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.

Hamilton Square aftermath

Following the welcome news that plans for a new road in Hamilton Square have been scrapped, here are four things I think Wirral Council needs to take on board as a result:


1. Some thoughtful pre-consultation soundings would have revealed that this was not a popular proposal. That could have saved countless hours of officer time etc.

The public response has been so overwhelmingly negative that it should set alarm bells ringing as to how such a scheme ever saw the light of day. It, understandably, creates a perception that the council is out of touch with the public and is not managing funds appropriately. There should be a root and branch review on how the scheme originated and how it proceeded to public consultation without informal soundings that would surely have raised fundamental questions about the merits of such a scheme. The Birkenhead constituency committee could have played a role here.

2. Proposals that involve significant public expenditure need a robust evidence base.

The public should reasonably expect that ,where significant sums of money are to be spent, that a coherent public interest case be established. No such evidence was provided for this scheme. It was claimed that the scheme would be "good for local business". However,

- no business case was constructed by calculating the monetary benefits and detriments to local businesses
 - no surveys of local businesses were carried out
 - no evidence has been collected on the effects elsewhere of removing pedestrianisation with the aim of helping businesses. Indeed the consensus is that pedestrianisation usually assists local businesses, and so removing it would be expected to be bad for the local economy
 - no monetary benefit from rerouting buses services has been calculated.

According to Wirral Council's 2020 Vision, the Council aims 'to be the best council in the country'.  The best councils do not spend £1.1M on a scheme without first calculating the net benefits.

3. We need to challenge the outdated view that prioritising traffic flow is a sensible approach.

Funding for the scheme included £400,000 from Merseytravel's "sustainable transport" fund. Appropriating such funds for a scheme that takes space away from pedestrians and allocates it to motor vehicles is beyond satire. I would expect our officers to be well aware of the need to promote active travel and discourage car use. This scheme does the opposite. Yet officers actively promoted this as a sustainable scheme on the basis that it would "allow cycling in front of the town hall", something many have been happily doing for years.

Indeed this scheme should force us to think very carefully about what effective consultation involves. The top-down approach employed here should be a thing of the past but there is a real danger that many of the same mistakes will be repeated in the forthcoming Neptune scheme for the town centre.

4. We need a comprehensive masterplan for Hamilton Square/Woodside

The public response to this scheme indicates immense affection for Hamilton Square something we have also seen recently for Woodside Ferry. This demonstrates the need for a comprehensive masterplan for the historic core of Birkenhead that has the support of the public as opposed to piecemeal measures that may well do more harm than good. I hope that one of the positive outcomes from this scheme will be reappraisal of what makes Birkenhead special and some fresh thinking about how best to enhance it. Indeed, the almost 200 responses to the original scheme consultation contain some excellent ideas from many people who recognise the untapped potential that Birkenhead offers. You can read the Green Party's Vision for Birkenhead here.

Supporting Junior Doctors

This morning I attended the junior doctor's picket at Arrowe Park hospital to show solidarity with today's strike action. I'm pictured here with Charlotte Elliott, one of the local strike organisers.

Green MP Caroline Lucas has written an excellent summary of why the Green Party is backing junior doctors. You can read her thoughts here.

Hamilton Square campaign update

As a result of our campaign against the new road plan for Hamilton Square, Wirral Council has launched a new consultation including an alternative scheme that keeps the pedestrianised area in front of Birkenhead Town Hall.

However, the original road scheme remains an option. It is therefore vital that as many people as possible take part in the new consultation.

What does the new consultation involve?

There are now three options on the table:

Option A: Is the original scheme which would see a new road built in front of the town hall and two-way traffic introduced along Hamilton Street. The cost of this scheme is £1.1 million.

Option B: This is the new option. A new cycle way would be incorporated in front of the town hall but,otherwise, this area would remain traffic free. Existing car parking adjacent to the town hall would be retained. Changes to the junctions closest to the town hall would give vehicles increased access to the Square from Duncan Street and Hamilton Street. Duncan Street would remain one-way. No cost has been given for this option other than it would be within the overall budget of £1.1 million.

Option C: Leave the square as it is.

To view the original and the new plans please visit:

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/news/17-12-2015/consultation-hamilton-square-extended-new-proposals-developed

Or use this short link: http://bit.ly/1NYDHmU
 
Then follow the links to complete the associated questionnaire which can be found at:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/67QW6DJ

This will allow you to express a preference between the different options. The survey closes at noon on January 15th.

Also, Two drop in sessions have been arranged running from 3pm until 7pm on 7th and 8th January at Birkenhead Town Hall. Members of the council's regeneration and highways teams will be on hand to answer questions and explain the proposals.

Please do take part. It only takes a few minutes to complete the questionnaire and we need as many voices as possible to be heard to ensure the original and immensely damaging road plan is buried once and for all.

Supporting local police

Today I met with Merseyside Police on Raffles Road to support their
anti-burglary campaign. This involves free security mapping of personal
items such as phones, computers and bicycles.

Please do participate if you get the chance. This will not only help
secure your property and deter theft but can also help police to
prosecute criminals.

MK Convenience Store, alcohol license application

I recently objected to an application to sell alcohol on Oxton Road. That case remains outstanding but a similar application has been made for a premises on Borough Road and I have submitted the comments below.

Re: MK Convenience Store
391 Borough Road
Oxton
Wirral
CH42 0HA

Having consulted with residents I feel the public interest would be best served by rejecting the licence for this store for the following reasons:

1. There is a well established problem with street drinking in this area. I have witnessed this at first hand many times. Clearly another licensed premises will exacerbate this problem. There are established services in the immediate area such as the YMCA dealing with the fall out from alcohol consumption and we should support them by denying yet more access to cheap alcohol. We should also be mindful of our health related pledges in Wirral's five year plan which specifically aims to "reduce levels of alcohol related ill-health".

2. Alcohol is an undoubted contributing factor to the level of criminal activity in this area. Police figures confirm the high reported instances of crime and the contribution alcohol makes to the overall level of crime. Significant policing resources are required to deal with the adverse impacts that alcohol is having via crime and anti-social behaviour. In the circumstances, another off-licence will exacerbate this problem.

3. Alcohol consumption is a clear source of public nuisance in this area not just as a result of street drinking and anti-social behaviour. The broader environment suffers hugely and I get frequent complaints about the level of litter in the area much of which consists of discarded alcohol containers. For example I received the following message on Sep 21st:

Dear Pat,
Borough road from Charing Cross on the Oxton road side it's an absolute disgrace with thousands of beer cans and bottles right up to Wirral Spares. The bushes and trees are an absolute eye sore. Why is this allowed to happen time after time ?
J B. Ashford Road

4. There are already numerous retailers selling alcohol in the area.

I would conclude by quoting from a resident of Halcyon Road who responded to my request for comments on this application with the following:

As someone who lives in Halcyon Road, we already have enough trouble with under age youths being sold alcohol and it obviously contributes to the anti social behaviour that we suffer living here. I would deeply object to yet another shop selling alcohol as this area is bombarded with cheap alcohol, ready available, often sold cheaper than a non alcoholic drink. Also this area is blighted by litter from the local public houses, another venue selling what will probably be cheap cans and bottles will only increase the litter we all have to walk through.

Cllr Pat Cleary
Green Party Councillor
Birkenhead and Tranmere ward

Devolution for Merseyside: Where's the mandate?

Tonight I was the only Wirral councillor to vote against George Osborne's devolution deal for Merseyside. My colleague's in Liverpool voted likewise. We all support real devolution but recognise the gaping democratic deficit makes this whole process fundamentally flawed and unacceptable to anyone who calls themselves a true democrat. My specific reasoning is outlined below. Needless to say my call for the people to have their say was rebuffed by Labour and the Tories, all voting together for something the public have had no say on.

Statement on devolution for Merseyside by Cllr Pat Cleary

We live in an overly centralised state. Almost everyone recognises that power is far removed from local communities.

The Green Party strongly believes that a vibrant, healthy democracy has local engagement at its core.

If we look at democratic trends in Scotland and we see an engaged population where people's views matter and their votes really count thanks to proportional voting both to local councils and the Scottish parliament.

Of course, people here see this and they feel left out. They too want their voice heard and votes that are equal across society.

To some extent, the government has twigged this and recognises it needs to do something. But, of course, this government doesn't want what has happened in Scotland to happen here. They don't want real devolution that trusts people to make their own choices for where they live.

Therefore, what we get is an imposed version of devolution where very limited powers are centralised in the hands of a remote mayor rather than a remote minister.


So, in this imposed version of devolution, who asked the people of Merseyside what to ask for?

Who is asking them them whether this Tory version of devolution is acceptable?

Who cares whether people think a metro mayor is a good idea?


In truth, our minority elected government are scared of the people. They are scared to ask them what they really want because they know they will get answers they don't want to hear.

Devolution that is not rooted in democracy will undermine our democracy. It disenfranchises our citizens and gives those who despise politicians more reasons to despise us even more.

I know there is widespread dis-satisfaction with this deal. Our council leader correctly acknowledges that it has been "rushed and politically driven".

But what is completely absent here is any mandate from the people and we don't, as a council, have to accept that.

So, let's ask them. Lets explain why this plan is or isn't worth accepting. Let's ask if they want these powers concentrated in the hands of a mayor with minimal democratic oversight.

They might say "Yes, in the circumstances, this deal really is better than nothing".

They might say "No, bad devolution is worse than no devolution".

But if we don't ask them we potentially face decades of deficit. Not of the financial kind that we hear about every day. Not even of the environmental kind that this devolution report has absolutely nothing to say about. But, rather of the democratic kind that this process is supposedly based around but clearly does not understand.

So I echo the call made by Katie Ghose, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society who said yesterday: "It would be a huge mistake for these important decisions about local democracy to be made behind closed doors. It's vital the public in the region get a say - otherwise, these devolution plans risk floundering and becoming an unpopular mess."

Dodging the democratic deficit is neither reasonable or necessary. Legislation enabling this deal will not be passed until next year. Voting for a Mayor in 2017 is clearly not the same as asking people if they wanted one in the first place.

There is now a clear window of opportunity to seek a mandate from the public.

So my question for the leader of the council is simple. Will he do the right thing by our democracy and seek legitimacy for this process by holding a referendum in May 2016 at the same time as the local elections?