Death knell for New Ferry?

The decision by Wirral planners and Labour councillors to approve a new Aldi store at Port Causeway off the A41 represents a hammer blow for New Ferry shopping centre. The new store on a designated industrial area with no retail facilities not only represents a clear breech of the Town Centre First policy but also negates Wirral Council's promise to protect employment infrastructure. Located just a mile from New Ferry, the new store will suck millions of pounds out of New Ferry and will also damage the existing retail in Bromborough Village.

At Thursday's planning committee I made a compelling case for refusing Aldi's application. Sadly, only Stuart Kelly from the Lib Dems supported my position. Below you can watch the video of the debate (courtesy of John Brace) accompanied by my detailed arguments against approval.

Reasons for refusal:
As the officer's report makes clear this site is identified as a Primarily Industrial Area. That was very apparent from the site visit and we could see the significant infrastructure in place to support employment. This designation is retained in the draft Core Strategy so the potential loss of employment land is a serious consideration, particularly as the council's own Employment Land and Premises study found a serious shortage of immediately available and serviced employment land. In contrast, it would be difficult to argue that Wirral faces a shortage of supermarkets.

So this site is important in terms of ensuring that, as the 2020 Vision says: “Wirral is a place where employers want to invest and businesses thrive” If we are to approve this application we need good reasons for doing so especially as this site is far from existing retail centres.

So a good starting point would be: Is there a suitable alternative location that would accommodate a similar development?

In doing so we should take account of the guidance from the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 24 of which states “only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered” and also“applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale”

The obvious potential site to consider is the former CO-OP in New Ferry which is only a mile from the application site and is in an established town centre. The applicant's reasons for rejecting that site is its irregular shape and lack of connectivity between the store entrance and the car park. Those are hardly insurrmountable challenges. Bear in mind that the applicant will demolish two large buildings as part of this application if approved.

So I would argue that there is a suitable alternative site and we shouldn't let the fact that it doesn't suit Aldi's precise requirements undermine our existing policies supporting town centres and centres of employment.

We also need to take account as part of the retail assessment the negative impact that this application would have on the vitality and viability of existing town centres.

Even on the applicants own figures 8% of the new store's trade would be diverted from existing New Ferry stores and 6% from existing stores in Bromborough Village. There is also a row of shops, including a convenience store, in between these two centres on Coronation Drive which is 5 minutes walk from Port Causeway. 

The existing Aldi in Bebington Road is forecast to lose 27.5% of its trade, which would mean that there would also be fewer linked trips to other shops in New Ferry.  Similarly a further 27.5% of trade is forecast to come from Asda, which would limit the opportunity for linked trips on the Croft Retail Park and generate a lot of additional traffic on Port Causeway.

There will therefore, even on the applicant's own assessment, be a demonstable negative effect on existing town centres.

Basically, if we approve this application it is highly likely that there will be severe stress on existing outlets in New Ferry, Bromborough Village and in between.

Paragraph 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that

Where an application fails to meet the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability it should be refused

Clearly this application fails on both grounds. It should be rejected on the grounds that:

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate why alternative premises in New Ferry Town Centre cannot be utilised for the proposed development.  Therefore, it is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the sequential test set out in Paragraphs 24 and 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework have not been met and that the proposed development would undermine the vitality and viability of New Ferry Town Centre.

Fossil fuel divestment within the Merseyside Pension Fund

Divestment from fossil fuels is a key plank of Green Party policy in dealing with climate change. Since being appointed to the Pensions Committee that oversees the Merseyside Pension Fund (MPF), I have pushed for this issue to be addressed with a view to reducing the fund's exposure to fossil fuels. This is not just an important ethical concern. As the Governor of the Bank of England and many others have pointed out, investors in coal, oil and gas risk their assets becoming worthless if action on carbon emissions progresses as it must do if we are to secure a safe climate.

Yesterday's committee included a detailed report on carbon risk. You can read that report here. You can also watch the debate as it happened via this link. My contribution begins at 08:30.

While full divestment from fossil fuels is a long way off, I am hopeful and will continue to press for reduced exposure to fossil fuels within the MPF. Developing expertise around climate risk also gives Merseyside the opportunity to take a real lead on this issue and in time promote the use of pension funds to green our economy.

My sincere thanks to John Brace for providing this video.

Proper consultation on future plans for Birkenhead

Last Monday's council meeting included a motion on regeneration, specifically referencing plans for Birkenhead. Notable in its absence was any reference to consulting the people of Birkenhead on the plans which will dramatically their lives.

With the help of Lib Dem councillor for Oxton Alan Brighouse I put forward the following amendment which commits the council to meaningful consultation with the people about future plans for the town including the more immediate scheme for the Europa Pools area:

(Insert)
Council believes that the prospects for the regeneration of Birkenhead will be strengthened
if proposals are developed through an open and meaningful consultation with local residents,
if the Constituency Committee is consulted at the earliest stages of any projects, and that
effective, timely and widespread consultation is undertaken  about future investment plans.
Officers be requested to develop mechanisms to establish this for consideration. 

My amendment was passed unanimously and I will be holding the council to its word in the months and years ahead. Below is a copy of my speech in delivering the amendment:


My thanks to Cllr Brighouse for seconding this amendment

Many will have seen the Move Ahead Birkenhead literature and website which has recently been promoted. It has several positive features in terms of its long term aspirations for Birkenhead. It focuses on the right areas – the incredible potential of Woodside and the river front area, Birkenhead's amazing heritage assets, the sad decline of Birkenhead market and how it could be revived.

It also asks the right questions such as how we can revive the waterfront and link it and Hamilton Square to the rest of Birkenhead. How do we create an attractive town that people from outside Birkenhead want to visit. How do we create an attractive environment for people who live and work in Birkenhead and, crucially in my view, how do we exploit Birkenhead's position as the main public transport hub for all of Wirral. There is a strong contintental influence which is very welcome given that urban space in much of Europe is far better planned than in this country.

To quote directly from their literature:

This is a conversation that involves everyone who lives, does business, visits or simply cares about the town. Because we believe it's high time we learned from our past – and looked to the future.

And while it is right and proper that we should have high aspirations for Birkenhead there are also many, many lessons to be learned from the past.

The most recent has to be the thankfully withdrawn and deeply unpopular road scheme for Hamilton Square. If this scheme had been presented in outline form at an early stage to the constituency committee it could have been strangled at birth and much time and aggravation saved. So let's make much more effective use of the constituency committees across Wirral as a sounding board for important proposals.

The Hamilton Square scheme was also a very clear example that when you prioritise traffic movements you get bad town planning. The best town planning is based around people. If you create a pleasant environment for people lots of other good stuff happens.

And that's why this amendment explicitly calls for "open and meaningful" consultation with the people.

On that score and referring back to Move Ahead Birkenhead they recently held a three day publicity exercise in The Pyramids. Unfortunately, only 48 hours notice was given through local media. I as ward councillor wasn't notified. The Birkenhead and Tranmere Neighbourhood Forum and other community groups were not notified. Anybody without internet access was very unlikely to know anything at all about it.

If residents are not consulted properly it is self evident that they are likely to form negative views about the motivation behind these plans.

Which leads me to my final point. While the long term objectives for Birkenhead are excitingly aspirational the near term proposals for Europa Boulevard contain several controversial features. Apart from replacing an existing leisure facility which is less than 20 years old, the over provision for car parking in an area with excellent public transport links is very disappointing. A drive through McDonalds at the centre of the plans surely sends entirely the wrong message about how we should plan and perceive the future for Birkenhead.

So let's start as we mean to continue, by listening to the people we serve and giving them the best possible investment that meets their needs and our aspirations for Birkenhead.

Wirral Change Sew Together

I was really pleased to attend the Sew Together exhibition at the Williamson Art Gallery today. It's the culmination of a nine month project involving 160 people from across Wirral run by the lovely people at Wirral Change.

The exhibition features eight patchworks, each one representing a different ethnic community in Wirral. The picture shows me with Malena Eriksson-Lee from Wirral Change and the Arabic patchwork.

This is the culmination of a process that has taught many people valuable life skills and encouraged them to repair and re-use fabric. It's a great antidote to our throw away society and I am sure the self esteem of those who participated has been really lifted by seeing their work on display.

The exhibition runs until May 1st and you can find it in gallery 11 at the Williamson. More details here.

Statement on Wirral Council Budget for 2016-17

Tory assault on local government is terrifying.

The cabinet report to this budget outlines the government's continued and intensified attack on local government and the blatant unfairness in how councils like Wirral are targeted. The Green Party concurs with that view.

Specifically we have a government which, this year, that can only extract £12 million in tax from the world's largest corporation (Apple) while Wirral sees its funding slump by a further £28 million.

A government that brags about Google's 10 year tax contribution of just £130 million while, in just half that time, Wirral has lost over £150 million.

Clearly this government has no concept of fairness and its policies can only lead to yet more despair and inequality. I echo the calls from Caroline Lucas for a progressive alliance to stop the terrifying prospect of a further decade of Tory rule.

Outsourcing is not the answer

Until then we are faced with making the best of a very bad deal. The Green Party pays tribute to all those council staff who do their best every day to serve the people of Wirral. We recognise that retaining and nurturing in-house talent and experience is vital for the future of public services.

Just yesterday a Guardian investigation showed that in 36% of cases, councils found that delivering services in-house could save more than outsourcing to commercial companies in long-term partnerships. Our own experience in street lighting has shown that outsourcing can lead to a sharp reduction in the quality of service and much higher than expected costs. I hope we will learn from that in future particularly in regard to Girtrell Court.

And when we look at the many service cuts which our grant reduction forces upon us people will, inevitably question our spending priorities. They will, quite rightly, question our levels of executive pay and in-house expenditure be it for furniture, taxi fares or Executive Support Officers. They will question the large sums already devoted to converting farm land and green belt to golf courses and tarmac.

Freezing council tax has played into George Osborne's hands

This time last year I spoke out against accepting government bribes to freeze council tax. The reality is that three years of that policy has significantly eroded our tax base. Had we taken a different path we would not now have to endure the anguish around Girtrell Court and the threats to many other vital services. We could have reversed the unfair imposition of council tax on the very poorest in our borough.

Austerity: there is an alternative.

The Green Party opposes the austerity programme imposed by the Tories and supported in principle by Labour since 2010. We believe that vital public services should be properly funded by ensuring that major corporations and rich individuals pay a fair share of tax, something all political parties should embrace.

MK Convenience Store, alcohol license approved

I reported previously on my objections to an alcohol license application for 391 Borough Road. I attended the hearing on January 21st. I am disappointed that a license has been granted albeit with certain additional conditions.

The hearing report is copied below:


Dear Councillor Cleary,

LICENSING ACT 2003
MK CONVENIENCE STORE, 391 BOROUGH ROAD, BiRKENHEAD

I refer to the Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee held on 21 January 2016.

In determining the application the Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee had regard to the Licensing Objectives, the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Members of the Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee had regard to the submissions made on behalf of the applicant by Mr Craig, and had regard to the representations made by the responsible authorities including Public Health, Environmental Health and Trading Standards. Members also had regard to a representation submitted by Councillor Pat Cleary, Ward Councillor, on behalf of local residents and a written representation submitted by a resident.

In determining the matter, Members gave consideration to the measures proposed by the applicant within the application.

In his submission, Mr Craig, set out that the applicant was prepared to amend the application to include further conditions to address the concerns expressed by the parties, in particular, the sale of alcohol to street drinkers, sale of alcohol to persons under the age of 18, the sale of cheap super strength alcohol, the competency of individuals involved in the sale of alcohol at the premises and the times during which alcohol would be sold at the premises.

Members heard from Trading Standards, Environmental Health and Public Health regarding their lack of confidence that alcohol could be sold responsibly at these premises. This view had been formed following a visit to the premises by Environmental Health and Trading Standards on 8 November 2015 when the applicant had demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003. Having heard the submissions of Mr Craig on behalf of the

Applicant, Officers indicated that it was evident that the applicant had progressed in her understanding of her responsibilities attached to the sale of alcohol. Officers accepted that the Applicant was willing to undertake training to address both the gaps in her knowledge and to ensure that any employees at the premises were trained in the sale of alcohol.  Members were informed that the applicant had a place on a training course, due to be delivered by Trading Standards, relating to underage sales, on 26 January 2016.

Evidence was submitted to Members that the premises is located in very close proximity to the YMCA, which provides a controlled drinking environment for street drinkers. Members were also advised that the premises is surrounded by several hot spots for alcohol fuelled violence. It was the view of each of the Responsible Authorities that there is demand for individuals working at the premises to exercise a high level of competency when involved in the sale of alcohol at these particular premises.

In determining the application, Members had particular regard to the fact that the Responsible Authorities, having made representations regarding the management of the premises and their concerns that the licensing objectives were not being upheld were satisfied that through training and the willingness of the applicant to engage with all parties including the YMCA and Merseyside Police that their concerns could be addressed. Their concerns were further addressed in consequence of the applicant's willingness not to sell cheap super strength alcohol.

Members therefore resolved to grant the application with the following hours:

Sale by Retail of Alcohol

Sunday to Saturday        09:00 to 22:00

Hours Open to the Public

Sunday to Saturday        07:00 to 23:00

The Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee determined that in addition to the appropriate conditions proposed in the Operating Schedule the following conditions be applied to the licence:

Any person working at the premises, must hold a minimum of a level 1 accredited qualification relating to the sale of alcohol to underage persons, or equivalent before being involved in the sale of alcohol at the premises.

Refresher training must be undertaken at least every 6 months. Written records of this training must be kept at the premises and made available to an Authorised Officer upon request.

The premises must maintain a refusals log book recording both challenges and refusals in respect of the sale of alcohol. An incident book must also be kept.  These log books must be made available on request to an Authorised Officer to ensure that they are being used.

Beer, lager or cider with an ABV above 6.5%, in plastic bottles or cans, must not be sold at the premises.

Beer, lager or cider must not be sold in single cans.

No sale of alcohol must be made to customers who are known street drinkers.

A till prompt system, to be agreed with the Licensing Authority,  must be implemented and maintained at the premises in order to alert staff to check the age of any purchaser attempting to purchase alcohol.

In determining the matter Members have also taken into account Section 11 of the Guidance in respect of the review mechanism provided by the Licensing Act 2003 when problems associated with the Licensing Objectives occur after the grant of a Premises Licence.

Council still failing residents over Conway Street land

I've written before about land on Conway Street, Birkenhead opposite Europe Pools. This was stupidly sold off by Wirral Council in 2014 and the new owner completely trashed the site last year as part of a failed bid to gain planning permission for a car park.

Nearby residents are naturally furious about this. To make matters worse the site has predictably become a magnet for litter and the owner - SIP Car Parks - is doing nothing about this.

I have therefore written to the council's head of regeneration demanding the council takes immediate steps to force the land owner to keep the site tidy and consider repurchasing the land via compulsory purchase. Here is an extract from my letter:

As you are aware in 2015 this land was dug up and all adjacent trees felled leaving it in a very sorry state and generating huge anger among local residents. This anger has intensified of late as no attempts to reinstate the land have been made and, even worse, it is now becoming a magnet for fly-tipping. Assorted rubbish on the land is not being cleared.

Given the appalling behaviour of the developer, the degree of public distress and the council's decision to sell the land in the first place this needs to be a priority for attention. Wirral Council needs to use every means at its disposal to force the landowner to behave responsibly. Consideration should also be given to compulsory purchase to return this land to public ownership so that it can be properly managed, not least given its strategic location.

I can only hope that lessons have been learned from the decision to sell the land in the first place and that the land owner's behaviour will be taken into account in the future.