The Chair invited members of the public to ask questions.

Question 1 – Philip Barton

I am unclear how the proposals the Cabinet Member had agreed to improve the local environmental quality of terraced housing areas by tackling alleyway dumping in a particular way sits with the ERIC Service, bulky item collection?

A Member referred to the £400,000 that the Council had put back into the budget to ensure monthly cleaning of entries.  The Group from the third sector would only look after Birkenhead.

Members informed that the ERIC Service could not be free and the £400,000 was earmarked to deal with fly tipping in alley ways.  The ERIC Service was there to take away bulky goods and the Cabinet Member’s initiative did not replace that Service.

The Chair considered that the Council should tie down its contractors to take away goods that had been dumped, as dumping was a very real problem.

Question 2 – Bob Giles

Referring to the Better Food Wirral Event which was very interesting, vending machines and the excessive consumption of fizzy drinks, were there any moves to make people aware of the excessive consumption?

A Member informed that the Council was in the process of restructuring its Leisure Centres and was removing all the vending machines and replacing them with Juice Bars which would provide healthy juices and smoothie drinks.

Mr Giles made the point that fruit juices did have high sugar content.

It was noted that water was also available in all of the Council’s Leisure Centres.

The Constituency Manager informed that a Constituency Plan in relation to food was being developed for Birkenhead – What’s Best for Birkenhead?

Question 3 – Lynn Evans

The Council’s review of contract management was welcome.  What was it doing in the background to ensure improvement and that we get what we pay for?

The Chair asked what resources did the Council put into letting its contracts.

The Strategic Director – Transformation and Resources informed that there was an internal Commissioning and Procurement Board which met regularly and was concerned with early intervention, domiciliary support services and looking at integration.

A Member informed that the Director of Adult Social Services was in the process of discussing low level support services and that Luncheon Clubs needed to be reviewed.

The Constituency Manager reported that there had been a lot of change and Members would discuss this at a half day session.  A Member enquired whether there was a Schedule or Plan that the Committee could look at and the Constituency Manager undertook to find out and circulate relevant information.

The Chair informed that he and a Member had visited the Cavendish Centre which ran day services.  He asked who had been awarded the contract and what it provided.  He also asked to what extent were these points of contact to be devolved down, he considered that it was a question for the Chief Executive to respond to and requested that it be included in the Minutes of the meeting.

A Member referred to the work carried out in relation to commissioning and working with others.  He considered that the Committee should look at the amount of money spent in the Constituency and the outputs that were achieved to establish if they represented value for money.

A Member asked if the Committee knew how many pensioners had been lost in Birkenhead over the winter period.  The Chair proposed that Public Health Officers be asked to compare this year’s figures with those of last year.

Pauline Cocker referred to the high levels of crime reported to the police; she considered that a lot of work needed to be done in the local community, if Birkenhead was to be a safe area in which to live.

A Member informed that he was holding a meeting with residents to discuss incidents of crime.

A Member referred to the distress caused to people at the Cavendish Centre.  It was noted that the staff was very dedicated and ran the Centre on a shoe string compared to other Luncheon Clubs.

Another Member informed that the comments were very valid.  There had been issues around the commissioning process.  The Council was looking at how it could help going forward to provide services to vulnerable people in a deprived area.

A member of the public proposed the adoption of a Neighbourhood Plan.  He referred to the Neighbourhood Plans that Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council had adopted and to the different approach it had compared to that of the Council.  Wirral’s Local Plan did not mention Neighbourhood Planning at all.

A member of the public informed that with the help of the Rt Hon Frank Field MP, Devonshire Park was one of a vanguard of 17 communities advancing neighbourhood planning under the 2011 Localism Act.  She reported that Devonshire Park was a victim of its own success because as it had progressed the neighbourhood planning the Government had kept changing things.  Developers were targeting houses to convert into flats and bed sits whilst Devonshire Park wanted to protect family housing as part of the mix.

Neighbourhood Planning had been a positive experience.  The community had come together to look at how Devonshire Park could look in the future.  However, bringing the Neighbourhood Plan through the local authority planning process had been a nightmare with ever changing hoops and hurdles to negotiate.

Devonshire Park was the test community for Wirral Borough Council.  The Neighbourhood Plan had been a good learning experience for the Council.  A referendum needed to take place either this year or next.  There had been a lot of frustration but it was considered that it was the beginning of something tremendously positive.  People had a say over what would happen in the local area.  Devonshire Park was willing to support and advise other communities who wanted to go down the Neighbourhood Planning route.