Meetings notes 6th September

These are the minutes of the Church Road Residents Consultation Planning Meeting held at Royal Standard House on Wednesday 6th September 2006. They have been circulated by Caroline Hemingway of the HMRI Policy Team who is on 0151 691 8249 or email at carolinehemingway@wirral.gov.uk

Carol emailed these minutes to the people present and I have posted them straight into the blog without comment. The only difference from these and those circulated is that the originals have been presented in a table with item numbers which the blog does not cope with as well so I have cut out the numbers but the wording is exactly the same.

I made some notes a week ago straight after coming back from the meeting and you can find them further down the blog.

=================================================

Present:

Hazel Roberts UCG / Together - Chair
James Kay TRACE
Ann Keggin Tranmere Community Project
Rob Walsh Together
Bruce Lister Lovell
Steph Reid Tranmere Alliance
James Hurley Wirral MBC

Apologies
John Steele Together
Graham Williamson Together
Chris Bowen Wirral MBC
Emma Foley Wirral MBC


Matters Arising

AK circulated a leaflet detailing the Tranmere Community Project programmes as promised at the last meeting.

RW informed the meeting that Together would be leading on a consultation exercise into the subject of community facilities. This was to start next month. RW to provide an update at the next meeting.

Project Update

JH outlined progress and informed the meeting of the news that Lovell’s retail partner, Atmore, have now committed to engaging with the retailers on Church Road. This is a significant step towards establishing who will eventually occupy the new retail development.

BL confirmed that discussions were still ongoing with regard to the Financial Agreement with the Council but that good progress is being made. This is a very complex and time-consuming process but it is essential for programme delivery that both parties are satisfied with the outcome. In the meantime BL assured the meeting that development work was proceeding as quickly as possible and that these discussions have not delayed preparations.

With regard to the involvement of Atmore, BL confirmed that it was necessary to agree the best way forward. An introductory session could be arranged although it is acknowledged that some retailers would prefer private one to one meetings. This issue will be discussed at a HMRI partnership meeting on Friday.

HR reported that there was serious concern locally about the loss of profits and the continued problem of the collapsed building and associated traffic lights on Church Road. The example of the charity shop was given. JH explained the difficulties regarding the discussions with the two neighbouring owners and their respective solicitors, insurance companies and loss adjusters. This has proven to be very complex but the over-riding consideration is to ensure public safety. The Council are working hard to resolve the issue and to have the traffic lights removed at the earliest opportunity. JK inquired whether businesses could be given business rate relief in recognition and part compensation for the loss of trade. JH to raise the question with the Finance Department.

HR added that there remains a perception that locally that the Council was seeking to get rid of local traders in favour of businesses from outside the area. Both JH and BL refuted this claim stating that Atmore will be seeking to retain as many of the local businesses as possible. Obviously these businesses will have to be viable and able to take advantage of the new opportunities and improved facilities.

JH took this opportunity to inform the meeting of his discussions with retailers. A summary table was circulated. Following the last meeting JH either telephoned or met in person each commercial freeholder and business tenant to discuss his or her concerns. Each contact was subsequently followed up with individual letters. A range of views were expressed but it was made clear to everyone that there was no policy of ignoring people and that if anyone had concerns they were very much encouraged to raise these with the Council at the earliest possible opportunity.

In terms of progress BL added that CABE have now provided feedback on the Masterplan scheme and this will be discussed amongst partners on Friday. BL circulated copies of CABE’s letter and highlighted the car parking strategy issue and the different approach taken towards residential and commercial parking. This is such a fundamental issue that serious consideration will have to be given to the response of the partnership. JK initial response was that of surprise, having knowledge of this concept and the approach of Urban Splash in Manchester. He also expressed concern, if for example; public car parking was to be located to the rear of the retail development due to the impact on surrounding residential area. HR’s view was that time was needed to digest the contents and perhaps it was more appropriate to discuss this in more depth at the next meeting. This was agreed.

BL reported that given the CABE issue the submission of the planning permission has been delayed by about a month. He is now aiming to submit the application in October.

30 – 32 Seymour Street

JK requested an update on the plans for 30-32 Seymour Street at the next meeting. HR reported that the garden was still untidy. It was agreed to add this to the agenda for the next meeting.

Youth Provision

The TCP leaflet circulated by AK was discussed. HR added that there was a need to clarify what nights would be available for local people and groups to use. RW suggested a separate meeting to discuss this further. RW to contact AK to arrange and report back progress to the next meeting.


AOB

HR raised the issue of project naming and branding. Many people were very angry with the Birkenhead History Society suggestion of “Holt Hill.” Many people would prefer the name “Higher Tranmere”. It was agreed that this issue needs much more thought and proper consultation.


HR referred to a meeting about a new apartment development on Holt Hill. There was concern that the residents group was not consulted particularly as there is likely to be impact on the Church Road proposals. JH to investigate as a matter of urgency and seek to set up a meeting with the relevant Planning Officer. HR to co-ordinate once JH has made inquiries and established the current application status. As a supplementary comment JK suggested the group be informed of any other similar developments.

JK asked about progress with issuing letters concerning the 50/50 renovation grant. This was referred to at the last meeting. JH to raise with CB/EF.

RW suggested that thought is given to the membership of the meeting and that this should be an agenda item at the next meeting. RW pointed to the need to have a representative from Whitfield Street present and possibly Councillor representation.

Date of Next Meeting

2.00pm Wednesday 4th October 2006 - Royal Standard House