Sefton Council tonight (Wednesday night) is making a last ditch effort to cover its lawbreaking over conservation.

In a move described as 'half-baked desperation' by town centre Councillor Tony Dawson, this month's Sefton Council Planning Committee which will discuss the Lord Street and Promenade Conservation Area option appraisals has been moved to Southport Town Hall from its pre-planned Bootle venue.

Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 states that it is the duty of the council:

"from time to time to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of .. .conservation areas, that . . ." such proposals "​​​SHALL b​e submitted for consideration to a public meeting in the area to which they relate" and that the Council then . . "​SHALL have regard to any views concerning the proposals expressed by persons attending the meeting" in deciding how it proceeds.

​Councillor Dawson, who has a record in exposing past costly unlawful acts by the Council says: "I have notified the occupying forces in Bootle that the lack of a public meeting on these Conservation Area proposals is not only unacceptable, it's unlawful. Do I expect any change? Do me a favour."

​The Council held 'a couple of events' in the summer where they made planning officers available by appointment to talk about its Conservation ​Area proposals. But, as Councillor Dawson has pointed out to Council officers in recent weeks that such events in no way come anywhere near satisfying the clear requirements of the law.

Controversially, the Lord Street Conservation Area appraisal draft suggests that Council departments should co-ordinate more closely over matters such as 'paving' which affect the Conservation Area. This includes the 50-odd year constancy of red road surface of Lord Street, introduced to make Southport special as only the second street in the UK surfaced in this manner, which was ripped up a couple of weeks ago along with the tradition which went with it. The other street was The Mall' in London outside Buckingham Palace.​

"Such co-ordination would be an admirable idea," says Councillor Dawson. ​"It's just a shame that the Council's left and right hands don'd communicate with each other."​

"​I​f ​such communication​ ever happens, it will be shutting barn doors after the horse has bolted. The decision to turn Lord Street from red to black was deliberately made totally in private, knowing that it was highly-controversial, by a single Bootle Labour councillor without any consultation or even information to the people of Southport or their elected representatives. as to what was going on and why. Then, no one at all was told about the decision for several months."

Councillor Dawson wrote last month to the Director of Planning of the Council: "On the face of it, the above outline of consultation process does not appear to conform with the Council's legal requirement. I cannot see any appointment-based system (which caters for individuals rather than interactive communities) fulfilling the Council's responsibilities under the Act. ​"There remains ample opportunity to hold a public meeting in the Lord Street area​. . .and the Promenade Conservation Area.​"​

​As to what constitutes a 'public meeting' in law, in 1998, Lord Chief Justice Carswell in the
Court of Appeal case of McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspapers Ltd ruled​:

​"It is in my opinion necessary to incorporate the public element inherent in the concept of a public meeting in a manner which affords a satisfactory means of distinguishing it from a small private gathering. ​. . . what distinguishes a private gathering from a public meeting is the presence of a nexus between those organising the meeting and those taking part.

​"​A public meeting must be open to the public, in the sense that a general invitation to attend is extended to the public at large, either generally or with some restriction."

Then, in 2000, in giving Judgment in the same case in the House of Lords, Lord Bingham of Cornhill ​ruled: "A meeting is public if those who organise it or arrange it open it to the public or, by issuing a general invitation to the press, manifest an intention or desire that the proceedings of the meeting should be communicated to a wider public. Press representatives may be regarded either as members of the public (as made clear by the language of paragraph 10 of the Schedule) or as the eyes and ears of the public to whom they report. A meeting is private if it is not open to members of the public and if it is not intended that the proceedings of a meeting should be communicated to the public, unless perhaps by the body which holds the meeting."
​
"A meeting is public if those who organise it or arrange it open it to the public or, by issuing a general invitation to the press, manifest an intention or desire that the proceedings of the meeting should be communicated to a wider public. ​. . . A meeting is private if it is not open to members of the public and if it is not intended that the proceedings of a meeting should be communicated to the public, unless perhaps by the body which holds the meeting."

​Responding to Councillor Dawson, Stuart Barnes, Sefton Council's Head of Planning says that the Council believes that it is behaving according with 'the spirit of the law" over the way that it has treated its appraisal of Southport's two main conservation areas. Councillor Dawson's response is, in the words of John Patrick McEnroe:

"You cannot," he says, "have a 'spirit of the law' which conflicts directly with the letter of the law."

​"Sefton Council does not want Southport people discussing threats to Southport heritage - or indeed anything else which matters to the town's residents -​ in Southport. Period."

" A 'public meeting' is an interactive event in which members of the public take an active part having been invited to take part. Sitting silent in the audience of a meeting discussing something you have miraculously stumbled across is not a public meeting in reality or in law and the Council must fully know this."

"​I shall not be at the Planning Committee myself, being still recuperating many miles away at altitude in respect of a severe respiratory condition​. I do hope, though, that some of the councillors present at Southport Town Hall on Wednesday will give some scrutiny to the process of what is being 'passed off' as well as the detailed highly-useful contents of the officers' report."

More self promotion from the disreputable independent.

Asthma symptoms can be relieved by altitude but oxygen deprivation can also cause confusion as demonstrated by the above piece.

Originally Posted by roving-eye

​Councillor Dawson, who has a record in exposing past costly unlawful acts by the Council says: "I have notified the occupying forces in Bootle that the lack of a public meeting on these Conservation Area proposals is not only unacceptable, it's unlawful. Do I expect any change? Do me a favour"

Terribly written press release, reads like he’s been on the Cherry Brandy! Cllr Dawson has a record in divisive politics, fighting with Southport councillors and the wider Sefton Council, all of which probably holds Southport back. As for

occupying forces

the usage of the word underlines that he feels we are alway at war with the council an attitude that does the town no good so maybe if he can’t make it work the favour should be given and he steps aside to find someone who has the skills and attitude to make Sefton work for Southport

Recovering at high altitude? Dawson has his head in the clouds as per usual.