Wirral Globe - by Justin Dunn
PLANS for the biggest development project in Wirral’s history have been set back after an embarrassing blunder by staff in the council’s planning department.
Unnamed civil servants missed including a vital document relating to the proposed £4.5bn Wirral Waters project when they submitted a report to the council’s planning commitee on Thursday.
The committee was meeting to consider Peel Developments’ application for the first part of its massive plans to regenerate the docklands area between Wallasey and Birkenhead.
But a 21-page objection to the scheme from Warner Estates - owners of The Pyramids and The Grange shopping centres - had mistakenly been left out of the file.
The gaffe meant the committee had to defer making any decision until it meets again next Thursday.
Peel’s application was seeking outline planning permission for around 1,700 homes to be built, along with retail outlets and offices. The company says it could create 850 jobs.
Peel and Wirral Council, who are supporting the scheme, believe Wirral Waters could eventually create 20,000 jobs and put the docklands area on a level with Vancouver and Shanghai.
It could however take anything up to ten years before any development would get under way because of the current instability in the financial markets.
Warner Estates are objecting to any shopping development to be included in the ambitious plans as it believes it would threaten “the future vitality and viability of Birkenhead town centre”.
The Peel plans will now go before the committee this Thursday.
The latest stage of Neptune Developments’ New Brighton scheme will be considered at the same meeting.
A council spokeswoman said: “The Wirral Waters Northbank East planning application has been deferred for technical reasons to ensure that members have all the relevant information before making their decision.
“The application will now be heard at planning committee on Thursday, August 13.”
© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
Showing posts with label Council blunder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Council blunder. Show all posts
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Wirral councillors ordered back to ‘planning school’ after houses were built too close to a man’s home
Wirral News - by Liam Murphy
COUNCILLORS must go on a course outlining the basics of planning law after a developer was allowed to build a new estate too close to a man’s home.
Wirral council’s planning committee was officially criticised following an inquiry into the way an application was handled.
Beechwood resident Joe Gladman was left struggling to maintain his privacy because a new housing development was too close to his home, which then plummeted in price.
The properties should have been built at least 21 metres away, but were found to be only 18. The Local Government Ombudsman found the council guilty of maladministration and or-dered it to pay compensation to Mr Gladman.
A chartered surveyor estimated the loss in value at £20,000, but a district valuer’s report done for the council put the fall at £5,000, which has been paid to Mr Gladman. Committee members must also attend a day-long refresher.
Mr Gladman said: “It was not about the money, it was the principle and the way I have been treated.”
The LGO investigator’s report said there was “maladministration causing the complainant an injustice” and asked the council to settle with the complainant.
Mr Gladman was also paid £250 for “the time and trouble” he spent pursuing his complaint, which took three years.
Initially, the council claimed the new properties were 36m from Mr Gladman’s home – but when the distance was measured, it was discovered they were just 18 metres away.
Current planning committee chairman David Elderton said: “One can only regret that this one went haywire, and I am confident we are far more aggressive now.’’
COUNCILLORS must go on a course outlining the basics of planning law after a developer was allowed to build a new estate too close to a man’s home.
Wirral council’s planning committee was officially criticised following an inquiry into the way an application was handled.
Beechwood resident Joe Gladman was left struggling to maintain his privacy because a new housing development was too close to his home, which then plummeted in price.
The properties should have been built at least 21 metres away, but were found to be only 18. The Local Government Ombudsman found the council guilty of maladministration and or-dered it to pay compensation to Mr Gladman.
A chartered surveyor estimated the loss in value at £20,000, but a district valuer’s report done for the council put the fall at £5,000, which has been paid to Mr Gladman. Committee members must also attend a day-long refresher.
Mr Gladman said: “It was not about the money, it was the principle and the way I have been treated.”
The LGO investigator’s report said there was “maladministration causing the complainant an injustice” and asked the council to settle with the complainant.
Mr Gladman was also paid £250 for “the time and trouble” he spent pursuing his complaint, which took three years.
Initially, the council claimed the new properties were 36m from Mr Gladman’s home – but when the distance was measured, it was discovered they were just 18 metres away.
Current planning committee chairman David Elderton said: “One can only regret that this one went haywire, and I am confident we are far more aggressive now.’’
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Special educational needs - Maladministration causing injustice
Local Government Ombudsman
A boy with special educational needs missed a year’s schooling because Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council wrongly refused to take responsibility for educating him. The Ombudsman says “No reasonable authority would have relied upon such insubstantial information to make decision about a vulnerable child…” and recommends it to agree with the parents and the school on what can be done to help the boy catch up on his missed education, and to pay compensation.
The boy’s father (called ‘Mr H’ in the report) won an appeal to a Special Education Needs and Disability Tribunal about the secondary school to be named in his younger son’s statement of special educational needs. Almost immediately afterwards the Council’s Education officers became suspicious that Mr H’s family were not actually living at the property they owned in the Council’s area. The Council refused to take responsibility for the younger son’s education. Mr H provided full information about his circumstances and living arrangements to the Council Tax Service, which accepted that the family were using their Wirral property as their main residence. When the Council’s Legal Department subsequently made enquiries of Mr H, he declined to send it the same information he had already provided, but twice directed it to the Council Tax Section. The Legal Department did not contact the Council Tax Section and the Education Service continued to refuse to take responsibility for the boy’s education.
The Council would not accept responsibility for the boy and did not comply with the law until the Ombudsman began her enquiries. As a result, the boy lost almost a year of education at the school specified in his statement of special educational needs, his parents paid for private tuition, and they experienced stress and anxiety in trying to resolve the issue.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends the Council to:
A boy with special educational needs missed a year’s schooling because Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council wrongly refused to take responsibility for educating him. The Ombudsman says “No reasonable authority would have relied upon such insubstantial information to make decision about a vulnerable child…” and recommends it to agree with the parents and the school on what can be done to help the boy catch up on his missed education, and to pay compensation.
The boy’s father (called ‘Mr H’ in the report) won an appeal to a Special Education Needs and Disability Tribunal about the secondary school to be named in his younger son’s statement of special educational needs. Almost immediately afterwards the Council’s Education officers became suspicious that Mr H’s family were not actually living at the property they owned in the Council’s area. The Council refused to take responsibility for the younger son’s education. Mr H provided full information about his circumstances and living arrangements to the Council Tax Service, which accepted that the family were using their Wirral property as their main residence. When the Council’s Legal Department subsequently made enquiries of Mr H, he declined to send it the same information he had already provided, but twice directed it to the Council Tax Section. The Legal Department did not contact the Council Tax Section and the Education Service continued to refuse to take responsibility for the boy’s education.
The Council would not accept responsibility for the boy and did not comply with the law until the Ombudsman began her enquiries. As a result, the boy lost almost a year of education at the school specified in his statement of special educational needs, his parents paid for private tuition, and they experienced stress and anxiety in trying to resolve the issue.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends the Council to:
- accept that it has no justification for its claim not to be responsible for Mr H’s son;
- discuss and agree with the school and the parents whether there is any additional provision that could be made to help their son ‘catch up’ on the year’s schooling that he has missed;
- reserve a sum of money, equivalent to the cost of educating Mr H’s son at the school for a year, in a fund until he has completed year 11 and then deploy the fund on any additional educational provision that the school and an educational psychologist recommend as being beneficial;
- pay Mr H £1,000 in recognition of his anxiety, stress, time and trouble; and
- pay Mr H a further £655 to reimburse private tutoring fees for his son during 2007
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
New tiling blunder hits Bebington Oval pool work
Wirral News - by Carrie Catterall
WIRRAL Council has admitted to another blunder over the new swimming pool at Bebington Oval.
Only weeks after it was discovered the pool would only be built with five lanes instead of six, due to a bungled refurbishment plan, the council has admitted to another error - this time with the tiling of the pool.
In June the News reported that the lane foul-up would mean The Oval could not host competitive swimming again or be used as planned by Olympic athletes ahead of the 2012 London Olympics.
The council has refused to elaborate on the tiling mistake or the cost of rectifying it.
A council spokesperson said: “Retiling work on the pool at the Oval is underway. At a very early stage, an error was identified which is now being rectified.”
WIRRAL Council has admitted to another blunder over the new swimming pool at Bebington Oval.
Only weeks after it was discovered the pool would only be built with five lanes instead of six, due to a bungled refurbishment plan, the council has admitted to another error - this time with the tiling of the pool.
In June the News reported that the lane foul-up would mean The Oval could not host competitive swimming again or be used as planned by Olympic athletes ahead of the 2012 London Olympics.
The council has refused to elaborate on the tiling mistake or the cost of rectifying it.
A council spokesperson said: “Retiling work on the pool at the Oval is underway. At a very early stage, an error was identified which is now being rectified.”
Monday, 3 December 2007
Children and family services - Maladministration causing injustice
Local Government Ombudsman
The complaint
Mr E, a foster carer, complained about a number of issues connected with the placement of two young children with him and his adult daughter for fostering. The children were those of Mr E’s ex partner, and were half-siblings to his adult daughter but no relation to him. The Council placed the children after reports from the children’s father (who was separated from their mother) and others that the children were neglected.
The Ombudsman’s investigation
The Ombudsman found that the Council:
The Ombudsman commented:
“The Council placed two vulnerable young children in the care of [Mr E] and his daughter without even the most basic checks on them, their home and their ability to look after young children. Fortunately [Mr E] and his daughter have proved to be appropriate carers who have apparently done an excellent job in looking after the children who have come to no harm. This is no thanks to the Council.”
Outcome
The Council agreed to pay Mr E and his daughter £10,350 representing the foster care allowance that Mr E should have received. The Ombudsman also proposed that the Council should:
The complaint
Mr E, a foster carer, complained about a number of issues connected with the placement of two young children with him and his adult daughter for fostering. The children were those of Mr E’s ex partner, and were half-siblings to his adult daughter but no relation to him. The Council placed the children after reports from the children’s father (who was separated from their mother) and others that the children were neglected.
The Ombudsman’s investigation
The Ombudsman found that the Council:
- made no checks before it placed the children with Mr E and his adult daughter;
- did not visit the children for several weeks after the placement began, in breach of the fostering regulations;
- gave no financial or other support to Mr E; and
- delayed in arranging a review panel when Mr E’s complaints about these issues were considered through the statutory social services complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman commented:
“The Council placed two vulnerable young children in the care of [Mr E] and his daughter without even the most basic checks on them, their home and their ability to look after young children. Fortunately [Mr E] and his daughter have proved to be appropriate carers who have apparently done an excellent job in looking after the children who have come to no harm. This is no thanks to the Council.”
Outcome
The Council agreed to pay Mr E and his daughter £10,350 representing the foster care allowance that Mr E should have received. The Ombudsman also proposed that the Council should:
- review its practices and procedures to ensure that there would be no repetition of children being placed with carers without proper checks being made;
- conduct an audit of other emergency placements; and
- make quarterly reports to the appropriate Council committee on complaints received under the statutory procedure.
Friday, 29 June 2007
Council 'hugely embarrassed' over mast blunder
Wirral Globe - by Kerry Barker
ANGRY residents called for a police investigation into how four phone masts were given planning permission in a massive council blunder.
Tempers flared last-night as council officials explained the mistakes that will allow phone giant T-Mobile to go ahead with its plans - despite being turned down by Wirral's planning department.
"This was a human, administrative and managerial error and we are hugely embarrassed by this"
Dave Green
At a public meeting at Wallasey Town Hall, more than 50 people demanded answers and applauded Tory councillor Lesley Rennie when she said she could "smell a rat."
The former police officer said that she doesn't believe the blunders were mistakes and thought it was "strange" that four unsent files coincidently related to phone masts.
But director of technical services Dave Green refuted the claims and said he has no reason to suspect foul play.
"This was a human, administrative and managerial error and we are hugely embarrassed by this," he said.
"I don't believe for one second that there was any dishonesty."
T-Mobile's applications for masts in Pensby, Heswall, Moreton and Claughton, were refused by two planning committees after fierce opposition from more than 600 people.
But the council failed to send out the decision notices within the 56-day time limit and did not realise until the company sent an email telling them that they now had deemed consent.
Dave Green said that an investigation into mal-administration is now underway by the Local Government Ombudsman.
"We absolutely messed up and the democratic process has been frustrated by this error. But there is no legal redress for our mistake and now the law is on the side of the operator.
"Our only option is to work with T-Mobile to find alternative sites."
Planning chairman Cllr John Cocker said that he felt equally let down by the "sorry saga" but was met with torrents of angry comments blasting the council as "incompetent."
Pharmaceutical worker Alison Sait from Holt Avenue, Moreton, worked tirelessly to gather signatures on a petition to stop a mast in Moreton Cross before she discovered that an alternative site was planned for her own road.
She said: "I am furious."
"If I make a mistake, I am either sent to jail or sacked.
"I feel completely let down and appalled by this shambolic council that is letting residents suffer for their incompetence.
"This is an absolute disgrace, shame on you all."
Former Conservative, now independent, councillor David Kirwan referred to a similar mix-up in 2001 and called for an independent inquiry for the benefit of the public.
He also expressed his anger when residents were banned from discussing the four alternative sites for the masts, which will go before the planning committee on July 12.
Cllr Chris Blakeley said that T-Mobile are now in a "win-win situation" and the public should be entitled to compensation.
A council spokesperson said: "Cabinet minute makes clear that a full investigation is underway.
"When that is complete, all necessary action will be taken. At this point, there is no suggestion of any criminal wrong doing."
© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
ANGRY residents called for a police investigation into how four phone masts were given planning permission in a massive council blunder.
Tempers flared last-night as council officials explained the mistakes that will allow phone giant T-Mobile to go ahead with its plans - despite being turned down by Wirral's planning department.
"This was a human, administrative and managerial error and we are hugely embarrassed by this"
Dave Green
At a public meeting at Wallasey Town Hall, more than 50 people demanded answers and applauded Tory councillor Lesley Rennie when she said she could "smell a rat."
The former police officer said that she doesn't believe the blunders were mistakes and thought it was "strange" that four unsent files coincidently related to phone masts.
But director of technical services Dave Green refuted the claims and said he has no reason to suspect foul play.
"This was a human, administrative and managerial error and we are hugely embarrassed by this," he said.
"I don't believe for one second that there was any dishonesty."
T-Mobile's applications for masts in Pensby, Heswall, Moreton and Claughton, were refused by two planning committees after fierce opposition from more than 600 people.
But the council failed to send out the decision notices within the 56-day time limit and did not realise until the company sent an email telling them that they now had deemed consent.
Dave Green said that an investigation into mal-administration is now underway by the Local Government Ombudsman.
"We absolutely messed up and the democratic process has been frustrated by this error. But there is no legal redress for our mistake and now the law is on the side of the operator.
"Our only option is to work with T-Mobile to find alternative sites."
Planning chairman Cllr John Cocker said that he felt equally let down by the "sorry saga" but was met with torrents of angry comments blasting the council as "incompetent."
Pharmaceutical worker Alison Sait from Holt Avenue, Moreton, worked tirelessly to gather signatures on a petition to stop a mast in Moreton Cross before she discovered that an alternative site was planned for her own road.
She said: "I am furious."
"If I make a mistake, I am either sent to jail or sacked.
"I feel completely let down and appalled by this shambolic council that is letting residents suffer for their incompetence.
"This is an absolute disgrace, shame on you all."
Former Conservative, now independent, councillor David Kirwan referred to a similar mix-up in 2001 and called for an independent inquiry for the benefit of the public.
He also expressed his anger when residents were banned from discussing the four alternative sites for the masts, which will go before the planning committee on July 12.
Cllr Chris Blakeley said that T-Mobile are now in a "win-win situation" and the public should be entitled to compensation.
A council spokesperson said: "Cabinet minute makes clear that a full investigation is underway.
"When that is complete, all necessary action will be taken. At this point, there is no suggestion of any criminal wrong doing."
© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
Debt team called in on £5m payout blunder
Liverpool Echo
DEBT collectors are to be used to claw back up to £5m of housing benefit wrongly paid to Wirral residents.
A new report into Wirral council finances says the council was still trying to retrieve £4,931,042 because of the blunders.
Some families who were not even aware they were receiving more than they should are now being warned of the consequences of not paying it back.
In 2001, overpayments cost the council £310,312, while in 2002 that amount rose to £541,296.
But the problem has worsened every year and from April 2005 to March 2006 the council overpaid £1.55m in housing benefits.
Wirral council says its problem is in common with otherl authorities.
In a report, director of finance Ian Coleman said: "Every effort is made to recover overpaid housing benefit as soon as it is identified.
"If the claimant retains entitlement to benefit then any over payment is recovered from their ongoing entitlement.
"However, if there is no current entitlement, the debt is invoiced.
"If payment is not received, the invoice is followed by a reminder and final demand.
"If at this point there is still no payment, the debt is referred to the collection agents for collection."
DEBT collectors are to be used to claw back up to £5m of housing benefit wrongly paid to Wirral residents.
A new report into Wirral council finances says the council was still trying to retrieve £4,931,042 because of the blunders.
Some families who were not even aware they were receiving more than they should are now being warned of the consequences of not paying it back.
In 2001, overpayments cost the council £310,312, while in 2002 that amount rose to £541,296.
But the problem has worsened every year and from April 2005 to March 2006 the council overpaid £1.55m in housing benefits.
Wirral council says its problem is in common with otherl authorities.
In a report, director of finance Ian Coleman said: "Every effort is made to recover overpaid housing benefit as soon as it is identified.
"If the claimant retains entitlement to benefit then any over payment is recovered from their ongoing entitlement.
"However, if there is no current entitlement, the debt is invoiced.
"If payment is not received, the invoice is followed by a reminder and final demand.
"If at this point there is still no payment, the debt is referred to the collection agents for collection."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
