Although it is possible to forward pre-notified questions to the Constituency Manager questions will also be taken on the night via the Chair. All questions will be collated at the start of item 11 and dealt with in turn by the Chair.

The Committee and  members of the public in attendance at the meeting raised the following questions, issues, concerns and requests. The first three questions were received in advance of the meeting.

There were 18 members of the public present.

Question one, received in advance of the meeting from Karen O’Rourke

 In his letter to the Constituency Manager, dated 7th June, David Ball stated “For clarification it is important to state that the Cabinet decision taken to move to the next stage of the project viewed the proposed future loan of £26million to the project as a commercial investment from which the Council will receive a financial return that can be re-invested back into local service provision. It is not a sum of Council money that could in theory be re-directed to another location as New Ferry”.

I believe that Mr Ball has misunderstood the questions relating to the funding of the Golf Resort and New Ferry. It is well understood by residents that the £26million to be lent to the Developers for the Golf Resort will not come directly from the Council, but via prudential borrowing.

The Council initially provided £350,000 for the initial New Ferry clear up work. Recently Homes England has announced an initial investment of £100k for further consultancy studies. Yet this £100k has not come directly from the Council. 16 months after the explosion New Ferry is only now receiving just £100k to carry out work over the next 12 months to produce a viable scheme capable of securing planning permission.

The Council have so far spent over £1million of their own money on consultancy studies for the Hoylake Golf Resort and have invested significant time and resources to the project.(including a further £600k committed just months before the explosion).  They have already committed to lending a Developer £26million should the Golf Resort secure planning permission – even though the golf resort is also still at the same stage as New Ferry i.e. requiring 12 month studies to produce a viable scheme capable of securing planning permission.

Therefore, please will the Council explain how it is able to spend £1million on Consultancy Studies and secure Cabinet Approval for a Prudential Loan to a Developer for the Golf Resort, despite the fact that there are still 12 months of golf resort design studies yet to take place?  Please can you explain why, 15 months after the explosion, a similar amount of money has not been made available to progress the New Ferry development . Please will you clarify whether the Council will approve  prudential borrowing to lend to a Developer for New Ferry?"

Answer

A full answer to this question will be provided in due course

Question two, received in advance of the meeting by Nick Drew

Following Rachael Musgrave's presentation at the last WSCC, and having studied the slides she presented, can the committee give any further indications on:

A)which Cabinet member is now responsible for the 'Localism and Engagement' portfolio? (there no longer appears to be a Cabinet member appointed to the post

B)what is the timeframe for bringing recommendations on the preferred approach to Neighbourhood working to Cabinet?

C)how will elected members be supported in taking this forward within their communities?

Answer

A)The Leader of the Council now leads this agenda; providing strategic direction and Cabinet leadership.

B)As per Cllr Patrick’s commitment at the last Committee meeting, a report will be presented to Cabinet and is scheduled on the Forward Plan for decision between 1 July 2018 and 30^th September 2018.

C)As leaders and advocates in local communities Elected Members have informed how the Council and other Partners develop a new approach to working with local communities and what they need to support them in this role. This will be reflected in the report presented to Cabinet.

Question three received in advance of the meeting by Louise Stothard

The Tree Loss Monitoring Report has identified the felling of, dismemberment of and damage to several thousand trees across the Borough, despite the Council's Parks & Countryside employing 190 persons to care for our parks and countryside and despite its employing a Tree Protection Officer. This report has been carried out during David Ball's tenure as Assistant Environmental Services Director and with his approval. The Council itself carries out hundreds of fellings per annum at the expense of our trees, our taxes, our Council and our environment, for no verifiable reason whatsoever. It has provided no evidence whatsoever for the need to fell our trees. This is scandalous.

The costs to Wirral's environmental health and the capacity of that environment to support human life and activity depends on the presence of trees/adequate tree cover. Trees, for example provide the most effective, useful and cheapest form of flood defence. The cost of leaving trees in situ is negligible. Yet it costs on average between 750 and 2000 to fell and remove a mature tree. The real cost, which can never be recovered, is the damage to our environment (which is exponential) the damage to human health, the loss of resource and amenity value. 

Why cannot WBC examine its own Parks & Countryside policy and its Highways policy so that it values trees instead of regarding them as unproven risks? It could then write into its orders and its statutory powers a penalty which reflects the seriousness of the damage caused by felling and removing their parts, and which is enforceable?  Road traffic accidents make up 13% of all external causes of death in the UK. For the 10-14 age group road accidents make up over 50% of all external causes of death. Yet we do not scrap all cars on that basis. That is discounting the economic costs of traffic congestion. The risk of being killed by a falling tree or limb is 1 in 260m. The real risk to health and safety is created by removing a tree.

Why cannot the Council, on the back of this, incentivise the care of trees?

When will WBC stop spending taxpayers money on degrading Wirral's environment and start protecting the status and wellbeing of our trees (and, along with them, our air quality, our soil health, our wildlife ( including pollinator health), our flood defences, our status as a place to live and work and ourselves)?

Answer

David Armstrong, Assistant Chief Executive responded by informing the Committee that the Council do try and replace tress when they had been taken down. He also explained that a full survey would be conducted by an outside company in due course and when information has been collated it will be shared.

Question four – Mr Phil Simpson, Greasby

Mr P Simpson raised the following query

Is it right that our Council should borrow £26million to build a golf resort, which is not needed or wanted and has a 15 to 1 against ratio by our citizens when a measly £100,000 is to be invested in New Ferry.

Is there more financial importance given to a golf resort than there is to our citizens who live in the most deprived areas of our Borough.

Why has our Council not given an undertaking to secure borrowing similar amounts of money to that of the golf course to loan to a developer to rebuild New Ferry. Our citizens, wherever they live deserve better than this- Our citizens are the wealth earners of Wirral.

Answer

A full answer to this question will be provided in due course

Question five – Mr Robert Wilkinson, Irby

Mr R Wilkinson queried information that Councillors and members of the public had been given as part of the consultation on dog related control orders. He stated that member of the public and Members had been told that support had given by both the RSPCA and the Kennel Club. He informed Members that he had spoken with both organisations and they had stated this not to be the case.

Answer

Mr Wilkinson was informed that this would be investigated and reported back.

Question six - Miss Sarah Ashworth, Heswall

Miss S Ashworth spoke in against of the consultation proposals relating to dog related control orders. She stated that public spaces orders are detrimental to local areas, are frowned upon by the RSPCA and are damaging to society as they can create social isolation. She asked given the research to support this, why has this been allowed? She further asked- why is a blanket ban being proposed?

Answer

A written response will be provided in due course.

Question seven –  Ms Gwen Lawrence, Heswall

Ms G Lawrence expressed concerns over the proposed ban of dogs on football pitches even though they are used seldomly and the impact this would have in the Heswall area

Answer

Ms Lawrence was advised that this matter is still under consultation and would be addressed once all responses had been collated.

Question eight – Mr Peter Healey, West Kirby.

Mr Healey  commented on the levels of ASB on local beaches, particularly West Kirby and the high levels of litter left behind. He suggested that the Police presence in the area be increased.

Answer

PSCO Roberts responded by stating that this could be reviewed following an assessment on threat, harm and risk in the area.

Question nine – Mr A Peters, Hoylake

Mr Peters informed the Committee that numbers of signatures in opposition to the Hoylake Golf Resort detailed on the Council’s website is out of date and asked that this be updated.

Answer

David Armstrong, Deputy Chief Executive assured Mr Peters that this would be updated.

Question ten – Ms V Burden , Heswall

Ms Burden enquired into whether Wirral had plans to use “ Kingdom”, an environmental enforcement company

Answer

The Committee were informed that the contract with Kingdom had recently been renewed for a further three years.