The Chair opened the meeting and reminded everyone that the meeting was being webcast and a copy is retained on the Council’s website for two years.

The Chair informed the committee that no apologies had been received.

Members are asked to consider whether they have any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or any other relevant interest in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest.

Members were asked to consider whether they had any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or any other relevant interest in connection with any items on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest.

Councillor Jo Bird declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in Item 6, Regeneration Update Highlight Report, due to being a resident of a property that could potentially be within the scope of one of the areas highlighted within the report.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Economy, Regeneration and Development Committee held on 17 July 2024, attached.

Resolved –That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2024 be approved as a correct record.

Please telephone the Committee Services Officer if you have not received an acknowledgement of your question/statement by the deadline for submission.

Notice of question to be given in writing or by email by 12 noon, Wednesday 11 September 2024, to the Council’s Monitoring Officer via this link: Public Question Form and to be dealt with in accordance with Standing Order 10.

For more information on how your personal information will be used, please see this link: Document Data Protection Protocol for Public Speakers at Committees | Wirral Council

Please telephone the Committee Services Officer if you have not received an acknowledgement of your question by the deadline for submission.

Pamela Emery asked a question relating to protecting Wirral’s Green Belt from development and wished to know what the council was  doing to ensure that the Local Plan was signed off as quickly as possible in order to protect the Green Belt.

The Chair responded that the council was fully committed to adopting the emerging Local Plan as soon as possible. He noted that work was ongoing with the Planning Inspectorate, a six-week consultation period was necessary before any modifications were made and once the Inspectors had submitted their final report, the council could proceed to adopt the plan.

Sandra Gibson asked whether the council remained committed to the Birkenhead 2040 framework by ensuring that its delivery remained on schedule and fully resourced.

The Chair responded that the Birkenhead 2040 Framework and the resulting regeneration programme remained a key priority for the council and the committee. He noted that at the Policy and Resources Committees in March 2024, a budget of £2.7m was approved to provide the necessary resources to deliver this programme.

Paul Ainslie was not in attendance and his question was read out on his behalf by the Lead Principal Lawyer.  He asked whether the council would progress the 2040 Framework as a New Town as he felt that it satisfied the criteria, including development of over 10,000 homes, which would give Wirral some flexibility in the rate of home delivery, and time and funding to develop a full infrastructure.

The Chair responded that the Council recognised the opportunities and synergies between the Birkenhead 2040 Framework and the objectives of the New Towns Taskforce.  He noted that the Council was in dialogue with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to explore this further.

Paul Ainslie’s question was read out on his behalf by the Lead Principal Lawyer.  His question related to the difference in life expectancy between the East and West of Wirral. He asked how the committee was ensuring that the public health of East Wirral was improved through the delivery of a regenerated Birkenhead.

The Chair responded that the availability, affordability and quality of housing, transport, the physical environment and employment were all key to addressing health inequalities and formed the foundations of the Council’s emerging Local Plan and the Birkenhead 2040 Framework.

Alan Featherstone asked a question relating to Birkenhead Market and its asbestos register. He asked if the Chair was content that Members had possession of all the relevant, accurate and correct information to enable them to reach a lawful decision regarding the Argos Market at the Economy Regeneration and Housing Committee meeting on 27 March 2024.

The Chair noted that Mr Featherstone was already in correspondence with the Council on these matters and stated that he understood a response based on that written correspondence had been sent to Mr. Featherstone.

Mr Featherstone asked a supplemental question, asking for the Chair to confirm if he was content that all the relevant information was considered by the committee.

The Chair repeated that Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102a

Notice of representations to be given in writing or by email by 12 noon, Wednesday 11 September 2024, to the Council’s Monitoring Officer (committeeservices@wirral.gov.uk) and to be dealt with in accordance with Standing Order 11.1.

Petitions may be presented to the Committee no later than 12 noon on Wednesday 11 September 2024. The person presenting the petition will be allowed to address the meeting briefly (not exceeding one minute) to outline the aims of the petition. The Chair will refer the matter to another appropriate body of the Council within whose terms of reference it falls without discussion, unless a relevant item appears elsewhere on the Agenda. Please give notice of petitions to committeeservices@wirral.gov.uk in advance of the meeting.

Alan Featherstone presented a statement in respect of agenda item 6, Regeneration Programme Highlight Report.

Mr Featherstone stated that he felt that there had been a number of what he considered to be breaches of information regarding Birkenhead Market. He referenced the asbestos register, stakeholder consultations that had not been carried out, and impact assessments that had not been conducted. He felt that the committee should not have made a decision without the information that should have been received through such consultations and assessments.

He felt that the Market Manager and the market consultancy firm that the council had employed should have provided calculations regarding the trading space required by market traders.

He likened the offer of the Argos site to a life-raft after abandoning a sinking ship and noted that while a life-raft was preferable to sinking, it did not make for a sustainable livelihood in the long term.

He raised a concern regarding the speed of spending of grant money in relation to the re-development of Birkenhead Market and claimed that similar redevelopments carried out by the market consultancy firm in other areas had not been as successful as hoped. He felt that the overall cost per square foot would be too high.

He stated that the successful regeneration of Birkenhead, including the market, was vital to encourage developers to invest in the area and avoid development of the Green Belt elsewhere in the borough. He felt that this could only happen if the correct consultation with the relevant stakeholders was undertaken.

Questions by Members to be dealt with in accordance with Standing Orders 12.3 to 12.8.

The Chair informed the committee that no questions had been submitted by Members.

The appendix to this report may not be suitable to view for people with disabilities, users of assistive technology or mobile phone devices. Please contact rebeccahlowry@wirral.gov.uk if you would like this document in an accessible format.

The Chief Regeneration Officer presented the report of the Director of Regeneration and Place. The report provided the latest programme monitoring information for the Regeneration & Place Directorate. The design and content of the report was developed following an agreement to provide regular monitoring reports to the Economy, Regeneration and Housing Committee on an informative basis back in February 2024.

The programme monitoring report had been structured around twelve programme areas relating to masterplans. The data contained in the report related to Quarter 1, 2024 (period ending April-June 2024).  The narrative for each programme reflected the current position.

The information had been extracted from the Regeneration & Place Directorate’s internal programme assurance monitoring system, which was reviewed and updated on a quarterly basis. This system derived a delivery confidence Red-Amber-Green (RAG) ratings for each programme based on the individual RAG ratings for schedule, budget & risk.

The supporting narrative in the report had been strengthened with programme and project leads from the Regeneration & Place Directorate, providing a narrative to further explain RAG ratings, milestones and mitigating actions.

Members thanked the officers for the report and noted that it gave clear and concise information on the regeneration projects in the borough.

They noted that the Birkenhead Market project appeared to be on track and that the phase 2 consultation for the market had begun, they asked when the consultation was due to close and what the next steps would be.

The Director for Regeneration and Place noted that the consultation began on 2^nd September 2024 and would run until 23^rd September 2024. He stated there had been nearly 1,800 visits to the consultation website, with 120 people having answered the survey. He noted that in-person engagement had begun that day as well and that work had also been done with students at Wirral Metropolitan College seeking their feedback and ideas. There would be a full consultation on the final design with residents and stakeholders.

Members raised the level of financial risk for a number of developments and sought reassurance that taxpayers would receive value for money for those projects.

The Director for Regeneration and Place acknowledged that there was a level of risk with all regeneration projects and noted that the regeneration benefits to residents had to weighed against the level of risk and this was done individually with each project. He noted that Wirral had a good relationship with its key stakeholders such as Peel, Homes England and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

Members sought clarity on the projects listed in the report regarding Birkenhead as potentially unachievable, or in doubt as well as some of the main projects in the Wallasey area.

The Director for Regeneration and Place noted that there was still a lot of ongoing work within Birkenhead and that those sites listed with a red RAG rating were still being worked on to improve the RAG rating and therefore make the projects more deliverable.

The Assistant Director, Chief Regeneration Officer responded regarding the Wallasey area and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

The Lead Principal Lawyer presented the report on behalf of the Chair of the Committee. Members were informed that the work programme should align with the corporate priorities of the Council, in particular the delivery of the key decisions which are within the remit of the Committee.

Members agreed that they would like to see an update of the Regeneration Programme Highlight Report on a six-monthly basis.

Resolved - That the Economy Regeneration and Housing Committee work programme for the remainder of the 2024/25 municipal year be agreed.

The Director of Regeneration and Place presented his report which noted that on 22 January 2024, the Committee authorised the Director of Regeneration and Place, in consultation with the Director of Finance, to approve the novation of the Grant Funding Agreement for the Egerton Village project from Peel L&P Investments and Property Limited to Starship Regeneration Egerton Village Limited with Peel L&P Holdings (UK) Ltd acting as continuing Guarantor. This novation was subject to a number of requirements being satisfied by the parties involved.

Egerton Village was proposed as new high quality mixed-use development to come forward within Wirral Waters.

The Council had been informed by Peel representatives that the requirement of continuing Guarantor, as resolved by Committee on 22 January 2024, could not be met. Therefore, the report provided an update to Members on the position with matters for consideration and suggested a proposed revision to ‘step in’ rights as an alternative approach to mitigate risk.

The Assistant Director, Chief Regeneration Officer indicated that the recommendations to members were slightly altered in order for  the decision  to be  most accurately recorded. The change in wording had been supplied to all Members of the committee in writing.

The Chair reported that several members had indicated that they wished to discuss the content of the exempt appendix. Therefore, on a motion by the Chair, seconded by Councillor Andrew Gardner, it was –

Resolved – That, under section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act. The Public Interest test has been applied and favours exclusion.

Following a debate on the matter, it was -

Resolved – That

1. The Director of Regeneration and Place in consultation with the Director of Finance be authorised to proceed with a novation of the grant agreement relating to the Egerton Village project between the Council and Peel L&P Investments and Property Limited (with Peel L&P Holdings (UK) Ltd acting as guarantor) to Starship Regeneration Egerton Village Limited subject to any remaining pre-conditions for novation, as resolved by this Committee on 22 January 2024, being satisfied, and;

2. The Director of Law and Corporate Services be authorised to agree and finalise the Deed of Novation of the Grant Agreement with the relevant parties, subject to ‘step in’ rights described in para 3.3 of Appendix 1 being incorporated but without a guarantee from Peel L&P Holdings (UK) Ltd as set out in paragraph 3.4 of Appendix 1.

The following items contain exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION:  That, under section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act. The Public Interest test has been applied and favours exclusion.

Resolved – That, under section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the following appendix be deemed to be exempt from publication on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act.

Egerton Village - Exempt Appendix 1.

Mr Alan Featherstone:

“When will Raymond Linch’s company start the consultation with traders?”  He stated that there was a lot of ambiguity over asking for registering of interest for the Argos site, he had spoken to Raymond Lynch, and he had confirmed that they have not begun any consultation yet and none were in the pipeline.

Answer: Trader engagement sessions were held between 27th August – 9th September and specifically with Mr Featherstone on 27th September via a Teams meeting. These sessions included the proposed design, and also an Expressions of Interest.  Sessions with traders will take place at the appropriate times to discuss a range of topics, however, there is no statutory requirement for a formal consultation on the Market relocation. Mr Linch has confirmed he has had no correspondence with Mr Featherstone directly.