Management Group Meeting minutes 12.04.23

Call to order

A meeting of the Management Group of Hoylake Vision Community Planning Forum was held at 21st Amendment Bar on 12.04.23.

Attendees

Attendees: Nigel Blacow (NB), Jon Caswell (Jon C), Maureen Hanson (MHa), Mark Howard (MHo), Tom Hutchinson (TH), Jon Morgan (JM), Andrew Snell (AS), Alex Woods (AW), Philip Barton (Guest)

Members not in attendance

Jade Wright (JW)

Approval of minutes

The minutes of the March meeting were approved.

Management Group Meeting Reports

• Response to Councillor Cox social media comments
  Head of Law Jill Travers had responded and indicated that she had familiarised herself with the history of the issue. She would endeavour to set up a meeting with ward councillors to discuss the issues after the forthcoming elections. Action: MHo to monitor and report back.
  
• Future social media strategy
  TH, AW and JW had been in contact and drafted some high level ideas for social media engagement on Facebook. JC offered to help in an  advisory capacity and would be cc-d on draft postings. AW and TH said that they were ready to start posting. Posts would set out to inform of latest news and to point people to the website, as well as encouraging membership. Posts will generally be factual rather than opinion based. Action: TH, AW, JW, JC to be in contact and move it forward.
  
• Report of MS Teams meeting between MHo, TH and John Entwistle (JE) and Kath Lawless (KL) of WMBC
  MHo and TH presented a short paper review of this meeting, which focused on two planning applications in particular; APP/22/01127 Melrose Avenue and OUT/22/01701 New Hall Farm New Hall Lane. TH had noted that APP/22/01127 Melrose Avenue had appeared on the WMBC planning pages as ‘Decision: Conditional Approval’. TH had spoken previously with the case officer and had pointed out the relevant NDP Policy HS3 at the time. This requires any development within that area to part of a phased masterplan approach which will include public space; therefore if approval is given, the decision would not align with NDP Policy HS3. JE had pointed out that it also says ‘Application: Pending Consideration’, so clarity is needed. KL agreed to check this and accepted that the made NDP policies are a material consideration to be weighed in the planning balance. However, in reference to the emerging Hoylake Masterplan and Design Guide and Codes, which include further detail around how Policy HS3 might be delivered, KL felt that at this stage these particular documents do not have significant weight in planning decisions. Following the meeting, TH and MHo had concluded that, in addition to the Masterplan and Design Guide not yet holding sufficient weight to influence planning decisions, it was also clear that the council are not in a position to help actively drive forward any of the ambitions emerging from the Masterplan or Design Guide and Codes with financial support or officer time at this stage; notably in respect of attracting inward investment and advice on feasibility for any of the ideas. Some conversation took place around this. The council’s focus is clearly on Birkenhead regeneration. PB stated that it is a legal duty of the council to support the forum since the NDP is part of the Local Plan, albeit at a transitional point from the much outdated UDP to the emerging Local Plan. The extant NDP is “made” and therefore NDP policies must be respected. A similar conversation was held about OUT/22/01701 New Hall Farm New Hall Lane, which sits within the Carr Lane Masterplan Area for which approval would risk undermining a range of objectives, priorities and policies in the NDP.
• A proactive approach to potential investors
  Following on from the previous item, in the absence of a clear definition of “council support” in the context, MHo had concluded that whatever the reasons for the council’s position (and there may be a few), the only sensible and pragmatic approach would be for the forum to proactively develop a new approach moving forwards. We will need to “sell” the opportunities identified and supported by the community in the Masterplan and NDP, as the council will not. We need to move from being passive makers of a planning framework to active facilitators and advocates for development schemes that align with the ambitions of the NDP. The was consensus that the time is right to begin to make approaches to potential investors, both direct and via business and planning media, highlighting the major opportunities set out within the emerging Masterplan and NDP. JC felt that this would require creation of a strategy for facilitating high level conversations with the council around the key emerging NDP masterplan projects, including PR. AW suggested a full forum meeting should be called and a presentation given to outline the ideas and rationale for this more proactive stance and to reassure members with concerns about process. AS pointed out that the council and investors will be focused on Return on Investment (ROI). Land ownership and lifting land values is key. Multiple actors may be needed to deliver some of the schemes; this is about making introductions and ensuring projects are delivered in line with NDP objectives, priorities and policies. All of this is ambitious although it is possible. The management group were positive about the approach, but the community and elected members need to be brought on board if it is to progress; ultimately this is about the community having more control over development within the NDP area. Action: Management Group members to hold an extraordinary meeting to plan strategy on Tuesday 25 April. A full members only meeting to be called asap after; ward councillors will be invited.
  
• Timing of Local Plan Examination and NDP
  MHo noted that the Leverhulme Planning Inspectorate appeals and forthcoming Public Enquiry into those decisions (which are not directly related to any Hoylake applications although could impact on all future Greenbelt applications by setting precedent) would further delay production of the Local Plan and therefore the NDP. TH pointed out that the first hearings, at which the forum were scheduled to make a representation on April 18, have been postponed until September as a consequence of Leverhulme submitting new evidence. In the context, it was agreed that anticipating an approximate referendum date for the next iteration of the NDP is clearly not possible, however the delays do give us further opportunity for consultation and development of new NDP objectives, priorities and policies.
  
• Open Day/ AGM Planning
  It was noted that we need to plan the 2023 AGM. AW contacted St Luke’s Church and Saturday 17 June has been provisionally booked. A similar format to the 2022 AGM will be followed, with displays set out on the day for walk-in visitors. The AGM would take place at the end of the day.
• Planning Application Updates
  
  • APPH/23/00135 Chalgrove, 22 Meols Drive CH47 4AQ
    The proposal affecting a ‘Category C’ Building within the Meols Drive Conservation Area, was not considered to be in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, subject to the Council controlling the details. Action: TH to respond saying no objection.
  • APP/22/01853 23 Stanley Road CH47 1HN
    The proposal, within the Meols Drive Conservation Area, is not considered to be in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, subject to the Council controlling the details and ensuring that the existing building is retained in accordance with the Conservation Area Appraisal (‘Category B’ building that makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area). Action: TH to respond saying no objection and to welcome the retention and upgrading of a single family dwelling.
• Update on Conservation Area Funding
  TH was pleased to report that the CA crowdfuning campaign had alread succeeded in raising over £9,000 match funding towards the much needed Conservation Area Appraisal which will inform a new Management Plan. The remaining funds have been pledged by Wirral Council. Action: TH to continue contact with the CA.
  
• Return of Locality Funding NPG-12885
  JM reported that the end of grant form had been submitted to Groundworks. £4,074.70 of the amount originally awarded (£4,400) had been returned. £325.30 had been spent on Design Guide printing costs.
• AOB
  • Library Update
    
    NB reported that following the failure of bids to secure the library building under the ‘Community Asset Transfer’ proposal, the council are offering the library for rent at £22k pa on a seven year lease. It was anticipated that some £50k would need to be spent on repairs. The group expressed concern that the most likely outcome is that the council will seek to dispose of the property in due course on the private market. At this point ACV rules would kick in and community groups would have another opportunity to put a bid together.

Provisional date of next meeting Weds 10 May 2023