Mayor Joe Anderson responds to green space protestors “I’ve got news for you I’m going to stand again [as Mayor]”
Mayor Joe Anderson responds to green space protestors “I’ve got news for you I’m going to stand again [as Mayor]”
About three dozen people protested outside Liverpool Town Hall yesterday ahead of a meeting of Liverpool City Council councillors. The protest was about opposing any plans to build on green space land and against Liverpool City Council selling off any green space land to developers.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
One of the protestors from a group called Save Our Green Spaces Liverpool addressed the meeting and said, “Firstly, we want to ask the Council and the Mayor once again to respect the views of local people and our communities and not just listen to their preferred developers whose objectives seem to be for short-term economic gain at Liverpool’s long-term expense.”
She asked for new housing to be built on brownfield sites and not green space sites and said “As a Labour run Council, it is your duty to look to the benefit of your constituents and listen to their views and to keep the lungs of our city in our parks and open spaces.
We would also hope finally that in the Mayor’s final year he would want his legacy to be the introduction of building thousands of homes by the Council, affordable homes for its people on brownfield sites, rather than being remembered for building homes for the elite on places like Sefton Park Meadows.”
Mayor Joe Anderson (pictured above) said that the protestors were “coming together in an alliance with the Greens and the Liberal Democrats to cause political mischief”. He claimed that “over the last four years, 167 sites totalling more than 100 acres have been created or improved within this city. We’ve now got more green space in this city than we’ve ever had in the history of this city, more green space now than we’ve ever had.”
He finished by saying, “We’re not in the hands of anybody, we’re in the hands of the people of this city and it’s they who will decide. Let’s see and let me tell you one thing Janet you said in my last year as Mayor, well I’ve got news for you I’m going to stand again!”
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
£1800 invoice to Wirral Council for barrister Sarah O’Brien in Fernbank Farm matter (Kane & Woodley)
£1800 invoice to Wirral Council for barrister Sarah O’Brien in Fernbank Farm matter (Kane & Woodley)
Below is the invoice received for the services of a barrister called Miss Sarah O’Brien of Exchange Chambers to Wirral Council to do with the possession order for Fernbank Farm which was heard at the Birkenhead County Court earlier this year. I requested this as part of the 2013/14 audit.
I have added annotations in green which represent information that Wirral Council either incorrectly blacked out, or should’ve blacked out or information which was blacked out but is known to me from court reporting on the issue.
Detail of redactions 1: “Professional Fees of:” Reason incorrect: Sarah O’Brien is not an employee of Wirral Council. Unredacted text: Sarah O’Brien
Details of redaction 2: DX 708630 Reason incorrect: partial redaction as it was meant to redact next line, DX 708630 refers to Wirral Council’s document exchange number. Unredacted text: DX 708630
Details of redaction 3: Mr Ali Bayatti Reason correct: Redaction correct as person is Wirral Council employee, however due to earlier court hearing name of solicitor is known. Unredacted to aid in transparency as name said during open court hearing in Birkenhead County Court (2013). Also important to know which solicitor is instructing the barrister. Unredacted text: Mr Ali Bayatti
Details of redaction 4: AB / H19 / 25650 Reason correct/incorrect: Redaction partially correct as AB refers to Ali Bayatti. However redaction done incompetently by drawing a line in pen through after the other redactions were added as an afterthought by an accountant. Unredacted text: AB/ H19 / 25650
Details of redaction 5: METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – V – CAROL KANE & EILEEN WOODLEY Reason incorrect: refers to parties’ names in court case. Unredacted text: METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – V – CAROL KANE & EILEEN WOODLEY
Details of redaction 6: “Name/info” Reason incorrect: refers to parties’ names in court case. Unredacted KANE. Rest is unknown. Unredacted text: KANE
Details of redaction 7: “Init” (three handwritten initials) Reason correct: Refers to initials of Wirral Council officer. Unredacted text:
Details of redaction 8: “Certified Correct for payment” (signature) Reason correct: signature of Wirral Council officer. Unredacted text:
Details of redaction 9: “To Miss Sarah O’Brien” Reason incorrect: refers to barrister of Exchange Chambers not Wirral Council officer. Unredacted text: To Miss Sarah O’Brien
Details of redaction 10: “Sarah Rotheram” Reason incorrect: Does not refer to Wirral Council employee. Unredacted text: Sarah Rotherham
Original document is below, followed by the same document with my annotations in green (although it is possible Wirral Council’s legal department have gone too far with the black pen in places).
Planning Committee on 8:5 vote approves plans for Tranmere Rovers training ground to move to Leasowe
Planning Committee on 8:5 vote approves plans for Tranmere Rovers training ground to move to Leasowe
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.
There were petitioners that spoke for and against the proposals. In addition to the petitioners, Jeremy Butler (Tranmere Rovers Chief Executive) made the last representation for Tranmere Rovers in support of the application. Finally ward councillors Cllr Ron Abbey (for Leasowe and Moreton East) and Cllr Paul Doughty (for Prenton) also spoke to the Planning Committee.
These representations were followed by a discussion about the linked applications by the councillors on the Planning Committee. If the applications were approved Mr Parry Davies told councillors that the plan was to move the existing plaque to the Birkenhead Old Boys who died in World War I to Hamilton Square.
David Ball referred to a letter from the Birkenhead Institute Old Boys to the Chief Executive Graham Burgess that he had received and assured councillors that they would work constructively if the applications were approved to remove the plaque to a suitable place in Hamilton Square to the men who gave their lives to the country. He also said that they would work constructively over the tree issues which were there in memory of the people who had died.
He explained that the previous approved application for Woodchurch hadn’t been able to be progressed so alternative sites had to be looked at. If approved he would make sure that the conditions were “rigorously enforced”. In discussions with Tranmere Rovers Football Club they had made a commitment to work with Wirral Council on those matters such as the men who fell in World War I.
In response to Cllr Phillip Brightmore he said that he would be sending written confirmation of this to Birkenhead Institute Old Boys that they would deal sensitively and appropriately and take all steps to make sure what he’d outlined would happen. His assurance was that the mater would be dealt with sensitively. He said he was happy to lead on it along with David Armstrong to make sure it was being dealt with at a senior level. Mr. Ball gave his assurance to councillors on these two matters.
Cllr David Elderton asked a question about heights and whether they could condition the housing planning application to reduce heights to not exceed more than two stories? Matthew Parry Davies replied that these would be considered at the reserved matters stage of any application. Cllr Denise Realey said that she lived near to Tranmere Rovers Football Club’s football ground (Prenton Park), she had heard councillors on the radio talking about it and what would be done with the money from the sale. She pointed out the five-mile distance from Birkenhead to Leasowe and didn’t think the benefits outweighed the problems.
Matthew Parry Davies replied that the National Planning Policy Framework didn’t require replacement facilities to be in the same ward or locality but just within the Borough. The section 106 agreement would make sure money from the sale of the land would be placed into an account solely for the provision of a new training ground. He then answered a question about the Leasowe site and its public transport links.
Cllr Stuart Kelly stated that it was a departure to the development plan and ought to be refused unless the circumstances outweighed the loss. He referred to the loss off the recreation ground and the heritage issues. Cllr Kelly referred to the intentions of those that built the pavilion to provide sporting facilities for young people in Birkenhead. He didn’t think that having a training ground in Leasowe was a suitable replacement. Cllr Kelly wanted a replacement in Birkenhead and referred the loss of open recreation land in Leasowe and traffic issues.
Cllr Christine Spriggs talked about the passions and emotions about these applications. She suggested that Tranmere Rovers Football Club had a real and meaningful dialogue with Birkenhead Institute Old Boys. Cllr Spriggs went on to refer to the housing built on the former site of the Birkenhead Institute School.
The Chair asked a question about the fencing, to which the reply was that the five metre fence was to prevent balls leaving the training ground. Cllr Kelly also referred to the fence and asked if they could demonstrate special circumstances for the development? Cllr Daniel referred to the issue of social housing and was told that the viability assessment for social housing had been revised but that social housing wasn’t viable at the moment. The section 106 agreement would include a contribution to affordable housing if land values changed.
Cllr Brightmore asked if it was permitted development in the greenbelt? An officer replied that as it was for recreation or sport that this was an acceptable and appropriate use of the greenbelt.
The first vote was on agenda item 5 (the Solar Campus, Leasowe application). Cllr Kelly asked why they were having that vote first? Rosemary Lyons, legal adviser to the Planning Committee stated that they were dealing with item 5 first to enable them to make a reasoned decision on item 4 as the two were linked.
Cllr Kathryn Hodson proposed approval of item 5, seconded by Cllr Matt Daniel. Eight councillors voted for, five against so the application was approved.
Cllr Stuart Kelly moved refusal of item four because it was contrary to the Unitary Development Plan and under policy RE6 failed to demonstrate an adequate replacement provision regarding the location. Cllr Denise Realey seconded this.
More councillors voted against refusal then for approval (Cllr Christine Spriggs abstained).
Cllr Kathy Hodson moved approval, seconded by Cllr David Elderton. As before eight councillors voted for and five against. So both linked planning applications were approved by an 8:5 vote.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: