Notice of Motion: Fair Votes

A fair voting system is essential for a healthy democracy. Everybody's vote should count equally and it is a massive injustice that Britain operates under a manifestly unfair and outdated voting system. I have therefore proposed the following motion which will be debated next week at the next meeting of the relevant scrutiny committee:

NOTICE OF MOTION: FAIR VOTES (as referred by the Civic Mayor to the
Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

Proposed by Councillor Pat Cleary
Seconded by Councillor Stuart Kelly

Council believes that a Parliament that more accurately reflects the views of the
nation, enabling people to feel that their votes count, is more likely to develop an
economic, social and environmental agenda that benefits Wirral's residents.

Following the recent general election, this Council agrees that the 'First Past the
Post' voting system:
 has again failed to live up to its reputation to provide strong and stable
government;
 has again yielded a wildly disproportionate allocation of seats with, for example,
the Democratic Unionist Party gaining 10 seats from 292,316 votes compared
with 12 seats from 2.4 million votes for the Liberal Democrats;
 has spectacularly failed to match votes to seats with 27,930 votes required to
elect one MP from the Scottish National Party compared with 525,371 votes to
elect one Green Party MP.

This Council:
(a) recognises that a robust democracy must include a fair voting system and that
nobody should be disenfranchised because of where they live;
(b) applauds the many groups and organisations campaigning for fair votes including
the Electoral Reform Society, Make Votes Matter and the Labour Campaign for
PR;
(c) notes that the Single Transferable Vote system is already used for local elections
in Scotland and in both Northern Irish local elections and the Northern Ireland
Assembly while proportional electoral systems are used to elect the devolved
parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London;
(d) therefore calls for the introduction of a proportional voting system
(i) for local elections in England and Wales;
(ii) for Westminster elections; and
(e) directs that a copy of this motion be forwarded to the Leaders of all political
parties represented in the UK Parliament.

Conway Street land: petition to Wirral Council

At last night's full council meeting I presented a petition regarding the ongoing disgrace that is the vacant land on Conway Street adjacent to the Wirral Multicultural Centre. 75 local residents signed the petition which reads:

Re: open land bordered by Conway Street, Simpson Street and Parkfield Avenue, Birkenhead. 

Since this land was sold by Wirral Council it has become a source of blight and embarrassment to the local community. We are dismayed at the council's failure to control the actions of the land owner and restore the condition of this land.  We, the undersigned, therefore call upon Wirral Council to use all appropriate powers, including compulsory purchase, to bring an end to this situation.

Charing Cross HMO kicked out

A planning application for a 12 bedroom house of multiple application at the former pub at No. 1 Oxton Road has been thrown out. Planning officers at Wirral Council recommended the plans for approval. However, I had major concerns about this application so took it out of delegation so it would be considered by the planning committee. Thankfully councillors agreed with my arguments and refused the plans.

No. 1 Oxton Road is a fantastic building with huge potential for a high quality residential conversion. Lets hope the next application for this site reflects that potential and helps to lift up rather than drag down Charing Cross.

Wirral Leaks has picked up on this story which you can read here.

You can read my arguments against this application below. The original planning officer's report can be accessed via this link

APP/16/01372: 1 Oxton Road, CH41 2QQ. Change of use from public house with residential accommodation above to two commercial units (A1 - Retail and A3 - Restaurant) at ground floor and 12 HMO bedsits on first and second floor.

1. Precedent. While we need to consider each application on its merits there are clear parallels between this and several previous applications most recently the former police station on Laird Street. That application was for 10 bedrooms over two floors. This one is for 12 bedrooms over two floors. The Laird Street application was rejected due to its

• insufficient size
• over intensive use of the property
• inadequate number of washing/toilet facilities

2. External Environment. Even before we consider the internal layout of this application its fair to say that any future residents face significant impediments to a good quality of life:

• noise and air pollution from the busy town centre junction
• anti-social behaviour hotspot
• above a take away open till 11.30pm
• complete lack of outdoor amenity space

As councillors do we want the standard of housing to reflect the existing problems within the area or do we want it to help lift the area and signal its potential for improvement. The answer I'm sure is obvious particularly as in this case we are dealing with a building of "architectural merit" as it is correctly described in the officer's report.

3. Internal Layout. In terms of the internal layout we have on the first floor:

• two small kitchens
• split level flooring which effectively separates bedrooms 3&4 from bedrooms 5-9.
• long way from the single lounge to bedrooms 6,7,8 & 9.
• bedroom 3 is an odd, irregular shape.

On the second floor:

• also split level
• one bathroom for five bedrooms
• single kitchen open to small lounge

Wirral Churches Ark Project is currently renovating Mary Cole House for the homeless in Birkenhead. In that case shared bathroom facilities are being designed out. Should we be facilitating designing back in such facilities?

4. External environment. As for the back yard I wasn't the only one to notice the poor condition of the fire escape. I would also strongly question whether the rear area could possible accommodate the required bins plus the conditioned bicycle storage.

There will very soon be a new supermarket opening nearby on Oxton Road which is likely to significantly increase foot fall in this area. I know that existing businesses are very keen to see improvements in the street scene that will give a much needed boost to the commercial environment.

5. Number of occupants. Some of the bedrooms are very large. It seemed from the furniture already in situ that some rooms are intended to accommodate more then one person. Clearly this would further undermine the ratio of bathrooms and kitchens per person. I have therefore asked for a condition to be added that, should the application be approved, limits the number of occupants to 12.

This building has huge potential to provide attractive residential accommodation and would really suit conversion into apartments. I would encourage the applicant to look again at plans for the building.

6. Reasons for refusal

The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 9 states that:

"pursuing sustainable development involves.....improving the conditions in which people live and widening the choice of quality homes."

I think this application clearly fails to meet both those aspirations. I would therefore move refusal on the following grounds:

Having regards to the number of bedrooms proposed, the property is considered to be of insufficient size to accommodate the proposed development.  The development would result in an over-intensive use of the property by creating 12 bedrooms for which, given the potential number of occupants, the proposed number of washing/toilet facilities is considered to be inadequate, resulting in a standard of accommodation that the Council considers would be substandard contrary to the objectives of Policy HS14 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to secure high quality accommodation and a good standard of amenity for all future occupants of land and buildings.

Woodlands planning application rejected

With Peter Bolt from Conservation Areas Wirral
and Maureen Moore from the Clifton Park 
Conservation and Residents Association

I am pleased to report that a planning application to convert 50A The Woodlands into four flats has been rejected. As a member of Wirral Council's planning committee I supported the views of local residents and argued that the application, if approved, would:

1. undermine the character of the area
2. make parking problems worse
3. have a negative impact on the Clifton Park conservation area

The plans included a dormer window in the roof space at the rear of 50A The Woodlands. This clearly breaks the rules that apply in conservation areas such as Clifton Park. I was pleased that a majority of councillors on the committee accepted my arguments and voted to refuse the application.

I would like to congratulate all those residents who signed the petition of objection and the Birkenhead and Tranmere Neighbourhood Planning Forum who made a strong objection to the application.

This is very good news. It sends a clear message to developers and will help protect the conservation area in future. I am very keen to see Clifton Park improved. I have been in talks with Conservation Areas Wirral about their plans to protect and enhance Clifton Park. I am supporting their calls for new "conservation area" signs at key entry points into Clifton Park.

You can read a summary of my address to the committee below.

Planning application APP/17/00126: 50A The Woodlands. Conversion of dwelling into four self-contained flats and construction of rear dormer window.

The planning officer's report is available here.

I have several concerns about this application.

Character of the area

The Woodlands is a mix of very large properties suited to flat conversions and family homes. The vast majority of homes have been retained as single family units. We need to recognise that converting these properties into flats does alter this balance and impacts on the character and feel of the area.

As Conservation Areas Wirral has pointed out; "Clifton Park is becoming seriously at risk because of the ever increasing number of flats being created in the area"

Parking

Parking is a particular concern in this area due to the narrowness of The Woodlands which is one-way along its entire length and its proximity to the town centre. A residents parking scheme is in place which reflects the long standing issues relating to parking.

Clearly the conversion of three additional residential units has the potential to add significantly to these pressures.

Impact on the conservation area

From a conservation view point the key impact of this application would be the proposed dormer window in the roof space. This would dramatically alter the view of 50A The Woodlands when viewed from Lowwood Grove.

I agree with the point made by the Birkenhead and Tranmere Neighbourhood Forum which states;

"the proposed dormer window would appear alien and horribly obtrusive in this sensitive design environment"

and Conservation Areas Wirral when it says it would; "alter the whole roof profile from the road and is not appropriate in this setting"

Even the council officer's report says "the proposed dormer is not considered to be a positive contribution."

What surprised me about the officer's report is that it goes on to say; "the location of the dormer will not have a detrimental impact onto the balanced appearance of the terrace of houses as it will not be visible when viewed from The Woodlands".

It seems from the report that nobody has considered the visual impact from Lowwood Grove. Clearly the new dormer would have a massive impact on the street scene when viewed from Lowwood Grove.

Also, I have checked, and there have been no applications to install dormer windows in Clifton Park within the past five years. Therefore, there is no precedent for such an application to be approved.

The application clearly breeches council policy

Wirral Council policy CH2 states that developments within conservation areas must "preserve or enhance" the area.

By radically altering the original design of 50A The Woodlands this application fails to preserve both the character and appearance of the conservation area.

For the reasons outlined above and, particularly, the negative impact on the conservation area, I am voting to refuse this application and urge fellow members of the committee to do likewise.

Borough Road demolition begins

I've pressed hard for several years now to see an end to the eye-sore
buildings on Borough Road by Birkenhead Library.

It's therefore very pleasing to see that demolition has commenced on
schedule.

Hopefully this area will have been transformed by the end of this year
to the benefit of everyone who lives in and visits Birkenhead.

Where there's muck there's brass

I've been looking at Wirral Council's litter enforcement programme. This has been prompted by several ward residents contacting me claiming aggressive and unfair approaches from the council's enforcement contractor Kingdom Securities.

I have no problem with people being fined for littering but there are legitimate questions to ask about the way this policy is being enforced and whether it possibly has more to do with raising money than tackling the underlying causes of littering.

We know the overwhelming majority of fines relate to cigarette litter. The minutes from the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committe of November 30th last year confirm this (see page 5). The report states that "80-85% of fines issued were to do with cigarette litter"

The sums raised are substantial with £95,000 raised in a single month according to this report. How much of this leaks out of the borough to Kingdom's owners?

I asked for a break down of fines issued by ward. I didn't quite get that but the information below is, nevertheless, instructive. It shows Birkenhead way ahead of all other areas with over 50% of all the fines issued coming from the Birkenhead area. Wallasey comes next. This means that the overwhelming amount of money raised is coming the poorest parts of the borough. Of course these may also be the areas with the biggest litter problem. But, where is the evidence that fining predominantly low income smokers makes a meaningful contribution to reducing litter on our streets?

The figures below show the number of fines issued for littering in Wirral by Kingdom Resources since its contract with Wirral Council commenced in July 2015. The total number of fines issued is 18,047.

Bebington 535

Bidston 290

Birkenhead 7237

Birkenhead & Tranmere 431

Bromborough 1657

Clatterbridge 5

Claughton 51

Eastham 59

Egremont 1

Frankby 5

Greasby 8

Heswall 278

Hoylake 104

Irby 4

Leasowe 67

Liscard 584

Meols 16

Moreton 808

New Brighton 1549

New Ferry 11

Oxton 18

Pensby 34

Port Sunlight 4

Prenton 196

Rock Ferry 849

Seacombe 316

Spital 2

Thingwall 2

Thurstaston 3

Tranmere 311

Upton 784

Wallasey 1564

West Kirby 244

Woodchurch 20

We want our Lauries back

A campaign to take back community control of the Lauries Centre, Claughton Road, Birkenhead has been launched. Evidence has emerged that the Lauries has been taken over by the local chamber of commerce and is not fulfilling its original purpose as a public asset for the community of Birkenhead. A formal complaint signed by myself and local residents has been submitted to Wirral Council. This alleges that council officers and Labour councillors have failed to properly manage the Lauries and protect the public funds invested in the centre.
 
Below you can read the complaint text in full as submitted by the non-political Birkenhead and Tranmere Neighbourhood Planning Forum. This was sent on December 9th. A response from Wirral Council is awaited.

STAGE 1 COMPLAINT: OPERATION OF THE LAURIES LIMITED LEASE

We, the undersigned, ask that the issues outlined below are dealt with in accordance with Wirral Council’s complaints procedure.

As this complaint contains concerns about the conduct and actions of councillors and officers of the Council we would appreciate your early response regarding how this will be investigated and, if corrective and/or disciplinary action is required, what procedures will apply.

We would also appreciate the opportunity to meet with the person appointed to deal with this complaint in order to provide any necessary clarification and to assist in the resolution of this matter at the earliest stage of the Council's complaints procedure. We consider that you are obliged to provide for this in order to meet the Councils 2020 Vision commitment to openness and transparency.

Background to complaint
Early in the year 2000 community representatives, Councillors and Council officers met in the old YMCA building to discuss which community objectives for capital expenditure under European Objective 1 (Round 2) and Single Regeneration Budget (Round 6) should be prioritised. At that meeting two headline capital projects were decided upon that would provide community meeting spaces at zero or very low cost for community groups across the Birkenhead Ward (pre 2003 boundary). These capital projects were The Lauries Project and the St James Centre. Both buildings were constructed, thereby fulfilling the principal objective of community representatives.

On 29 September 2005 the Council leased The Lauries Centre to The Lauries Limited for a period of 125 years.

The lease defines the permitted use of the building as use: “only for the purposes of a community centre, a neighbourhood college (including workshops), a café/snack bar, offices and meeting rooms, conference and events...in furtherance of the Tenant's aims and objectives as set out in its memorandum and articles of association...being in brief the promotion of any charitable purpose for the benefit of the community of Birkenhead and areas surrounding and in particular the advancement of education the promotion of good health and providing a focus for development and regeneration.”

The lease therefore specifically links its own terms with those of the memorandum and articles of association of The Lauries Limited.

Earlier this year it came to our attention that public access to the building had been curtailed, the café had been closed down and it was rumoured that the Wirral Chamber of Commerce had annexed the building. This has since been confirmed because on its website the Wirral Chamber of Commerce now promotes The Lauries Centre as one of its “unique and exclusive office centres”. This makes it clear that the building is now used exclusively for commercial purposes, rather than for the purposes that together define the permitted use of the building, as set out in the lease.

Potential breaches of the lease and company mismanagement
Companies House records show that on 31 May 2015 all of the existing directors of The Lauries Limited (including Cllr Brian Kenny) resigned en masse and two new directors, Paula Basnett and Asif Hamid, who are both closely associated with Wirral Chamber of Commerce, replaced them.

The articles of association of The Lauries Limited require only one third of the directors to resign at each annual general meeting. So, the resignation of all directors was unusual to say the least. The articles of association also require a minimum of five directors to be in post at any one time. Once this was drawn to the attention of Paula Basnett, three new directors were appointed (Patricia Crocker, Katherine Eugeni and Sharon Stanton).

According to the articles of association, those three new directors may only remain in post until the next annual general meeting, when their appointment may only be extended by a vote of members of the company. The question of membership of the company is therefore also a key issue.

On behalf of the Forum our chair wrote to the Company Secretary, Paula Basnett, on 6 November 2016 requesting membership under the provisions of Article 1.3 of the company’s articles of association. The Forum also requested other information that the company is supposed to maintain, namely:

• The company’s membership admissions policy
• A membership application form
• A list of current membership classes and their respective subscription fees
  

To date, no reply to this letter has been received.

The Forum was then approached by a former member of The Lauries Limited, who showed us a letter written in 2009, in which one of the directors at the time dismissed all of the remaining 36 members of the company, offering to refund the balance of any subscriptions paid.

The available evidence indicates that the company has had no members since 30 November 2009. However, it is members of the company who elect directors at each annual general meeting. If there have been no members since 2009 then all directors appointed after 30 November 2009 were occupying those positions unlawfully, as are the current directors. If there are no members, then the company has been operating outside of its own articles of association for a substantial period of time and would therefore appear also to be in breach of its lease with the Council.

Substance of complaint
We believe that the available evidence demonstrates that The Lauries Limited is operating outside of the parameters laid down in its articles of association, which in turn means that the terms of its lease with the Council have been breached. This unlawful operation of the company appears to have been ongoing since 30 November 2009.

We assert that Cllr Jean Stapleton, who was a director of The Lauries Limited continuously from 18 May 2003 until 31 March 2015 was a party to company mismanagement and breaches of the lease that occurred during this time.

We assert that Cllr Phil Davies, who was a director of The Lauries Limited from 6 January 2005 until 18 May 2013 was a party to company mismanagement and breaches of the lease that occurred during this time.

We assert that Cllr Brian Kenny, who was a director of The Lauries Limited from 17 February 2009 until 31 May 2015 was a party to company mismanagement and breaches of the lease that occurred during this time.

In the light of the evidence obtained by the Forum and public records, it is alleged that Councillors Davies, Kenny and Stapleton were party to unlawful decisions, either knowingly or through negligence, in a manner that betrayed the commitment to community control and ownership enshrined in the memorandum and articles of association of The Lauries Limited.

It appears that Councillors and Council officers have failed:
1) in their duty to ensure that a significant public asset is managed in accordance with the terms of a lease agreement;
2) to effectively monitor the extent to which The Lauries Limited has been and is being operated in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association, and
3) to safeguard the use of public funds invested in the construction of The Lauries Centre.

Given these apparent failures we have further concerns that the sub-leases of the building, which require Council approval, may not comply with the terms of the principal lease.

In particular we are concerned if market rents are not being applied to sub-leases made to commercial companies.

We request that all of the concerns raised in the foregoing paragraphs are investigated by the Council and that arrangements are put in place to ensure that The Lauries Limited is henceforth operated fully in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association and that the lease is properly policed.

The Forum will co-operate fully with the Council’s investigation, including providing copies of the evidential documents referred to in this letter, if the Council cannot obtain them elsewhere.
Yours sincerely

signed by:

Cllr Pat Cleary Birkenhead & Tranmere Ward Councillor and nine other local residents.