To deal with questions from councillors and from members of the public, in accordance with Standing Order 11.

Note: Questions from members of the public must be submitted in writing or by email by no later than 5.00pm on 5 July 2010

(a) Councillor Jerry Williams, having given the appropriate notice in accordance with Standing Order 11, submitted the following question:

“I note from minute 52 (Cabinet - 24/6/10) that the Chief Executive is consulting on options for the future assignment of the Cultural Services Division.

Can the Cabinet member for Culture, Tourism and Leisure please reassure the people of New Ferry that a home will be found rapidly in the Council’s organisation for this vital service and can he also explain to the people of New Ferry how it is possible for a landmark historical building of international significance, like the Great Eastern Public House, to be cavalierly demolished before any planning process was completed, destroying in the process part of Wirral’s cultural heritage with links to the great engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel and to the legendary Great Eastern vessel and weakening the tourist potential for the area. Will he guarantee that he personally will drive forward the completion of a register of historical buildings on Wirral which has already been agreed, working with the Wirral History and Heritage Association, in order to prevent further marginalisation of Wirral’s historic buildings and the potential for major destruction if the precedent set by the demolition of this building is carried forward to other, as yet unlisted, historic sites on Wirral and will he also speed up feasibility studies on potential conservation areas in Wirral ?”

Councillor David Elderton, Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Leisure, responded as follows:

“Cllr Williams raised this issue at a planning and development control meeting on 6 July 2010. He was given a detailed explanation by officers of why we are where we are. And I thank him for raising this issue so that the explanations given can now be broadcast in greater detail to a wider audience.

In response to the first part of the question, I reaffirm that consultations are already taking place with officers and will take place with appropriate bodies in order to secure a home for the Cultural services.

I have spoken with the Director of Technical Services regarding the recent demolition of the Great Eastern Public House and I have been advised as follows:

The demolition of the building did not require the formal consent of the Council as demolition is not classed as development under Section 55 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) as directed by Circular 10/95, appendix 2. In addition to this, the building was not protected by any Statutory Listing nor was it located within a Conservation Area. There was, therefore, nothing to prevent the demolition of the building nor was there any duty on the developer to inform the authority prior to his/her actually demolishing the building.

Whilst the Council agrees with Councillor Williams that there were some elements of the building that had some architectural merit, on balance it was felt there was no evidence to demonstrate that collectively this building was worthy of protection.

With regard to the future, the Conservation Section within Technical Services is currently investigating how we can locally list buildings of local interest and initial discussions have taken place with the Wirral Historical and Heritage Association regarding the feasibility of setting up a Local List.

However, there are implications of introducing Local Lists which would only be effective and enforceable by the removal of Permitted Development Rights and the imposition of Article 4 Directions. One issue in removing PD rights for Development Control is that the Council cannot charge for any resultant planning applications – hence significant revenue implications, with no fees for DC officers to process the applications.

There are further cost implications for the Council when you factor in the LDF (Local Development Framework) and formal consultation costs. New policy work would be required to implement a Local List, developing new policy in the LDF and the subsequent formal consultation is in a different order of expense to what it used to be.

However, a report will be submitted to Planning Committee and Economy and Regeneration O&S Committee later in 2010/11 outlining the pros and cons of developing a Local List and highlighting for Members the financial implications to set up and administer such a list.

It should be noted also, however, that even with a Local List, so long as the demolition of a building outside of a Conservation Area – or one that is not Statutorily (Nationally) Listed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports – is not even classified as ‘development’ (as under current planning law), permission will still not be required for demolition of such a building and as such there are no watertight means for ensuring its protection.

Current national planning guidance makes it clear that most demolition does not constitute ‘development’. Therefore, even if the Great Eastern Public House building had been included on a ‘Local List’, it would only have removed PD rights on the property and would not have prevented demolition by the developer or have required the developer to inform the authority of his intention to demolish it. Therefore, unless a “locally listed” building is located within a Conservation Area, the consent of the LPA would not be required for its demolition.

The law is different however in the case of a dwelling house, where notice will need to be given to the LPA before it can be demolished. The local authority could not however refuse the demolition of the building but rather could only control the method of demolition. Protection from demolition altogether only comes in the form of statutory (national) listing or being sited within a Conservation Area. It may also be worth noting that any member of the public can contact English Heritage who would then look at listing any such building on behalf of the Department of Culture, Media and Sports.

I can confirm that the feasibility of the designation of new conservation areas for the Borough is actively being explored and will, of course, be dependant on the Council’s budgets. A recent report to the Planning Committee (22 April 2010) indicated that such designations could cost within the region of £5,000 to £8,000 per new conservation area.

In conclusion, I again thank Councillor Williams for raising this issue. He has my assurance that I will do all in my power to promote, support and enhance Wirral’s cultural heritage within the current national and local financial constraints so clearly apparent to all.

My personal support for heritage and conservation is actually second to none – and goes way beyond actually merely debating this important issue. In my former business life, I was responsible for many conservation projects including:

1.  The restoration and conversion of the 18th century Dock Traffic Office in Liverpool –  to create the first phase of Merseyside Maritime Museum for Merseyside County Council.

2.  The conversion of the listed Grape Street Warehouse for Granada TV in Manchester – to create a rehearsal facility for Coronation Street and the back drop to the award winning Sherlock Homes TV series produced at the time.

3.  The restoration, refurbishment and extension of an 18th century mansion owned by a former Leeds textile industrialist at Oulton Hall outside Leeds for De Vere hotels. This grade two listed building that had no roof on it when we inherited it – and created 20 years ago the only 152 bed 5 star hotel in England north of the M62.

Why do I mention these? Because they all demonstrate that the clients involved recognised that it was commercially viable to preserve these buildings and give them a new lease of life of value to the community. Unfortunately, this was not the case with the Great Eastern – which is why it was demolished. Of course we need to retain our local heritage – but it can only be done with adequate patronage, commitment and appropriate financial support.”

Councillor Williams then asked a supplementary question, to which Councillor Elderton responded accordingly.

(b) Councillor T Harney having given the appropriate notice in accordance with Standing Order 11, submitted the following question:

“The report referred to in minute 27 (Cabinet - 24/6/10) was based on an analysis of a suggestion by parents of a problem. The parents actually suggested a change in the age range catered for at the Lyndale School. This has not been dealt with. Does the cabinet member think it reasonable that the report does not deal with the underlying problem at all, that is the lack of a secondary school that would meet the needs of their children? Does she not feel that it is even worse that no attempt has been made to deal with the real concerns of parents that their children will not be able to have a safe and happy school experience in a school with a mixture of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties and children who are highly mobile and can exhibit challenging behaviour?”

Councillor Sheila Clarke, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning, responded as follows:

“I would like to thank Councillor Harney for his question and to pay tribute to him as a staunch advocate for The Lyndale School, especially the parents and children. I would like to start by stating that Special Education is a part of our school provision that I believe Wirral should be proud of. This is a group of children and parents who need the best that we can offer. Ofsted have repeatedly told us over a number of years that our school provision is either Good or Outstanding and we should be grateful for the wonderful staff and governors who we have working in this area. However, this does not mean we should be complacent as there is always more to do for these important children and their families.

We have listened to parents and developed opportunities in mainstream schools when parents have wanted it by opening additional specialist resource facilities in our mainstream schools and have continued to allocate significant resources on an annual basis into our special schools. For this financial year the total resources given to Wirral Special Schools including standard funds is £15.5m and we expect to spend a further £3.4m on education in independent school provision for those very special children that it is difficult for any authority to provide for. In addition, we spend some £4m transporting special school children to school. This is approximately 10% of the total schools budget spend.

Turning to the specific question ….

The proposal for the creation of a 2-19 special school for children and young people with profound and multiple learning difficulties arose from the early informal consultations regarding the improvement of special school provision for children and young people with complex learning difficulties and was put forward by parents and governors at The Lyndale School. It was this proposal that was publicly consulted upon with a subsequent recommendation being made to Cabinet that the proposal should be examined further by means of a feasibility study.

The format, rationale and methodology of the study, including the definition of profound and multiple learning difficulties, was discussed with and agreed by the governing body of The Lyndale School. I am advised that at no point was the issue of simply extending the age range of The Lyndale School for its current pupil cohort raised.

The concerns expressed by some parents at The Lyndale School are referred to and recommendations for action are made in the report; these will be followed through. These include further work in the area of transition especially between primary and secondary and post 19. An invitation has gone to the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of Lyndale to discuss these matters and a joint development day across our five schools for children with complex learning difficulties is being arranged.

In conclusion, we have no evidence from Ofsted or School Improvement Partners that the mixture of children with the most complex needs in our CLD schools leads any of them to be anything other than safe and happy. Indeed, those Elected Members from all parties that visited Foxfield and Meadowside were very complimentary about the provision available.

We have no evidence that we have a gap in our provision for secondary aged pupils with complex problems although we recognise that each year we will have a small number with very special needs who require provision outside of Wirral. Currently, out of 400 children we have 4 such children.

Finally, I am advised that the vast majority of year 6 pupils from The Lyndale School transfer successfully to Wirral’s secondary CLD schools each year. Where parents feel this may not be the case, as articulated so well by the parent who spoke at the Cabinet meeting that there may be a perception amongst parents of pupils at The Lyndale School that this is not the case, then the authority is keen to engage in dialogue with parents to ensure that enhanced transition plans can be arranged.

For my part I have committed to meeting with a representative group of parents of children with Learning Difficulties on a regular basis in order to assure myself that we are being responsive.”

Councillor Harney then asked a supplementary question, to which Councillor Clarke responded accordingly.