"Destination Kirkby" Public Inquiry

[Babaloo]

From the Liverpool Times - a flavour of the polemic

BBC Radio Merseyside, The Media and Knowsley MBC

One of the main hallmarks of new labours favourite borough is its obsession with media manipulation.

This has its origins in the formative years of the political and managerial stranglehold imposed by Sir David Henshaw & its then Council leader J Keight. 1989 – 1999.

Both were given carte blanche by new labour, that ensured political and local government corruption/malpractices flourished without fear of reprisal.

The murky land deals – overseen by current Council leader Round have been well publicised. While the authorities charged with enforcing and upholding standards in public life have also been neutered by new labour.

With all this in place Henshaw and Keight set about controlling and curtailing the reporting of the every day happenings of Knowsley Council.

The Councils “press and media office “ was given higher levels of funding than nearby Liverpool City Council. In recent times Knowsley’s media budget was £1.5/7 million, compared to Liverpool’s £350,000. Not a single Councillor has ever challenged this largess.

Our friends in the Audit Commission were clearly not troubled to ask why a small borough - population 150.000 - needed to spend nearly five times more on news and media than a major UK City ( Liverpool ) with a population of over half a million !

The Liverpool Echo were drip fed a permanent diet “good news stories “ and their journalists “encouraged “ to stay away from Council meetings.

Having instead to rely on the Council handing down sanitised versions of anything that might be of public interest. Everything else was buried in the secretive labyrinth of committees Henshaw set up to push through the £75,000 unsecured loan to a councillor: the variety of questionable land deals: and the covering up of payola to his eventual deputy: and the arranged burying any trace of the £75,000 unsecured loan to Cllr Edward Grannnell a Kirkby bag carrier for Council leader James Keight JP !

Certain excellent Liverpool Echo journalists were often bullied by the Council if they reported stories they had researched and written themselves. The Kirkby Sports Centre : Sonae : and the Kirkby/ Huyton divide are but a few.

One popular source of news and back chat about the goings on in Merseyside is the Phillips phone- in on Radio Merseyside.

Hosted by the erudite Roger Phillips, it has gained a formidable reputation as the Merseyside No 1 soap box for the people of Merseyside to get the angst off their chests.

Roger hosts the show with aplomb. However in recent years the show has also become the soap box for Knowsley Council’s Chief Executive’s to spin away the contentious issues their own back yard.

Chief Executive’s David Henshaw, 1989-99 – Stephen Gallagher 1999- 2005, and Sheena Ramsey 2005 to date, have been regulars on Roger’s programme. Surely it would be better to have had elected Councillors question their officials in Council committees under the gaze of any interested media, just like they like they do in the House of Common’s select sub committee’s when they hold the executive to account. What’s the difference ? Liverpool City Council do it this way as well.

No other Councils on Merseyside are allowed, or would politically be permitted , to go on Radio Merseyside as much as the Knowsley gaulieters

All this has ensured Knowsley Council’s citizens were kept in the dark about the real goings on inside the Council, they are instead bombarded with the Council spun rag ” The Challenge “ that urges use all to sing Amen Corner’s Hit
“ If Paradise Is Half as Nice “

Whilst Roger Philips is a highly civilised and decent person he should not have allowed himself to be recruited and paid by Knowsley Council for the QA video distributed to every Council owned household in the borough extolling the housing stock transfer in 2000.

The extreme right wing new labour government had threatened to starve local Councils of housing investment funds unless they privatised their housing stock

The Council used Roger’s street cred to get a yes vote on the stock transfer. This move was strongly opposed in Kirkby, who voted by a majority of 68% against the transfer.

These wise people accurately foresaw the ending of municipal housing that is the main reason why we now have the worst social housing shortage since the second world war.

Roger has also been recruited and paid by the Council to give the Councillors media training at their twice yearly policy seminars at the Park Royal Hotel Warrington. Don’t all laugh !

What Roger taught them is questionable as Knowsley Councillors rarely give media interviews, and always have their names attached to press stories that have been written for them by their Stalinist like press office.

Councillor Round and all the MPeeeeeeez. or Cllr G. Wright slumped in the chair on BBC North West’s “The Politics show “ talking gibberish ! Its embarrassing.

In essence anyone working for the BBC- and therefore paid by the taxpayer - ought to be careful who they do a spot of moonlighting for.

Certainly working on the side for a Council like Knowsley, whilst holding an important media position with the local BBC, could give rise to perceptions about partiality.

As Radio Merseyside always refer to – Kirkby, Huyton, Prescot, Halewood, and Cronton as “ in Knowsley “ in their news bulletins, this looks a dead giveaway !

Is this not a key council aim - to “promote “ the borough !

Before New labour (BNL ) the local BBC wouldn’t have batted an eyelid to expose low life behaviour in Knowsley MBC. We can recall the national coverage given when a new labour top cat, Cllr M. Kearns, gave Liverpool Crown Court a character reference for a convicted paedophile. This at a time there was national newspaper campaigns to protect our children and isolate the perpetrators of this heinous crime.

Radio Merseyside’s Shari Vahl was superb in reporting this abuse of public office. This followed the splendid traditions of: Julia Harding : Ian Mann : and Linda Mc Dermott: who dealt with the local BBC news agenda in the 70s 80s and 90s. BNL !

Ironically Knowsley Councils best two Chief Executives never gave media interviews, despite one courageously bringing in the Police when the Tempest corruption allegations hit the headlines in the mid 1970s.

And the other, who sorted out one Derek Hatton when he abused a privileged work contract of £12,000 a year for a 16 hour week in the mid 1980s.

It would be fair to say that the non declarations by Councillors selling land to their own political party: and the secret drawing together of undervalued land deals by Cllr Keight JP and Cllr Round JP, would never have happened when Chief Executives were independent public servants of the highest integrity. ( BNL )

Take a bow Donald Willgoose OBE – and Richard Penn both head and shoulders above their three successors at Knowsley Council

If the Liverpool based media covered the shenanigans of the Council’s, and if the Council Chief Executives upheld standards, would there be any need for the Liverpool Times?

[Keayman]

Roger phillips always claims that his phone-in is listener driven and in fact Billy Butler comes onto his show at 1.45pm each day to advertise what he will be talking about from 2pm onwards and always goads Phillips about him getting all the footy calls instead of or as well as Alan Jackson on the evening phone-in, This in consideration of Phillips own self admittance that he knows very little about footy. Phillips claims he has no control over what people phone in to talk about and in fact Warren Bradley and plenty of others of organisations such as KEIOC and those in favour of a shared stadium have aired their views just as much.

[Babaloo]

Tesco man put on the spot at inquiry

Nov 21 2008 by Richard Down,
Trinity Mirror North West

A PLANNING inspector has questioned whether Everton FC and Tesco’s joint £400m plans for Kirkby are based on “sound urban design principles”.

Paul Jackson, who deputised for the unwell Wendy Burden yesterday, quizzed the superstore’s planning expert on the quality of the Destination Kirkby plans. He referred to Knowsley council officers’ own judgments put before members of the planning committee last June. Mr Jackson read the conclusion of the committee report, which said: “Officers are disappointed that the design does not incorporate stronger urban form based on sound design principles. Within the development, the design and quality of the landscaping and public realm, while creating some points of visual interest, disappoints when measured against sound urban design principles and the expectation of policy.”

He then asked John Francis, in his third day of providing witness for the club and supermarket chain: “Weren’t you concerned by this? Do you accept there are set backs in terms of urban design?” Mr Francis said this was just one viewpoint and was not accepted by Tesco and Everton.

But Mr Jackson continued to probe, asking whether the criticism levelled at the scheme by Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment’s (Cabe) was accepted. Mr Francis said: “The comments were given without a knowledge or key understanding of Kirkby’s needs. I don’t accept their comments that this is a wasted opportunity.”

Mr Jackson went on to point out that a significant part of Mr Francis’s witness evidence, as well as the opening statements supplied by the applicants, spoke of the run-down and disjointed nature of the existing town centre.

He questioned whether the regeneration plans would materially change this.

The planning inspector said: “You have talked about a lack of heart in the old town but where will the heart be once the redevelopment has finished?” Mr Francis pointed to a revolutionised crossing that will be developed between the new south “edge of town” development and St Chad’s Square, in the current shopping centre.

The major superstore and the landmark stadium would be visible from here, he said, marking out a step change in the appearance of the town.

But Mr Jackson said: “There doesn’t seem to be any relationship in an urban design sense to the old town centre. They (the landscaping features and layout of the junction) don’t seem to relate to the importance you have said this junction has.”

Mr Francis argued that it would become a focal point. He said the design would, in fact, revitalise the appearance of the town.

richarddown

Good work by Mr Jackson.

[Doug Roberts]

Kirkby May 1948, it looks as though a stadium was always in the planning for the Kirkby newtown and a lot closer to the station, which makes sense. Although it looks like a municipal sports stadium and not fit for league football it does cover a big area that may have been ok for development in the future.

[Blue Lou]

It did have a stadium on Valley Road until recently, it's been knocked down.

[Tony Sebo]

just imagine, if they had done the right thing and left it all as farmers fields then we wouldn't be facing this dilema today!

[Babaloo]

None of the 'new towns' should have been built. People should have been rehoused in the area they came from. Utter madness. Of course, it did have the effect of shipping a predominantly Catholic population out of the city. Coincidence eh?

[paulmac35]

but they had no choice really. 850,000 people crammed into bomb damaged 40 square miles. something had to give. what should have happened was the overspill estates such as Netherton and Ford (for Bootle), Kirkby, Canny Farm, Huyton, Whiston, Halewood, etc should have been incorporated into the city proper. if they were starting now with a blank canvas that is what would happen. I agree though that the far off distant new towns of Skem, Runcorn and Winsford should never have been built. As these totally overwhelmed the small existing old towns that already existed in these areas and caused much resentment.

[paulmac35]

Originally Posted by Blue Lou

It did have a stadium on Valley Road until recently, it's been knocked down.

i belive that was knocked down to be used as a car park for the new Everton stadium. the leisure centre they replaced it with is not a patch on it. i remember i played footy there a few years ago and it felt like you were playing at Wembley!

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by paulmac35

but they had no choice really. 850,000 people crammed into bomb damaged 40 square miles. something had to give. what should have happened was the overspill estates such as Netherton and Ford (for Bootle), Kirkby, Canny Farm, Huyton, Whiston, Halewood, etc should have been incorporated into the city proper. if they were starting now with a blank canvas that is what would happen. I agree though that the far off distant new towns of Skem, Runcorn and Winsford should never have been built. As these totally overwhelmed the small existing old towns that already existed in these areas and caused much resentment.

The immediate post-war housing crisis was only part of the problem. The planners decided in the 1950's to eventually bring the city's population down to the 500.000 mark, a catastrophic mistake from which the city has never recovered. The resulant loss of thousands of small and medium sized busineses,indigenous to the city,were replaced with branch plants of nationals and multi -nationionals. The first whiff of a downturn/industrial relation problems and they were off. The city centre was to be down sized,people were even moved out of the city region altogether(Winsford) As we have been repeated told by successive councils,the city has an infrastructure for 1 million people but this is not reflected in government funding. The city is still paying the price,literally for those mistakes in 1950's and 60's.

[paulmac35]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

The immediate post-war housing crisis was only part of the problem. The planners decided in the 1950's to eventually bring the city's population down to the 500.000 mark, a catastrophic mistake from which the city has never recovered. The resulant loss of thousands of small and medium sized busineses,indigenous to the city,were replaced with branch plants of nationals and multi -nationionals. The first whiff of a downturn/industrial relation problems and they were off. The city centre was to be down sized,people were even moved out of the city region altogether(Winsford) As we have been repeated told by successive councils,the city has an infrastructure for 1 million people but this is not reflected in government funding. The city is still paying the price,literally for those mistakes in 1950's and 60's.

Totally agree. When metropolitanisation was created in 1974 they had the chance to bring back into the city a couple of hundred thousand overspill scousers (Knowsley for one, was then 199,000 on its inception) but chose not to. All other cities (except Manchester and Glasgow) got back most of their citizens in this measure. I think it was deliberate policy to keep Socialist Liverpool down from its real status as being in the 2nd tier of British cities alongside Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester, but relegate it to below even the likes of Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield in the pecking order.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by paulmac35

Totally agree. When metropolitanisation was created in 1974 they had the chance to bring back into the city a couple of hundred thousand overspill scousers (Knowsley for one, was then 199,000 on its inception) but chose not to. All other cities (except Manchester and Glasgow) got back most of their citizens in this measure. I think it was deliberate policy to keep Socialist Liverpool down from its real status as being in the 2nd tier of British cities alongside Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester, but relegate it to below even the likes of Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield in the pecking order.

There are a few conspiracy theories around about post-war Government led planning policies in Liverpool. I think it's fair to say that mistakes were made at a local level but what responsiblity lies with Central Government is a bit harder to nail down. I think the New Heartlands programme can illustrate this ambiguity. Why has Merseyside been chosen as the largest Pathfinder/New Heartlands programme in England, much larger than anywhere else, on the face of it appears to be a housing policy to address housing market failure but if you study the proposals it looks more like social engineering. Ultimately the result of this policy will see a further substantial fall in the population long term but Sefton,Liverpool and Wirral are all gleefully implementing it.

[paulmac35]

Hook, line and sinker I think is the expression! Have you seen the size of the new properties around Queens Road for the "expelled" families from around there. I went in one the other month and I could barely fit through the door! Make no mistake about it, all those roomy 1890's Victorian properties around there are being demolished for no other reason but to expel families from the area, and to line builders and corrupt council officials pockets!

[Tony Sebo]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

The immediate post-war housing crisis was only part of the problem. The planners decided in the 1950's to eventually bring the city's population down to the 500.000 mark, a catastrophic mistake from which the city has never recovered. The resulant loss of thousands of small and medium sized busineses,indigenous to the city,were replaced with branch plants of nationals and multi -nationionals. The first whiff of a downturn/industrial relation problems and they were off. The city centre was to be down sized,people were even moved out of the city region altogether(Winsford) As we have been repeated told by successive councils,the city has an infrastructure for 1 million people but this is not reflected in government funding. The city is still paying the price,literally for those mistakes in 1950's and 60's.

absolutely spot on.

[Neilsatiscitycentre]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

The immediate post-war housing crisis was only part of the problem. The planners decided in the 1950's to eventually bring the city's population down to the 500.000 mark, a catastrophic mistake from which the city has never recovered. The resulant loss of thousands of small and medium sized busineses,indigenous to the city,were replaced with branch plants of nationals and multi -nationionals. The first whiff of a downturn/industrial relation problems and they were off. The city centre was to be down sized,people were even moved out of the city region altogether(Winsford) As we have been repeated told by successive councils,the city has an infrastructure for 1 million people but this is not reflected in government funding. The city is still paying the price,literally for those mistakes in 1950's and 60's.

Another reason for the depopulation of our cities at that time would also be the fear of a nuclear war during the cold war years of the 1950's and 60's. A policy in the US was adpoted to move away from tightly packed European style cities to the urban sprawl we see today. The reason for this was so that casualties would be less in case of a nuclear strike. I would imagine there was similar thinking here too.

[paulmac35]

Maybe.But they seemed to really gut out the likes of Liverpool and Glasgow and ship out their citizens to everywhere. Socialist Cities (and i don't mean New Labour!) with attitude and fight. It can't be no coincidence.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Tony Sebo

absolutely spot on.

Pinching your clothes there Tony,got the branch plant stuff off you a while back. It's a fact if we hadn't have emptied the city of thousands of local busineses in the 1950's and 60's we wouldn't have the freefall decine we experienced later(the city was never just about the port) those busiinesses created wealth which remained here,unlike the branch plants which were tempted in with grants for the "New Jerusalems" of Kirkby,Runcorn,Skem and Speke.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Neilsatiscitycentre

Another reason for the depopulation of our cities at that time would also be the fear of a nuclear war during the cold war years of the 1950's and 60's. A policy in the US was adpoted to move away from tightly packed European style cities to the urban sprawl we see today. The reason for this was so that casualties would be less in case of a nuclear strike. I would imagine there was similar thinking here too.

It's a possibilty but it doesn't explain why other major cities didn't suffer this planning policy. Newcastle,Leeds and Sheffield have more or less retained their populations post-war(Leeds has actually artificially increased it) Sheffield even with a major slum clearance has the same population it had in the 1950's,its inner core population wasn't halved like Liverpool. Another possible explanation is what Paul has alluded to,although i'm not sure about the Socialist theory because Liverpool and Manchester had predominately Tory representation in the 1950's but ...i do think there was at least an element in these policies of a perceived threat of social unrest. High density populations of lower socio-economic groups in the central core are now deemed undesirable. I do remember clearly in 1981 when the riots were on,the Police were told to make sure the rioters didn't get in to the city centre.

[Keayman]

You're of course right in suggesting we keep those lovely large Victorian properties in favour of the Wimpey paper thin matchboxes but you'll upset Bay city as they're just fuel poverty traps to him.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Babaloo

None of the 'new towns' should have been built. People should have been rehoused in the area they came from.

Areas? Yes. Districts? Difficult indeed. The world was changing and changing fast. Income and education levels were rising rapidly (except in our house ). People wanted superior homes and clean environments to live in. All of Scotland/Netherfield Rd could not stay in that area.

There was also this idea of low density open clean environments too, with fast transport to the centre and wide motorways for the coming influx of millions of cars - the car was the prime transport of the future with other forms complimenting. That is how they saw the future, and who are we to criticise their vision at the time.

Utter madness. Of course, it did have the effect of shipping a predominantly Catholic population out of the city. Coincidence eh?

A good thing too. The religious divide of north Liverpool, and the violence that occasionally erupted, had to be split up. Everything must be done to totally eliminate that.