At the most recent Liverpool Council meeting it took a suspension of standing orders and a full blown argument for a concerned resident to be allowed to speak about a serious issue. And Liverpool Mayor Wendy Waller was the one who was dead set against allowing it.
Now, I am all for following meeting protocol and for the council meeting running appropriately. But when an issue comes up that local people are concerned with and a resident expresses a reasonable desire to speak on it they should be allowed to.
In this case it was the suspected contamination in Wattle Grove. Residents Roy Carter and Peter Langsam are concerned about the potential dangers of old armaments, lead residue and other potentially dangerous chemicals remaining in the soil of the area from when it was a Defence Department shooting range.
Mr Carter and Mr Langsam both arrived at the meeting to see if they could speak, but when they were told by council officers that they couldn’t Mr Carter left early. They were told that they could not speak in the speakers forum because the subject they wanted to broach was not ``listed on the council agenda’’, but they said they thought that because Councillor Jim McGoldrick was asking questions with notice about the matter, which appeared in the agenda, that the item was listed. They were informed that this was not the case and if they could have been eligible to speak in the public forum if they had registered a week in advance. This seems to be a technicality to me.
And it is understandable how the men made a mistake. After all how were they supposed to know that the questions with notice, which appear in the agenda document, are not actually part of the agenda? I have to admit, I could have easily of made that mistake too, despite it being my job to cover council matters, as could have the majority of people in the community.
But despite this minor error, the issue they sought to speak on was actually very major. After all, what could be more important than the health and safety of Liverpool’s residents and that’s what the concerns of contamination are all about after all. What would it mean for the residents of the suburb if say the area is contaminated with lead? There’s a range of health problems that could arise from that.
Now, it seems very unlikely that the area is contaminated. It is supremely dubious that both the Defence Housing Authority and the developer Delfin would fail to adequately decontaminate and remediate the land which was to be used for a new residential suburb and endanger the lives of future residents. It also seems doubtful that the council would take on the responsibility for the area if there was any suspicion that it wasn’t cleaned up properly. We are living in Australia after all and I know we all like to think that things like that don’t tend to happen here. And I think that in general we’re right.
But then again, of course, there is a chance of it being true. And since residents are worried it would be a good idea to check.
After all when St Marks Coptic Orthodox College was being built in the suburb a large pile of spent armaments were located on the site, despite the area previously being decontaminated by Defence and Delfin. So maybe they left more of these old shells around?
All of these fears came to light after a basketball court located on Australis Avenue in Wattle Grove started subsiding into the ground and lost part of its green surface. Mr Carter called me with the worry that this meant there was a lead plume underneath the court. He called on the council to investigate the matter fully by referring to old paperwork on when the area was remediated and taking core samples throughout the suburb.
So far the council has confirmed that officers have done ``visual assessments’’ of the site and are planning to take some ``soil tests’’ soon. But generally, neither council officers, the general manager or the mayor have been very forthcoming with information or comment about the whole issue. Ms Waller said to me that she doesn’t think many residents are actually concerned, apart from Mr Carter and she doubts that the proper care wasn’t taken when the area was decontaminated. Also, she implied that some residents just want to get their names into the papers and if its not one issue it’s another. General manager Phil Tolhurst said that the council is testing soil in the area and he does not want to comment until he gets more information. And official council media responses on the issue haven’t been more than one sentence. So that leaves me wondering if there is more to it.
Also, this week I tried to get in touch with Defence and Delfin to get more information on how and when the land was decontaminated. But unfortunately neither agency had any information on it, quite miraculously, if you ask me. Both said it all happened a long time ago (in fact it was only ten years ago) and they didn’t have any paperwork (that doesn’t sound like any company or government department I’ve heard of before!) and both advised me to contact council (oh wow, I hadn’t thought of that!). Anyway, all in all it was a very frustrating exercise. And not very productive.
So in short I understand how the residents feel. They haven’t been getting any answers during their previous enquiries and they’re concerned that the health of their families and neighbours is in danger.
So it was understandable why they were so eager to speak. They wanted to push council into giving them more answers. Into actually listening to how important the issue is to them.
So why was there so much reluctance to allow them to speak? Doesn’t the mayor want to hear what her constituents have to say?
Councillor Tony Hadchiti said this week that the mayor isn’t interested in what residents have to say. And that she’s trying to push controversial and contentious issues under the rug as much as possible. That she’s placating people and trying to diminish the significance of issues that may be of a concern to the public.
Ms Waller says her reasoning in the way she handles controversial issues is she doesn’t want to create panics, blow things out of proportion and generally wants to paint Liverpool in a positive light. She also says that what she’s doing first and foremost is following council protocol, while others on council and in the community don’t understand how the protocol works.
All of these points are very admirable and after all the councillors criticisms of her could well be political.
But too many residents seem to be of the same opinion. The locals of Hoxton Park are still in the middle of a court case over the council’s decision about a Muslim school in their area. Hundreds of people living in that suburb swear the mayor and the council did not listen to their concerns about traffic in the area and how much worse it would become if the school were to be built. But the school was still approved and they say their concerns were not listened to. And I have to say, their arguments are very valid, its not racism in disguise as some people have said.
The streets in Hoxton Park, really are unbelievably narrow and at a complete standstill during peak times. And the block the school is proposed for really is very small, as they've said.
So there are some very valid reasons to be concerned. And they should have been listened to more carefully.
It's making me wonder: this an overall council policy, are councillors really failing or refusing to listen to locals? If they aren’t listening that is very dangerous for the area. And it has to stop.
After all, these are publicly elected people who were put into their positions to represent local people. They are supposed to listen to what the people want so they can represent them. Especially the mayor, after all she is our highest elected official, if anyone should be listening to Liverpudlians it should be her.
And while a lot of residents concerns and arguments against proposed developments may not have solid foundations, it is up to the council to take note of them and investigate them fully. After all, if there is contamination in Wattle Grove, or the planning for the Hoxton Park Muslim school is inadequate, or a multitude of other accusations are true, the council could end up in big trouble, again.
So it’s best not to try to avoid hearing locals out, but rather look into their concerns and do so thoroughly.
***In the last Eye on Council post I said that the whole council voted to sponsor the Chipping Norton Stakes races at Warwick Farm, which was held last weekend, even though Councillor Mazhar Hadid opposed the decision due to an opposition to gambling. This week Cr Hadid corrected me and said he voted against it, due to his objection. Just to make it clear, I meant that the majority of councillors voted in support of the race, but I should have made it more clear that Cr Hadid put in a very clear no vote.***
Email a friend