Agenda for Southport Area Committee on Wednesday 20th September, 2017, 6.30 pm

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Town Hall, Southport

Contact: Ruth Appleby  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

20.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ball and Preece.

 

21.

Proposal for Meeting Time Close of Business

Minutes:

The Chair indicated that there had been 32 items submitted for consideration during the Public Forum, which would take up a large part of the meeting.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the meeting close at 10.00 pm, with any items not yet considered being deferred to the next meeting.

 

22.

Declarations of Interest

Members are requested to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, which is not already included in their Register of Members' Interests and the nature of that interest, relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct, before leaving the meeting room during the discussion on that particular item.

 

Minutes:

No declarations of any disclosable pecuniary interest were received.

 

23.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 133 KB

Minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2017

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 June 2017 be confirmed as a correct record.

 

 

24.

Clarification on the Presentation by Merseytravel to Area Committee 14 June 2017

Minutes:

Further to Minute No 6 on the Presentation by Merseytravel, Sir Ron Watson, Advisory Group Member, who had been unable to attend the previous meeting, asked whether Members had requested clarification on the size and configuration of rolling stock in relation to the following statements:

 

·       trains can carry 60% more passengers whilst maintaining the existing levels of seating; and

·       on board train seating levels would be maintained.

 

The Chair indicated that clarification had not been sought by Members on this matter.

 

Sir Ron indicated that the preliminary information provided by Merseytravel stated that the number of carriages would remain the same, namely, 3 car and 6 car at peak times.  However, he wished for clarification on the following issues:

 

1.     The width of the new carriages compared to current rolling stock.

2.     Would the 4x4 seating be retained?

3.     In the event of the carriages moving to what is described as airline seating i.e. single rows), what would the seating configuration be – namely, 2x2 or 3x2?

4.     What space would be allocated to each seat as opposed to now? 

5.     Was it anticipated that if there was to be row by row seating passengers at a window seat would be able to exit without the other passengers moving i.e. what was the space allowed between the back of the seat in front and the seat itself?

6.     Would the full body support up to head level provided by current seating be maintained?’

 

Councillor Shaw also asked whether a response had been received about whether there were any plans for the reinstatement of the ‘Burscough Curve’ railway line.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Democratic Services Officer be requested to contact Merseytravel to seek clarification on the matters raised above.

 

25.

Police Issues

Report of the Neighbourhood Inspector.

 

Update on crime statistics and area interventions since the last meeting.

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Sergeant Andrew Dentith who provided an update on crime and policing in the Southport area.

 

Following his update, Sergeant Dentith responded to questions from Members and members of the public on the following matters:

 

·       a recent alleged acid attack report;

·       methods employed to help address anti-social behaviour by youths;

·       near miss incident at the Fisherman’s Path railway crossing; and

·       problems with street drinkers in Southport town centre.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Sergeant Dentith be thanked for his update.

 

26.

Public Forum pdf icon PDF 34 KB

A period of up to one hour (or longer at the discretion of the Chair) will be set aside for a Public Forum.

 

Members of the public can ask questions, raise matters, or present petitions on issues which are relevant to Sefton Council.  The person asking the question will be allowed one supplementary question and, provided the questioner is present or represented, any interested members of the public will be permitted to ask supplementary questions, provided the total time on each issue does not exceed five minutes.

 

A Question Form indicating the person’s name and address must be completed and submitted to the Committee Administrator as soon as possible and by no later than 12.00 noon on the day before the meeting.  For the avoidance of doubt, this deadline applies to written, faxed or on-line submissions. http://forms.sefton.gov.uk/openforumquestion/

 

If a response to a question cannot be provided at the meeting, the Neighbourhoods Division will contact the relevant department for a formal response and the resident will be contacted directly in writing.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair indicated that 32 separate items, including 5 petitions had been submitted by members of the public for consideration during the Public Forum.

 

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)

the petitions be considered at the start of the Public Forum; and

 

(2)

questions on related topics be considered at the same time, namely:

Parking issues in Ainsdale; Compton Road Park, Birkdale; Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate; Replacement of Playground Equipment in Ovington Road Park, Kew Ward; Southport’s Tourism Ratings; and questions relating to Southport Conservation Area / road resurfacing on Lord Street.

 

27.

Steve Boyes - Petition - Request for Off-Road Cycle Track at Kew Woods and a Cycle Festival Weekend pdf icon PDF 45 KB

Minutes:

Mr Stephen Boyes, who was present at the meeting had submitted a petition of 140 signatures requesting Area Committee support for a safe and accessible off-road cycle track to be constructed in Kew Woods; with a view to the track being used for a cycle festival weekend.

 

‘We the undersigned wish to demonstrate to the Forestry Commission and to Sefton Council, that working with Southport Sea Cadets and Southport Cycle Club there was a need and a desire for an off-road cycle track on Kew Woods.  It is our wish to create a cycle festival weekend which would be improving the health and well-being of our residents and attract visitors to our town’.

 

Sea Cadet members were present at the meeting and presented their request to the Area Committee

 

Members asked questions on a number of issues, including the logistics of the proposed cycle track and insurance issues.

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

(1)

the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Forestry Commission to draw its attention to a request made by the local Sea Cadets, Southport Cycle Club and other organisations, to have a safe and accessible off-road cycle track constructed in Kew Woods with a view to the track being used for a cycle festival weekend; and

 

(2)

the Head of Communities be requested to liaise with cross- departmental Council officers to facilitate close working with the Forestry Commission on the design and implementation of the cycle track.

 

28.

Anne Sparke - Petition about Non-Residential Parking in Halifax Road and Leamington Road, Ainsdale pdf icon PDF 64 KB

Minutes:

Ms Anne Sparke, who was not present at the meeting had submitted a petition of 39 signatures requesting a resolution to parking problems experienced by residents of Halifax and Leamington Roads, Ainsdale, due to parking by rail commuters and exacerbated by the temporary closure of Ainsdale Station’s car park.

 

A site visit had been held between Mr Marrin, Manager - Highways Management and Ward Councillor, Lynne Thompson on 12 September, 2017 and Mr Marrin had indicated his intention to submit a report with proposals for a resolution being found to the parking problems in Halifax Road and Leamington Road, Ainsdale, for consideration by all 3 Ainsdale Ward Councillors.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the intention of the Manager – Highways Management to submit a report with proposals for a resolution of the parking problems in Halifax Road and Leamington Road, Ainsdale, to next meeting, be noted and endorsed.

 

29.

Terry Durrance - Question about Loss of Parking Spaces in Station Road, Ainsdale pdf icon PDF 45 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Mr Terry Durrance, who was present at the meeting, had submitted a question about parking problems in Ainsdale, querying the loss of 2 parking spaces, following roadworks in Station Road and alleging a lack of consultation with local residents and businesses.

 

It was noted that Mr Dave Marrin – Manager - Highways Management, had provided a response to Mr Durrance stating that a decision had been made by Southport Area Committee on 7 December 2016 (Minute No. 62) to install a pedestrian refuge outside Nos 8 to 10 Station Road, which would provide a safe accessible crossing point to pedestrians. This had resulted in the loss of 2 parking spaces. The report to Area Committee had indicated that full consultation had taken place on the proposal with both local residents and businesses.  A copy of the Area Committee report and related Minute (No. 62) had been forwarded to Mr Durrance and was included in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

30.

Jonny Truth - Petition - Requesting that Portland Street / Cemetery Road Junction be blocked off to motor vehicles pdf icon PDF 46 KB

Minutes:

Mr Jonny Truth, who was present at the meeting, had submitted a petition of 57 signatures requesting that the junction of Portland Street with Cemetery Road be blocked off to motor vehicles in order to make it safe for use by cyclists.

 

Mr Truth presented the petition, indicating that since the introduction of traffic calming measures and traffic lights, there had been an increase in HGV’s and other vehicles turning into Portland Street and as such, the road had become increasingly dangerous for cyclists and the vibrations caused by the increase in HGV’s had caused damage to local properties.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Manager – Highways Management, be requested to submit a report on the suggestion to block off Portland Street to motor vehicles, to the next meeting of the Area Committee.

31.

Ian Bailey - Petition / Question about the Closure of Fisherman's Path Railway Crossing pdf icon PDF 48 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Mr Ian Bailey, presented his on-line petition of 1,634 signatures objecting to the emergency 21 day closure of the Fisherman’s Path railway crossing in June 2017.

 

In addressing the Area Committee, Mr Bailey asked whether Sefton Council felt that the immediate extended closure had been necessary in order to consult on further safety measures before its eventual opening.

 

It was noted that Mr Jerry McConkey, Service Manager – Transportation and Highway Infrastructure had sent a detailed written response to Mr Bailey, which was included in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the actions of the Service Manager – Transportation and Highway Infrastructure in respect of Network Rail’s closure of the Fisherman’s Path railway crossing, as detailed in his letter, to Mr Bailey, be endorsed.

 

32.

John Pugh - Petition - 'Save Southport Area Committee' pdf icon PDF 44 KB

Minutes:

John Pugh had submitted a petition of 69 signatures titled: ‘Save Southport Area Committee’.

 

The Chair indicated that due to unforeseen circumstances, Mr Pugh had been unable to attend the meeting and had therefore asked whether he could defer his presentation to a future meeting.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Mr Pugh’s presentation on his petition - ‘Save Southport Area Committee’ be deferred to a future meeting.

 

33.

Natasha / Robert Ayres - Requesting Area Committee Support for an Ainsdale Neighbourhood Plan pdf icon PDF 40 KB

Minutes:

Natasha and Robert Ayres, who were not present at the meeting, had submitted a question requesting that the Area Committee give its support for an Ainsdale Neighbourhood Plan.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That in the absence of either of the questioners at the meeting to address the Area Committee on this matter, the request of Natasha and Robert Ayres could only be noted.

 

34.

Peter Blake - Question about Weed Killer Application pdf icon PDF 39 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Mr Peter Blake, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted a question asking whether there had been a change in the type and frequency of weed killer applications.

 

It was noted that Mr Andrew Sawyer, Highway Maintenance Officer had sent a written response to Mr Blake, which concluded that he contact the Highways team directly via highway.enquiries@sefton.gov.uk if there were any particular streets causing concern in respect of weed growth.  A copy of the response was included in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

35.

Carl Howard - Question about Southport / West Lancashire Crematoria pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Minutes:

Mr Carl Howard, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted a question asking whether the Council was concerned at the potential loss of business by Southport Crematorium since the establishment of the West Lancashire Crematorium.

 

It was noted that the Principal Cemeteries and Crematoria Manager had been asked to provide a written response to Mr Howard.

 

36.

Compton Road Park, Birkdale

Minutes:

2 questions had been submitted about Compton Road Park, Birkdale.

 

1.

Mr Paul Cunliffe, who was not present at the meeting had submitted a question about the removal of play equipment from Compton Park.

 

It was noted that Mr Dave Thompson, Principal Parks Officer – Operations had provided a written response to Mr Cunliffe, a copy of which was included in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

2.

Ms Kate Orr, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted a question about the removal of a bench from Compton Park.

 

It was noted that Mr Dave Thompson, Principal Parks Officer – Operations had provided a written response to Ms Orr, a copy of which was included in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

 

 

37.

Jon Crowder-Barton - Hill on Birkdale Common pdf icon PDF 48 KB

Minutes:

Mr Jon Crowder-Barton, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted a question asking whether the Council intended reinstating the hill on Birkdale Common, following the Open Golf Championship in July 2017.

 

It was noted that Mr Dave Thompson, Principal Parks Officer – Operations had provided a written response to Mr Crowder-Barton, a copy of which was included in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

 

38.

Sir Ron Watson - Cleaning the Computer Area in the Atkinson pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Minutes:

Sir Ron Watson, Advisory Group Member, who was present at the meeting had submitted a question about the cleaning arrangements for the Atkinson Library area with particular reference to the computer internet areas.

 

It was noted that Emma Anderson, Director of the Atkinson, had sent a written response to Sir Ron Watson, outlining the cleaning rota for the Atkinson and indicating that wipes were used by staff on a regular basis to clean the computer keyboards. A copy of Ms Anderson’s response was included in the Supplementary Agenda pack.

 

Sir Ron asked a supplementary question raising concern about hygiene issues and potential for the spread of bacterial infection from computer keyboards in the library, which were in constant use throughout the day.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the matter be raised with Public Health Officers to ascertain their views on the potential for spread of infection from the computer keyboards.

 

39.

Father Slingo - Plans for Improving Woodvale / Sandbrook Way, Ainsdale pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Father Tony Slingo, who was present at the meeting, had submitted a question about the Woodvale / Sandbrook Way area, asking about future plans for regenerating the area.

 

It was noted that the Head of Regeneration and Housing had sent a written response to Father Slingo.

 

Father Slingo indicated that he welcomed the response and was appreciative of the work undertaken in respect of the short-term regeneration of the area.  He also welcomed the excellent working relationship between Council Officers and members of the local community.

 

However, he did not feel that the response adequately addressed long-term regeneration plans for the area.  Therefore, as a supplementary question, he requested more information about the long-term plans for the regeneration of Sandbrook Way.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Head of Regeneration and Housing be requested to provide a more definitive response to Father Slingo on the long-term regeneration plans for the Sandbrook Way site.

 

40.

Ray Woods - Virginia Street Footbridge pdf icon PDF 630 KB

Minutes:

Ray Woods, who was present at the meeting had submitted a question about a number of issues relating to the Virginia Street Footbridge.

 

It was noted that the Head of Localities – Commissioned had been asked to provide a written response to Mr Woods.

 

Mr Woods addressed the Area Committee indicating that he had welcomed previous improvements to the bridge, but that in past months it had fallen into disrepair with regards a number of cross departmental issues relating to lighting, weeds, drain blockages and the overall appearance of the bridge.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Head of Locality Services – Commissioned, be requested to submit a report on proposals for the Virginia Street Footbridge to next meeting of the Area Committee.

 

41.

Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate

Minutes:

A total of 7 questions had been submitted in relation to the concerns of local residents living in the vicinity of the Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate.

 

1.     Ian Cooper, who was present at the meeting, had submitted a question asking what measures had been taken to minimise risks set out in the Sefton Plan (2017) EQ4 Pollution and Hazards Policy and prior to granting planning permission for companies operating in Slaidburn Crescent, with reference to land, water, air pollution and use of hazardous materials.

 

2.     Margaret Cooper, who was present at the meeting, had submitted a question about noise pollution emanating from Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate, with particular regard to sleep disturbance.

 

3.     Karen Haigh, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted a question on noise pollution emanating from Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate and also foul language and obscenities from workers in the factories, asking why Sefton decided to develop this industrial estate into increasingly B2 usage.

 

4.     Claire Morris, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted a question raising concern about companies on the Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate breaching the conditions of their planning approval by operating outside the hours of 18.00 to 08.00.

 

5.     Susan Raderick had submitted a question asking about the use of landscaping, trees, etc., to help screen properties from the Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate, suggesting that

 

‘…..in my opinion Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate should have a 12 foot plus, evergreen dense screening along the perimeter fence of all of the site…….This would help with the visual amenity for the residents of the housing estate, who live very close to the site.  It would also reduce noise from the units and stop rubbish blowing from the site…’

 

6.     Alan Marston, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted a question asking what was

 

‘….the worst case scenario for an accident involving the companies using potentially carcinogenic materials/ fibres on Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate?’

 

7.     James Bennett, who was not present at the meeting had submitted a question raising concern about the widespread parking on roads in Slaidburn Industrial Estate, including coaches and extended limousines belonging to a local travel company and

 

‘Bearing in mind the raw materials used in some factories and the possibly carcinogenic fibres used as a by-product, how will emergency services access such factories should they be required to do so?’

 

Following long discussion and concern expressed by Members it was

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)

the Chief Planning Officer be asked to provide written responses to the 7 questions relating to Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate; and

 

(2)

it be noted that a site meeting had been arranged between Ward Councillors and Officers from the Planning Department and the Environmental Health Department, on 21 September 2017, to discuss issues raised in relation to the Slaidburn Crescent Industrial Estate.

 

42.

Replacement of Playground Equipment in Ovington Road Park, Kew Ward

Minutes:

3 questions had been submitted by Kew Ward residents about replacing playground equipment in Ovington Road Playground, Kew.

 

1.     Diane Thomas, who was present at the meeting, asked whether Kew Ward Councillors would agree to the release of Ward funds towards the replacement of playground equipment in the park.

 

Ms Thomas raised a supplementary question about how much money the Kew Ward Councillors were prepared to pay towards the replacement playground equipment.

 

Members indicated that they were prepared to contribute Kew Ward funds towards the replacement playground, but were awaiting a reconvened meeting to be called by the Parks and Greenspace Manager to discuss the breakdown of costs and details of the equipment proposed, before they could agree to an amount.

 

2.     Greg Myers, who was present at the meeting, asked why Kew Ward Councillors had indicated that a decision to release funds for a new playground had to be agreed by the Area Committee.

 

Members concurred that the release of funds from Ward budgets did not have to be agreed by the Area Committee as a whole, but could be done by the agreement of the 3 Ward Councillors, in consultation with the Neighbourhood Co-ordinator.  However, given the large figure suggested for the replacement playground Kew Ward Members had felt that the matter was worthy of consideration by the Area Committee as a whole.

 

The Chair asked Mr Myers if he had a supplementary question and Mr Myers stated that Kew Ward Councillors had provided misleading information about the reasons for the cancellation of a meeting about the playground, between themselves, Council Officers and local residents. 

 

The Chair indicated that this was an opportunity to ask a supplementary question, not make a statement.  Mr Myers stated that he was trying to put his question into context and asked how much money the Ward Councillors were prepared to release from Ward funds for the playground and then continued to raise the matter of alleged misleading information by the Kew Ward Councillors about a meeting about the playground.

 

At this point, the Chair stated again that Mr Myers was making a statement rather than asking a question and

using his discretion  as Chair, prevented Mr Myers from continuing.

 

3.     Tracy Burke, who was not present at the meeting, had submitted the following question:

 

“Kew Ward Councillors……Why did you release a leaflet stating facts that aren’t  true, such as Sefton Council went from no money to £30,000 after pressure from local residents and slam them for cancelling meetingw when it was you who indeed put the meeting in jeopardy by telling myself and another campaigner about the meeting in the first place?”

 

Following lengthy and heated debate on this matter it was

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

(1)            the Parks and Greenspace Manager be requested to meet with Ward Councillors to:

 

(i)

provide a full breakdown of costs for the replacement playground; and

 

(ii)

provide full details on the proposed equipment to inform their decision on the release of funds  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

43.

Southport's Tourism Ratings

Minutes:

2 questions had been submitted in relation to Southport’s tourism ratings.

 

1.       Jacky Bliss, who was present at the meeting had submitted a question stating that it was very disappointing to read that Southport did not appear in the top 40 resorts in the country and it did not seem to appear in other surveys such as the ‘Rough Guides’ top 30, although both New Brighton and Crosby had ranked highly in these surveys; and asked what was the Council’s assessment of the reason for Southport’s poor rating and what actions could be taken to make Southport a more attractive seaside resort.

 

Mrs Bliss asked a supplementary question on whether Southport was able to attract business investment and encourage visitors throughout the year, given the poor looking beach and parking issues, amongst other problems.

 

2.       Ann Pearmain, who was present at the meeting, had submitted a question stating that tourism was worth £500 m to the local economy with over 8.7 million visitors in 2016, but that these did not correlate with the fact that Southport was not rated in the top 40 resorts, therefore, why did the town not appear in the top 40 and was there a plan to improve the town’s image using some of the revenue from tourism?

 

Mr Mark Catherall, Service Manager – Tourism Investment and Employment, had written to both questioners stating that the survey referred to had been conducted by ‘Marbles’, a credit card company and had looked at data such as the number of sunny days, the number of fish and chip shops, cost of taxis etc., but did not truly reflect seaside resorts.  He pointed out that a number of other seaside resorts been not included in the top 40.  Mr Catherall stated that the Council used other measures of success such as hotel occupancy, visitor surveys and economic impact assessments which all showed that Southport was performing well as a tourist destination with visitor numbers and spend continuing to increase year on year.

 

44.

Questions relating to Southport Conservation Area / Road Resurfacing, Lord Street

Minutes:

The Committee considered 5 questions submitted in relation to Southport conservation area / Lord Street.

 

(1)

Mary Pointon, Advisory Group Member, who was present at the meeting, had submitted a question asking what actions had been taken to stop the ‘destruction of Lord Street’ with black tarmac having been used instead of red tarmac to resurface the road.

 

She asked a supplementary question asking what action the Area Committee was going to take given that the works had already commenced.

 

(2)

Alan Pearmain, who was present at the meeting, referred to the use of black rather than red tarmac and asked the Area Committee to ‘suggest any avenues or methods that it could take to ensure that Southport had a voice in its own future’.

 

He asked a supplementary question about why the proposal to use black tarmac hadn’t been raised at a recent ‘Heritage’ meeting.

 

(3)

Natasha Temple, who was not present at the meeting, had asked a question about the Council’s bid for Heritage Lottery funding and the lack of consultation with Southport residents which she felt would jeopardise the bid.

 

The Council’s Planning Services (Conservation) Officer had been asked to provide a written response to Ms Temple.

 

(4)

James Banfield, who was not present at the meeting, asked why Sefton Council had not consulted with the Historic North West England Engagement Officer about the decision to use black tarmac on Lord Street, as ‘”……other authorities had successfully used cost effective alternatives to black tarmac in conservation areas.”

 

Andrew Sawyer, Highway Maintenance Manager had sent a written response to Mr Banfield, stating that the Council had considered various options for completing the scheme and consideration had been given to operational performance, future maintenance, aesthetics and cost. He indicated that the black asphalt option had been chosen primarily on its operational performance and costs.  Consideration had also been given to the recommendations within ‘Streets for All North West’ and would be reflected in how the road markings would be re-laid and the removal of high friction anti-skid surfacing which was currently found on Lord Street. Mr Sawyer indicated that there was no statutory requirement to consult with Historic England for a routine highway maintenance activity. A copy of this response was included in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

(5)

David Head had submitted a question on behalf of the Southport Civic Society, raising concern at the lack of consultation on the proposal to resurface Lord Street with black instead of red tarmac stating that the red surface had been introduced in the 1950’s to distinguish and elevate Lord Street above other roads and ‘celebrate its specialness’.  He asked whether a better solution could be found and suggested a number of possible options – namely, the substitute of black tarmac with (i) a red surface as before; (ii) black macadam with red granite chips; and/ or (iii) black macadam with high quality stone sett rumble zones at all key junctions into/out of Lord Street, similar to those at the side of Christ  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

45.

Area Committees Working Group Final Report pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Report of the Head of Regulation and Compliance

 

(NOTE: This report was considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regulatory, Compliance and Corporate Services at its meeting held on 12 September 2017.

 

The Committee resolved that the options contained in paragraph 6 and Appendix 3 to the report be referred to Cabinet for determination; and

 

Councillor Hands (Chair) and Councillor Booth (Vice-Chair) of the Area Committee have requested that this report be considered at this meeting) 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Regulation and Compliance, which formally presented the final report of the Area Committees Working Group.

 

The report had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regulatory, Compliance and Corporate Services) at its meeting held on 12 September 2017 which had resolved that the options contained in paragraph 6 and Appendix 3 to the report be referred to Cabinet for determination on 5 October 2017.

 

Councillor Hands (Chair) and Councillor Booth (Vice Chair) of Southport Area Committee had requested that this report be considered at this meeting of the Area Committee.

 

Following debate it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That it be put on record that:

 

 

1.     the Southport Area Committee appreciates the work done by the Area Committee’s Working Group under Lead Member, Councillor Carla Thomas;

 

2.     believes that the process and consultation process was both extensive and inclusive and deals with the issues in a pragmatic manner;

 

3.     considers that the report clearly indicates significant differences within the Borough and as a consequence does not feel it appropriate to make any observations on any of the other Area Committees in Sefton;

 

4.     believes that the report clearly indicates that the situation in respect of the Southport Area Committee is unique and that the result of the consultation process shows that there is wide-spread support for the Southport Area Committee amongst both elected members and the public;

 

5.     reaffirms its belief, that particularly in the absence of a Town and/or Parish Council system that applies in many other areas of the Borough, the Southport Area Committee represents the only democratic mechanism by which the public can be involved and also stresses the advantages that having services such as the Police in attendance, brings great added value as well as the presentations by other bodies and by aspects of the Council’s own services;

 

6.     these factors demonstrate that it is extremely important to retain the Southport Area Committee and in addition, the time is now appropriate to consider extending both the number of meetings held, together with further consideration by Sefton of additional service areas, together with the relevant budgets being delegated to the Southport Area Committee; and

 

7.     expresses the view very firmly that the proposals contained in the report, which would effectively abolish the Southport Area Committee would represent a very retrograde step and would be bound to heighten the tensions within the Borough to the detriment of the public.

 

 

46.

Items Deferred to Next Meeting

Minutes:

At 10.05 p.m., the Chair referred to the resolution taken at the commencement of the meeting, that the meeting be brought to a close at 10.00 pm and as it was already past the cut-off time it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)        That consideration of the following items of business be deferred until next meeting:

 

(i)

Report of the Head of Locality Services – Commissioned on Carriageway Treatment Failures;

 

(ii)

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Housing on

Southport Economy and Development Framework; and

 

(iii)

Report of the Head of Communities – on Budget Monitoring;

 

(2)        the following reports requested at this and previous meetings be requested for inclusion on the Agenda for next meeting:

 

(i)

Report of the Manager – Highways Management on proposals for a resolution of the parking problems in Halifax Road and Leamington Road, Ainsdale. (Ref. Minute No. 28 above);

 

(2)

Report of the Manager – Highways Management on the suggestion to block off Portland Street to motor vehicles. (Ref. Minute No. 30 above);

 

(3)

Report of the Head of Locality Services – Commissioned on proposals for the Virginia Street Footbridge (Ref. Minute No. 40 above);

(4)

Report of the Head of Communities on the Council’s policy for the replacement of playground equipment, with particular reference to the Ovington Road Playground. (Ref. Minute No. 42 above);

 

(5)

Report of the Head of Locality Services – Commissioned, on the former Sandwinning site, Marshside. (Ref.  Minute No. 103 (2) of 22/03/2017); and

 

(3)        Suggestions for Future Agenda Items, in addition to those indicated above, be sent via email to the Democratic Services Officer, for approval by the Chair.

 

47.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at the Town Hall, Lord Street, Southport commencing at 6:30pm.

Minutes:

It was noted that in accordance with the approved programme of meetings, the next meeting of the Area Committee would be held on Wednesday 6 December, 2017, in the Council Chamber, Southport Town Hall.