 100 each
Close Lyndale and open a PMLD base on the new Foxfield site

However this is ruled out as it doesn’t meet four of the requirements in the SEN Improvement Test.

7.7 Close Lyndale. Expand Stanley/Elleray Park schools to provide 220/230 places

This option also contains the option “Close Lyndale and expand either Stanley or Elleray Park”.

The report author considers the first option as meeting the SEN Improvement Test (however doesn’t go into much detail). The second option is considered to not meet the SEN Improvement Test because of parental choice grounds.

7.8 Close Lyndale School but retain the site making another school a split site school. The Lyndale site would be retained for as long as felt necessary

The suboptions are “until children currently at the school had left” and “until the receiving school no longer required it”.

This is ruled out as not meeting four of the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test.

So the options Cabinet will be considering next Thursday that aren’t ruled out as they breach the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test (which can be quite subjective but this is based on the report author’s opinion are):

Option 7.1 Retain Lyndale

This is further split into sub options such as retain Lyndale and change funding bands, retain Lyndale School and restrict places at Elleray Park and Stanley, retain Lyndale School and extend to full range of CLD and retain Lyndale School and school commits to take full range of CLD. Stanley and Elleray Park admissions kept to place numbers.

Option 7.5 Lyndale becoming an Academy/Free School

The author can’t say one way or the author as to whether this option breaches any of the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test.

Option 7.7 Close Lyndale. Expand Stanley/Elleray Park schools to provide 220/230 places

This is the option that people associated with Lyndale School don’t want. However if Cabinet chose this option it would trigger a further consultation and a future decision to be made following that consultation.

So therefore the three options that aren’t ruled out by in some way breaching the SEN Improvement Test (according to the report author) are:

1) various options on the theme of keeping Lyndale,
2) the Academy/Free School option (which depends on the Department for Education agreeing to it) or
3) closing Lyndale.

Wirral Council’s Cabinet will meet in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall in Brighton Street, Seacombe starting at 6.15pm for a special meeting just to make a decision on Lyndale School (which will be a public meeting).

If you would like to contact the people who will be making the decision, contact details are below (although it is always possible that some of these people will not be able to make it to the meeting, however even if not present at the meeting they are bound by collective responsibility for decisions taken). Please note the addresses below are home addresses in case you want to write to them in advance of the meeting by post.

The papers for this meeting have been published on Wirral Council’s website and the consultation responses can be read here.

Councillor Phil Davies (he chairs the Cabinet meetings) phildavies@wirral.gov.uk/ 0151 625 3320 / 07720 073154 / 16 Westbourne Grove, West Kirby, Wirral, CH48 4DL

Cllr Ann McLachlan (she often chairs Cabinet meetings if Cllr Phil Davies is not available) annmclachlan@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 522 0299 / 27 Danefield Road, Greasby, CH49 3BP

Cllr George Davies georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 653 4265 / 07713 644330 / 46 Shamrock Road, Claughton, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 0EQ

Cllr Adrian Jones adrianjones@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 638 9050 / 10 Elmswood Road, Seacombe, Wallasey, CH44 8DB

Cllr Chris Jones christinejones@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 638 9050 / 07853 042243 / 10 Elmswood Road, Seacombe, Wallasey, CH44 8DB

Cllr Chris Meaden chrismeaden@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 645 1729 / 07738 824130 / 19 Inglemere Road, Rock Ferry, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH42 4QL

Cllr Pat Hackett pathackett@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 638 1543 / 07771 972302 / 7 Wood Lane, Wallasey, Wirral, CH45 8QP

Cllr Tony Smith (he is the Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services whose portfolio Lyndale School falls under) tonysmith@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 677 1384 / 27 South Drive, Upton, Wirral, Merseyside, CH49 6LA

Cllr Bernie Mooney berniemooney@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 200 8089 / 07811 060891 / 30 Brompton Avenue, Liscard, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 0BD

Cllr Stuart Whittingham stuartwhittingham@wirral.gov.uk / 0151 653 5539 / 16 Fender Way, Prenton, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH43 7ZJ

All of the above ten politicians are members of the Labour Party. If you wish to contact one of your three local councillors (assuming that you live on the Wirral) their contact details are here, but it will only be names listed above (assuming they can make it) who will be making the decision at the special Cabinet meeting about Lyndale School.

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

Cllr Phil Davies says “I think I don’t see why we need to delay” about Birkenhead community newspaper idea

Cllr Phil Davies says “I think I don’t see why we need to delay” about Birkenhead community newspaper idea

Cllr Phil Davies says “I think I don’t see why we need to delay” about Birkenhead community newspaper idea

                            

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.

Dawn Tolcher (Constituency Manager, Birkenhead)
The second update is around two proposals around improving communication. The first one is the promotion of Wirral Well, that’s been …rated now, it’s been drafted as to what tools we can use. We’re looking at a segmented approach with that as to how we deal with the different members of the community.

You communicate with a sixteen year old girl in a different way to a forty year old man and how we develop that. I was just exploring how we could use the empty shops in Birkenhead to help improve the visual presence of the area, but using them to do some on the streets consultation linked with residents. That’s being developed. The second proposal in terms of publication, Surjit’s going to provide an update on that.

Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Would you?

Surjit Tour
Yes, thank you Chair. In so far as the..

Rt Hon Frank Field MP
If you can’t hear at any one time, we will pass the mic back. You know what to do with that don’t you?

Surjit Tour
In so far as that particular item, this particular item is concerned, there is an issue that we do need to explore with regards to the publicity code to ensure that the proposed publication that this committee has considered, would like to consider doesn’t then interfere with the Council’s broader publications.

There are some areas of discussion that need to be had in terms of the interpretation of both the code and the publication itself at this point in time. The suggestion is that Cabinet considers those and that particular issue further with a view towards a significant finding.

As to the issue with regards to the code and whether or not the publicity code will provide or prevent this committee utilising the publication and using the publication because of the broader ramifications and indeed the implications to the Council of that.

Councillor George Davies
Can I ask a question? I just wanted to make a short comment on that one. Can I just ask the question? Following on from that Surjit and I understood and if I’ve got it wrong I apologise.

I understand that when we actually looked at this, we were talking about and we were convinced that Birkenhead because of its poor publicity, ie that the Wirral Globe, the News doesn’t get anywhere near the publicity that local party people do get.

Birkenhead wanted to be a non-political body’s newsletter being sent out to tell the people of Birkenhead exactly what this constituency is trying to do and trying to achieve. We’re not talking, we’re not saying that that had to be anything to do with Wirral West, Wirral South or Wallasey and this is purely and simply our own initiative to make sure that people there understand how we spend their money.

Surjit Tour
Yes I know but unfortunately the code itself makes specific reference to newsletters and newsheets being issued and the issue really whether or not what’s been proposed whether that then emulates commercial newspapers in style or content. Now that’s a debatable and indeed arguable point and that requires further examination and it is really on that point again clarification on that particular point, which is the central to the issue which we need to address.

And to a degree I understand the rationale of the publication and what its purpose is and it’s not intended to be commercial in that sense, but I think it would be wise just to take stock and ensure that we don’t run into difficulties in the event that we do launch this particular publication and then the organisation as a whole is constrained because of the provisions of the publicity code itself.

Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Phil?

Cllr Phil Davies
Yeah I’m a little bit concerned that just because Eric Pickles has issued a Code of Practice that we kind of delay on this and I think the code of, the summary of what the code says about you know lawful, cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate et cetera errm I think that’s clear. I think I don’t see why we need to delay, the next Cabinet meeting isn’t until September. By the time you know a further report’s gone back, it’s going to be well into the autumn.

I would have thought, my personal view is that we agreed this was badly needed a long time ago. I think that we should get on with it and you know we need to run it past you as the guardian of the Council’s constitution to check that it ticks all of Eric Pickles’ boxes but I just think a further delay back to Cabinet, it’s going to be halfway through the year before we produce anything. So I, unless there’s any overwhelming reason why, I’d be firmly in favour of getting on with it and just obviously checking before we publish anything if you’re ok with it and it meets with the code of practice.

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

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

                         

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.

The point in the video above of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting where the “community newspaper” proposals starts is at 21:28

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (10th April 2014) Birkenhead Town Hall
Left to Right Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services), Councillor George Davies, Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Chair), Dawn Tolcher (Birkenhead Constituency Manager)

Prior to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting held on the 10th April that decided to go ahead with the “community newspaper” idea, Graham Burgess (Wirral Council’s Chief Executive) would have received this letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government about council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

I won’t include the letter here as you can click on the link and read it in its entirety yourself, but I will quote some sections “The background to the new power is that whilst the majority of local authorities comply fully with the Publicity Code’s provisions, it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature or continuing to publish newspapers more frequently than stated in the Code’s provisions. The Secretary of State being able to direct compliance with the Publicity Code is a means whereby these concerns can be addressed” and “The Secretary of State intends to adopt the following approach to this consideration. Where on the basis of any material or information currently available to him, the Secretary of State considers that there is some evidence of non-compliance since the Publicity Code was issued in March 2011, and there is no current unambiguous evidence available to him that the non-compliance has ceased and that there is no risk of future non compliance, he will be minded to give a direction to the authority concerned.”

So what does the code state on frequency?

Section 28 quite clearly states “Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, news-sheets or similar communications, they should not issue them more frequently than quarterly, apart from parish councils which should not issue them more frequently than monthly.”

So what frequency was approved by the Birkenhead Constituency Committee? I quote from the report on it, “It was proposed to produce a monthly publication to include information residents want to read about.” and later on it describes the frequency of the issues as “The pilot would be to produce an 8 page publication, bi-monthly for 6 months (3 editions) working in partnership with Lairdside Communities Together.”

Moving to the bit in the letter that states “it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature” the report to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee states “The content of the publication would be devised from the committee and community requests.” Everyone on the Birkenhead Constituency Committee is a politician (whether councillor or MP), does the public expect their requests for what goes in it not to be political. As there won’t be any advertising in the first three editions personally I don’t think there will be enough “community requests” for three eight page editions so the majority of the content is likely to be suggested by politicians.

Here was what was said at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting on this item which starts at 21:28 in the video above.

=======================================================================================================DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
The second item on this Councillor Doughty talked to last time was around a local publication, so we’ve done some further thinking around this and just to clarify what this will be, it will be a community focussed publication supporting people with what’s on in the community. The data shows that the feedback that a lot of Members get is not all our residents get the local newspaper currently.

It will be a focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.

What we’re asking from the Committee is a pilot of three editions to see if it works and to monitor that pilot there will be two subgroups and one will look at it will be an editorial board that will ensure the content is non political and it’s what people want to read on the feedback we’re getting.

It’ll aim to recruit an apprentice for nine to twelve months and involve the community around the community news and how that’s developed. So we’re talking as people have been appearing through this there’s been a really positive feedback from some, from a lot of people saying we’ve had for example a few of have been today at a conference around food planning and how people are struggling accessing food and what, there’s massive support out there with people saying I don’t know where it is around initiatives such as somebody wrote to Councillor Kenny saying that we’ve got an initiative around supporting to access free bikes and that’s the sort of information to go in there. Any questions?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Questions on that? Yes please, yep?

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
Did you find out about whether the Council actually paid additional money to have the newspapers circulated everywhere? Did that actually happen?

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
My understanding was that it used to happen, it doesn’t happen now.

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
So it’s too late to have any redress for it?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Phillip I think we should actually follow that up, it’s a serious point. Can we actually have that in the minutes please and follow it up? What happened to that?

COUNCILLOR CHRIS MEADEN
As I understand it, that’s what we used to do.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
What we have got since the last meeting is a breakdown of where it is going and where it isn’t going so we can help with that.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
So what we’re going to be doing, again it comes back to this whole point what does the contract say and is it actually being fulfilled, if not what do we do about it? (At this point he looks at officers to his left and says sotto voce “answer this evening”)? Really, thanks.

=======================================================================================================

What’s interesting is Dawn Tolcher states that the community newspaper will have a “focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.”

There’s something called the Wirral Public Service Board. Last year I made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the agendas and minutes of their meetings over the previous year. That request was refused by Surjit Tour under s.36 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act stating that releasing the agendas and minutes would (or would be likely to) inhibit “the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.” and have a “chilling effect” on their discussions. He also refused it on the basis that the minutes would contain the names of people (data protection grounds).

So just to recap, Wirral Council won’t release the agendas and minutes of meetings held with other public sector organisations at which the decisions and discussion about joint working are made. However they plan to write articles about the decisions made at these meetings and the joint work that Wirral Council is doing in a publication they plan to send out to 39,823 properties in Birkenhead? Oh and after the third edition Wirral Council will charge these other public sector organisations to include details about these projects in their “community newspaper”?

I don’t believe there is as much support for this community newspaper idea as was claimed at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting. I previously wrote about this proposal and included a poll. The poll’s question was “Do you think Wirral Council should spend £22,500 to start a community newspaper in Birkenhead?” with the three following answers to choose from yes, no and don’t know. At the time of writing nineteen people had answered the question. The results were clear, eighteen said no and one answered don’t know.

So did Wirral Council’s Chief Legal Eagle Surjit Tour point out Eric Pickle’s new legal power (which has been in force since the 30th March 2014) to direct Wirral Council to comply with the code (which as outlined above the proposal as it stands doesn’t)? No Mr. Tour didn’t (but then he wasn’t asked for any legal advice on this item). The taxpayer pays him a salary of £73,352 a year. His role (according to Wirral Council’s constitution at 2.3 of Wirral Council’s financial regulations) is defined as follows “The Monitoring Officer is responsible for reporting any actual or potential breaches of the law or maladministration to the Council and/or to the Executive”.

No councillor or MP asked Surjit Tour during the meeting whether aspects of the proposal for a community newspaper were lawful and for his advice. Surjit Tour didn’t say anything during this item and the letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government went to Graham Burgess (so it seems likely that Surjit Tour hasn’t seen it).

The letter from DCLG finishes with “If you have any questions about the new powers, please contact ConductCode@communities.gsi.gov.uk. You can also contact the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly at eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP said about the very issue of Council newspapers “The spread of the town hall ‘Pravda’ is manifestly unfair because they offer cut price local news, but mixed in with council propaganda that pours taxpayers money down the drain.

These free-sheets are often confused for the real thing by residents. I want our news to be told and sold under the masthead of an independent and free press, not through a knock-off Rolex imitation.”

The press release goes on to state “Where a council ignores the statutory code, the government or a concerned member of the public could seek a court order to enforce it. Disregard for that would result in contempt of court.”

So is Wirral Council going to change its plans or run the risk of a showdown with the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP over their newspaper plans? The Liverpool Echo also ran a story about this on the 26th March using the headline FURY OVER TOWN HALL PAPER PLAN; Town could see launch of newsletter.

I’d be interested to read your thoughts on this issue which you can leave as a comment (even anonymously if you wish) or contact the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly yourself to let them know your views on what Wirral Council is proposing to do.

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

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

                        

Cllr George Davies (Claughton) tells the Planning Committee why he thinks they should reject plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell

Cllr George Davies (Claughton) tells the Planning Committee why he thinks they should reject plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell

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.

Planning application OUT/13/01184 starts at 6:20 in the video above.

Despite a recommendation from planning officers to approve plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell, after hearing representations from the lead petitioner, a representative of Condy & Lofthouse Architects Ltd and Cllr George Davies (Claughton), the Planning Committee decided unanimously to reject the plans due to the impact on the character of the area (policy HS4), drainage concerns (policies GR7 and HS4) and because it would have an impact on the character and environmental qualities of Noctorum Ridge (policies HS4 and SPD2).

The lead petitioner said, “Many residents are elderly, frail or vulnerable like myself. My husband suffered a stroke ten years ago, he will not cope with the disturbance that this will cause and I as his carer neither will I. As a Council you have a duty of care to your public and the people who vote for you to be in the position that you hold.”

Councillor Stuart Kelly said that three-storey buildings would be out of character for the area and also highlighted concerns he had about flooding and drainage. Cllr Anita Leech also had concerns about drainage and the overbearing impact on nearby bungalows.

Cllr Denise Roberts (Claughton) moved refusal of the planning application, which was seconded by Cllr Denise Realey.

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

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings

Tollemache Road greenfield photo 1
Tollemache Road greenfield photo 2
Tollemache Road greenfield photo 3

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings

                          

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.

Continues from Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00866: 151 Victoria Road, New Brighton, CH45 9LB – Change of use of a property from a single residence to a house of multiple occupation to provide 12 bedrooms with communal kitchen, living rooms and bathrooms. Also to include alterations to windows to the front elevation.

The officer introduced the report for this item and said it was a vacant greenfield site that was there to give an area of land as amenity open space for the new development. The objections received were about the loss of the open space. The applicant contended that the amenity open space was surplus to requirements, but the local planning authority (Wirral Council) contended that it had value.

The officers had assessed the proposed development and had no problems with it except for the policy issue about the loss of the amenity open space. Included in the late list was further information, the applicant had offered a sum of £40,000 to be spent on the adjacent play area, but the officers were still recommending refusal.

The Chair asked if a ward councillor wanted to talk to the Planning Committee?

Cllr Ann McLachlan said that any plans for the open green space would cause tension with the local residents, but that the plans were for low-cost affordable housing. In respect of the views of the local residents there were six key objectors, however she understood their concerns, but their fears had been allayed and assurances given. She wanted to speak in favour of the application for a dozen two bedroom bungalows. Although a provider had not yet been identified, this could be secured through a condition or a s.106 agreement.

Cllr McLachlan said that the properties would be “a drop in the ocean” but a welcome development. She had concerns about the benefit reforms as people were “crying out for two bedroom” properties. The local area to the site was residential and it would be on an amenity piece of green space. It’s use was for informal play and it did have some community use, however it was quite overgrown. There had been some dog owners pulling up in cars allowing their dogs to foul this piece of grass and in her view approving the application would deal with a number of the current problems. The applicant had offered £40,000 (subject to the plans being approved) to be spent on the adjacent play area and for these reasons she supported the application.

Cllr Wendy Clements asked a question about the affordable housing requirement. Matthew Davies responded by saying that if the application was approved it would be subject to a s.106 agreement for affordable housing. There would also be a commuted sum to upgrade the existing play facilities and a condition for highway improvements if councillors decided to approve it in addition to a number of other conditions.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he had read the paperwork and listed to the discussion. In his view a dozen two bedroom bungalows satisfied a demand for affordable housing. He accepted the officer’s view that it needed a s.106 agreement and thought it would fit well with the area. Cllr Kenny referred to antisocial behaviour issues raised by the local councillors and was heartened that the applicant had suggested giving £40,000 to upgrade the adjacent play area. He said that if you believe everything you read in the press that the Cabinet Member for Housing (Cllr George Davies) was keen. Cllr Kenny was in favour of approving the application.

Matthew Davies said they would need to give a reason why they were approving it contrary to the normal policies and that this needed to come from the Planning Committee. He explained that if approved, extra conditions that would need be attached to the approval including a site waste management plan.

Cllr Paul Hayes said he accepted the need for affordable housing, but didn’t buy into the argument that it was needed because of antisocial behaviour and dog fouling. In his view those sorts of issues would only be dealt with through tougher enforcement.

The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney, referred to the extra money for the play area, the extra money for upgrading the highway and the extra £1,500 for the school crossing patrol. She asked the Planning Committee if they were happy?

Cllr Stuart Kelly was not happy. He accepted that affordable housing was important, but in his view the need to build more houses shouldn’t mean they should lose green space sites. Cllr Kelly said the site was used for informal play and that they had to get the balance right between building houses they knew they needed and providing people with space for children to play, he was not happy with building houses on a piece of green land, as there was lots of overgrown green land and it would set a precedent for further applications for housing on green space.

Cllr Kelly said that it had been set aside as part of the original planning application and put there for a reason, he was not willing to set aside policies as in his view they needed the amenity space as much as they needed affordable housing. He said that they had a policy which said they should have this sort of amenity put in place and he felt that backing out sent out a poor message as he felt developers should build on brownfield sites rather than a site used for informal play.

Cllr Denise Realey asked if the site had been identified for housing under the Strategic Housing Assessment? The officer said it hadn’t.

Cllr Brian Kenny said that he wanted to move approval of the application on the grounds that it would provide affordable housing that there was a demand for. He said it fitted well with the character of the area and removed a number of current problems. Cllr Kenny said it was important they approved it and the applicant had agreed to invest £40,000 in the adjacent play area. He moved approval. Cllr Joe Walsh seconded approval.

Cllr Kelly moved an amendment to the proposal to approve, that it would be refused for the reasons given in the officer’s report. Rosemary Lyons (legal adviser) advised the Chair not to accept the amendment as in her view it wasn’t amending the proposal to accept the planning application. She said that Cllr Kelly could vote against the proposal to approve the application.

The Chair took a vote on the motion to approve the planning application.

For (9): Cllr Denise Realey, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Brian Kenny, Cllr Joe Walsh and Cllr Eddie Boult
Against (4): Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Wendy Clements and Cllr Paul Hayes

The application was therefore approved.

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00779: Hillfield, 82 Brimstage Road, Barnston, CH60 1XQ – New conservatory to rear of house.

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