Wirral Council plan to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper. Will it fall foul of Pickles’ publicity law?

Wirral Council plan to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper. Will it fall foul of Pickles’ publicity law?

Wirral Council plan to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper. Will it fall foul of Pickles’ publicity law?

                             
A recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee who will consider proposals to spend £22,500 on a Birkenheadcommunity newspaper
A recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee who will consider proposals to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper

Buried among the appendices published ahead of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee on Thursday are two interesting reports.

The first report is the result of a Surveymonkey survey sent out to all residents that Wirral Council has an email address for in the “CH41, CH42 or CH42 postcode” areas. It seems however this is just a typo and residents in CH43 (which covers Bidston & St. James, Claughton, Oxton and Prenton) were also included as I received an email about the survey with the subject “Would you like to receive a community news update?” on 27th February.

Most people responding to the survey stated that what they liked most about the local free newspapers was local news, however question three revealed that around half responding to that question said that they don’t read the local free newspaper as it isn’t delivered to them any more. This answers concurs with statistics in the other report that states that out of the 39,823 households in Birkenhead, 24,962 receive the Wirral News (62.7%) and 22,091 the Wirral Globe (55.5%).

The survey continues with asking what people want they would want included in a “Birkenhead Constituency Committee news update” and the top answer was “unbiased, relevant local news” closely followed by finding out about local services, events and activities.

Interestingly there were also responses about why people didn’t currently read the newspapers from surveys in public locations where people gave responses such as “Council matters only appear if news editors think that they are controversial” and “fed up of hearing about bad people doing bad things and getting away with it”.

When asked about what information they thought should be included in a Birkenhead Constituency Community Newspaper there were a range of responses such as “find out about positive local news and important council information concerning regeneration and development”, “main council committee decisions – with commentary if necessary”, “planning applications”, “proposed road & transport information” but interestingly and this one seems to be a reference to Labour Rose/Lib Dem Focus “but not of councillors’ photographs at places where council work has been done at their behest”.

Not unsurprisingly not one of the questions asked residents if they thought that spending £22,500 of taxpayer’s money for three editions was a good idea. What is proposed is a pilot of three editions over six months (each edition being bi-monthly) of an eight page publication (whether it would be colour or black and white is not mentioned). It’s stated that “It will be non political and inform people of news they are interested in.” Quite how it will manage to write anything about Wirral Council that people are interested in (which means the more controversial political news), yet remain “non political” remains to be seen. The long term aim is to have advertising from “public sector partners”, grants and “appropriate advertising” cover its costs for future editions.

It will be edited by Lairdside Community Together, who will be recruiting an apprentice to work on it through Wirral Metropolitan College. Interestingly it won’t be delivered by paid deliverers but by volunteers with ward councillors suggesting an organisation in their ward (sports clubs and scout groups are mentioned in the report). These organisations would then receive “an incentive”.

However the future is not looking particularly rosy for such Council run publications. Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP is not as keen on them as the Birkenhead Constituency Committee. In approximately a week (30th March 2014) s.39 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 on the code of practice on local authority publicity comes into force. This section gives Eric Pickles the legal power to tell Councils off who aren’t complying with the “Code of practice on local authority publicity” and force them to comply. This section also allows the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP to create a new law making it a legal duty for all local Councils to comply with the Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

So what is the Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity (which also comes with an explanatory memorandum and how could the proposed Birkenhead Constituency Community Newspaper fall foul of it?

Section 2 of the code makes it quite clear that it applies to such publications “The code therefore applies in relation to all decisions by local authorities relating to paid advertising and leaflet campaigns, publication of free newspapers and newssheets and maintenance of websites – including the hosting of material which is created by third parties.”

Section 4 outlines some principles applying to “publicity by local authorities”. These are that it should be cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate and “be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity”. I think that last bit refers to the period in the lead up to elections.

Going back to what somebody wanted in such a newspaper being “main council committee decisions – with commentary if necessary” section 15 would appear to rule that out “Such publicity may set out the local authority’s views and reasons for holding those views, but should avoid anything likely to be perceived by readers as constituting a political statement, or being a commentary on contentious areas of public policy.”

Section 28 is specifically about such newspapers, restricts their frequency to quarterly and restricts what can be put in it “Local authorities should not publish or incur expenditure in commissioning in hard copy or on any website, newsletters, newssheets or similar communications which seek to emulate commercial newspapers in style or content. Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, newssheets or similar communications, they should not issue them more frequently than quarterly, apart from parish councils which should not issue them more frequently than monthly. Such communications should not include material other than information for the public about the business, services and amenities of the council or other local service providers.”

Section 34 bans such publications in the lead up to elections “During the period between the notice of an election and the election itself, local authorities should not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views or proposals in such a way that identifies them with any individual members or groups of members. Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published by local authorities during this period unless expressly authorised by or under statute. It is permissible for local authorities to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.”

As it states in the explanatory memorandum “Council newspapers, issued frequently and designed to resemble a local newspaper can mislead members of the public reading them that they are local newspapers covering council events and give communities a biased view of the activities of the council.” There’s also the concern that such publications (as this one is expected to be funded after the first three issues through advertising) will take advertising away from local newspapers and make them less financially viable.

So I’m starting a poll to see what readers think about the community newspaper proposal ahead of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee on Thursday which will consider it.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

What are the reasons why Wirral Council plan to consult on closing Lyndale School?

 

What’s interesting is how Julia Hassall’s (Wirral Council’s Director of Children’s Services) reasons to consult on the closure of Lyndale School have changed over time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxt7NLR2biU#t=13m46s
Julia Hassall addresses the Cabinet (16th January 2014). What’s quoted below starts at 13:46.

Julia Hassall said to Cabinet, “The reasons for considering consulting on closure of the school are set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report. Closure of the school is being proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll which does contribute to a difficult financial position.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_QKYyKwJkQ#t=2m05s
Julia Hassall talks to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February who were reviewing the Cabinet’s decision starting at 2:05.

Julia Hassall said to the Coordinating Committee, “The report that was presented to Cabinet on the 16th January was seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School. The report set out the background saying that local authorities have a statutory duty to make sure that there are sufficient places in their area and there’s fair access to educational opportunity to promote every child’s potential.

The reasons why in the report we’re considering the closure of the school is because of the viability of the school was compromised because of its small size and falling roll which both contribute to a difficult financial position and I think as you said Chair [Cllr Steve Foulkes] earlier, this is not in any way because of the standard of care and education within the school which is good and in many aspects outstanding.”

Interview (BBC regional news) 18th March 2014

In an interview Julia Hassall said, “The quality of care and education is really good at this school but there are concerns about whether we can sustain this school going forward” (source interview (ITV regional news) 20th March 2014).

However two days later she seemingly has a complete volte-face on funding or financial reasons being the reason for consulting on closing Lyndale.

Interviewer: This is all about saving money for the Council, isn’t it?
Julia Hassall: It’s absolutely not about saving money for the Council or balancing the Council’s books.
Voiceover: Julia Hassall is Wirral Council’s Director of Children’s Services.
Julia Hassall: If, and it’s very much if Lyndale School closes, the Council does not benefit in any way.
Voiceover: The Council also say that Lyndale children would be well looked after if they had to move to another school.
Julia Hassall: Both of the other schools could care adequately for these children and educate them properly. They’ll need to make some changes and adjustments. We absolutely will not put these children in settings where their needs are not properly met.
Voiceover: A consultation on the future of Lyndale School will start next month, the Council say they are minded to shut it down. The parents will continue their campaign to keep it open.

Below is a copy of page three of a handout at the Coordinating Committee meeting on the 27th February deciding on the call in to consult on closing Lyndale School which explains

LYNDALE SPECIAL PRIMARY SCHOOL, EASTHAM

SURPLUS FORECAST FOR 2014/15
Following a further cost saving exercise (re non teaching staff costs) recently approved by the Governors, & on the basis that the Minimum Funding Guarantee is to be applied, a small surplus is now forecast for 2014/15 & the cumulative deficit at 31/3/15 is now forecast to be approx £18,000, rather than the cumulative £72,000 included in the January Report to Cabinet. Savings from this reorganisation of approx £70,000 per annum, will continue in future years.

AGREED PLACES ALLOCATION
Following the independent reviews undertaken by Eric Craven in 2012, the Governors consider that the appropriate number of places to be allocated to School (as required to be agreed with the Education Funding Agency) to be 28.

TOP UP FUNDING
As detailed in the submissions to the recent consultations, the Governors consider that the currently proposed level of Band 5 Top Up funding of £16,000 per pupil to be insufficient to fund the necessary support required by these children. (As you will be aware, the Governors response to the 2013 consultation considered that the Band 5 Top Up funding should be £27,500 per pupil to adequately cover the various & complex needs of these most vulnerable children. Please also note that the Full Time Equivalent cost of a teaching assistant currently stands at just over £21,000 per annum.)
To this end, the Governors consider it essential for an impartial assessment of the needs of each individual pupil to be undertaken, from which the appropriate level of funding should follow.

PUPIL SAFETY
In view of the Band 5 assessed pupils’ lack of mobility and complete vulnerability, the Governors consider it essential for the children to be educated in a completely safe environment and the current proposals do NOT meet this necessary requirement. It is more cost effective to invest available capital funding in making relatively minor changes to the existing Lyndale premises rather than making significant changes to the newly rebuilt Stanley School or Elleray Park (which is already planned to expand, but purely to adequately deal with their existing pupil numbers.)

EDUCATION
The Governors and staff have always aimed to make Lyndale a Centre of Excellence for the education of PMLD pupils and the current proposals would be detrimental both to the considerable staff expertise which has built up over the years and to the group of available supply staff who provide the necessary support ensuring the best for our children.
Ian D Harrison F C A
Vice Chair of Governors, Lyndale School
26th March 2014

So if anyone could leave a comment detailing the reason (or reasons) why Wirral Council is planning to consult on closing Lyndale School it would be appreciated!

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Wirral Council show how “open and transparent” they really are

Wirral Council show how “open and transparent” they really are

Wirral Council show how “open and transparent” they really are

                         

I received this letter today from Wirral Council’s Chief Executive Graham Burgess (links to scans of each page and the envelope it came in with a handwritten “PRIVATE” on it are below).

(Wirral Council logo)

Graham Burgess
Chief Executive

Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
Merseyside CH44 8ED
Tel: 0151-691 8589
Fax: 0151-691 8583
Email: grahamburgess@wirral.gov.uk

date 21 March 2014

to Mr J Brace
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH

my ref GB0075.DOC/DC/35.7
your ref

Dear Mr Brace,

I refer to your request for an Internal Review.

I have reviewed your request and also considered the information in question, namely the minutes of the Standards Working Group relating to this meeting held on 17 December 2013.

I am the Chief Executive and the Reviewing Officer when an FOI request is refused and the Council has relied on Section 36. As such I have taken each of the points you have raised and addressed them below:-

1) The minutes of the Standards Working Group have been provided to an FOI request previously, without claiming a FOI exemption (see Paul Cardin’s request here

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/minutes_of_standards_working_gro#outgoing-257823

Response – Each request is reviewed and answered in accordance with the Freedom of Information and any other associated legislation. If a document is already available in the public domain, then the Council will signpost the requestor to it. The report requested above by Mr. Cardin was already in the public domain.

2) Agenda items 3 (Disclosing Information Reports Under the New Standards Regime) and agenda item 4 (Review of the New Standards Regime) of the meeting referred to in 1) both included “deliberating on matters relating to the Council’s Ethical Framework and considering changes to the framework” yet was also published on Wirral Council’s website at http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50010511/Minutes%2004022013%20Standards%20Working%20Group.pdf (see Standards Committee meeting agenda of 18th March 2013 http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId-127&MId=4203#AI21234.

Response – The information contained within the documentation which has been refused to you is not identical in nature to the information which was published at the hyperlinks you have highlighted above.

Once the Standards Working Group has completed its work, consideration will be given to the disclosure of the Minutes. The Working Group is currently undertaking important work and disclosure of the Minutes at this time would likely to have a “chilling effect” which “would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice”.

3) Surjit Tour is also the Monitoring Officer and therefore in this capacity would be advising the Standards Working Group meeting of the 17th December 2013. He states that the minutes cannot be supplied because they “would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice”. As he is the one advising the Standards Working Group this represents a conflict of interest. There are two qualified persons at Wirral Council able to give an opinion on a Section 36 exemption, Surjit Tour and the Chief Executive, Graham Burgess. Due to the conflict of interest outlined, it should have been the Chief Executive giving his opinion on the Section 36 exemption not Surjit Tour.

Response – I do not agree that Mr Tour had a conflict of interest when responding to your enquiry. As the Monitoring Officer it was appropriate and correct that he should be the person to answer and decide to rely on Section 36. It is then my role, as the Chief Executive, to act as Internal Reviewer in this particular case.

4) It is stated “there would likely to be a “chilling effect” which would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views between members of the Group, and disclosure would undermine the ability of the members of the Group and those advising the Group to express themselves openly.” As outlined in the minutes referred to in point 2, Members of the Standards Working Group are not referred to by name in the minutes, and therefore it is not possible from the minutes to ascertain the views of individuals in the Group. The only person referred to in the minutes of the previous meeting (by job description) is Surjit Tour. Due to the conflict of interest in giving a reasonable opinion that a Section 36 exemption applies in relation to his own advice, if a Section 36 exemption is claimed by Wirral Council in relation to this FOI request, it should have come from the other qualified person (the Chief Executive).

Response – As mentioned in my response to point 3, I do not agree with your view that Mr. Tour had a conflict of interest in giving a reasonable opinion.

5) It is stated in the response that “Reports from the Standards Working Group would be considered by the Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee, which is subject to the access to information requirements.” The next Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee following the Standards Working Group on the 17th December 2013 was the 6th January 2014. However a report from the Standards Working Group of the 17th December 2013 was not on the agenda of that meeting. The next Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee after that was the 6th February 2014, however that meeting has been cancelled and postponed to the 24th February 2014. It is therefore wrong to imply that a report of the Standards Working Group meeting forms part of the agenda of the next Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee meeting.

Response – Your comments have been noted.

6) Only qualified persons (the two at Wirral Council are Surjit Tour and Graham Burgess) can give an opinion on a Section 36 exemption. The opinion given finished with “Sent on behalf of Surjit Tour”; therefore it is unclear whether it is his opinion or the opinion of the person who is sending the communication on his behalf. If it is the latter then the person giving the opinion is not one of the two qualified persons to do so rendering it invalid.

Response – The reply contains the opinion of Mr. Tour; however the reply was sent from the email address of Jane Corrin and copied to the Council’s central FOI email address for monitoring purposes. As you have rightly stated it is only the Monitoring Officer or the Chief Executive of the Council who can make a decision with regards to the application of Section 36.

After giving due consideration to the request you made, the original response from Mr. Tour and also the points you raise in your request for an Internal Review; I have concluded the following:-

I concur with Mr Tour that the information you requested is exempt information by virtue of Section 36 of The Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is my considered and reasonable view as Section 36 can be relied on if disclosure would/would be likely to;-

(b) Inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views; or

(c) Otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs

As you are aware, Section 36 requires the qualified person to give their reasonable opinion that disclosure would or would be likely to cause the types of prejudice or inhibition listed above. This was clearly stated in the original response you received. Guidance was also considered from the Information Commissioner’s Office, “prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36), Version 2, 22 March 2013.

As was pointed out in the original response, the Standards Working Group is not a formal committee or sub-committee of the Council, it has advisory status only. I agree with the view taken by the Monitoring Officer that releasing the minutes of the Standards Working Group meeting of 17th December 2013, would indeed inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the exchange of views.

The Group were considering and debating the Council’s Ethical Framework and given views as to whether any changes should be put in place with regard the framework. Members of such groups must be, I believe, given a ‘safe space’ for deliberation of these important issues.

My reasonable opinion is that the minutes should not be disclosed and I need to be satisfied, as Chief Executive, that there exists the opportunity for free and frank provision of advice/exchange of views within the Group to ensure sound decision making. I am of the opinion that to disclose the minutes would undermine the ability of members involved to engage in a free and frank discussion on important issues such as the Council’s Ethical Framework. I have considered the public interest test factors, given in the original answer in favour of disclosure and in favour of none disclosure. Having considered this test afresh, it is my considered and reasonable opinion that the reasons/argument previously articulated are valid and robust. I am satisfied that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest for disclosure.

If you remain dissatisfied with this response, then you have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner, whose address is

Information Commissioner’s Office.
Wycliffe House,
Walter Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF
www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely

(signature)

Graham Burgess
Chief Executive

Envelope
Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

                       

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Planning application (APP/14/00011:Great Meols Primary School, Elwyn Road, Meols, CH47 7AP: Erection of a sports hall and relocation of store buildings) starts at 2:45 in the video above

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 20th March 2014 twelve councillors vote to refuse planning application for sports hall at Great Meols Primary School one abstains
Twelve councillors on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes) vote to refuse a planning application for sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

Sheila Day explained the reasons why officers were recommending this planning application was approved. She explained that it was for a sports hall and for moving a storage building. The sports hall had the potential for community use. Sports England response to being consulted on the application had been that its size with only one court and lack of changing facilities would limit its potential for use by the community.

The proposed height of the sports hall roof was seven to eight metres, however there was an amended design for the roof different to the original application. It would be at least forty-five metres away from the nearest houses with greater separation distances in other directions.

A condition proposed limited the use of the sports hall on Monday to Friday from 7am to 9.30pm, Saturdays 9am to 6pm and no use at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays without the prior approval of Wirral Council. Wirral Council’s traffic and transportation division had no objection to the application on highway safety grounds. There was a qualifying petition of fifty-three residents opposing the application being granted.

A Robert Davidson of 23 Guffets Rake, Meols addressed the Planning Committee on behalf of the petitioners. He described the area the site was in as a “residential area” and referred to policies HS15 (Non-Residential Uses in Primarily Residential Areas), RE1 (Criteria for Urban Recreation Facilities) and RE10 (Criteria for Community Centres and Facilities).

He quoted from the report which stated “The scale of the proposed sports hall is considered appropriate to surrounding two-storey dwellings” and disagreed with this opinion as in his view it was of an inappropriate scale. Mr Davidson asked the Planning Committee to look at a photo of the existing school buildings which were all at a low-level and built with traditional residential materials.

Mr Robert Davidson was also concerned about a change in ground levels between the school and housing and described the proposed sports hall as a “featureless rectangular box” with “industrial cladding” that looked like it was “straight off an industrial estate”. He did not feel it had any place in a residential landscape. Mr Davidson said that the school had started as a village school and that fourteen previous planning applications for the school were unopposed. The local residents had asked the school to compromise by reducing the height and changing the materials used. However the school had refused to do this.

Mr Davidson referred again to policy RE1 (Criteria for Urban Recreation Facilities) and quoted from section two that “the proposals would not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise or other disturbance, particularly to areas of residential property”. He referred to the proposed condition limiting its use, however access to the school would be along small residential roads. The school was surrounded by housing and was a quiet environment when the school was closed and at night there was darkness and silence.

In his view, the community use of the sports hall would be the opposite of this as it could be permanently open with noisy aerobics classes and cars coming and going. He referred to the view expressed in the report by an environmental health officer that any noise or light pollution could be dealt with under existing environmental health legislation. Mr Davidson felt however that this should be addressed as part of the planning process. He urged the Planning Committee to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it was not of an acceptable scale and design and finished with a quote from the architect for the Shard (Renzo Piano) “Architecture is a very dangerous job. If a writer makes a bad book, people don’t read it. But if you make bad architecture, you impose ugliness on a place for a hundred years.”

The applicant chose not to address the Planning Committee, however a ward councillor for Hoylake & Meols Councillor John Hale did. He referred to the “excellent summary” by the petitioner and also referred to policy HS15 (Non-Residential Uses in Primarily Residential Areas).

Councillor Hale said that HS15 allowed small scale developments in residential areas, but only ones that had no detrimental impacts on the character of the area or the amenities of the occupiers. The proposed height of the sports hall was twice the height of the existing buildings and a little higher which Cllr Hale described as an “alien feature” like the buildings found on an industrial estate. In his view it was out of character for that residential area.

He felt that the community use of the sports hall and the resulting noise meant that it couldn’t comply with policy RE1. Although the residents expected noise form the school during the day from children, noise in the evening was a different situation. The school was a local amenity appreciated by the residents but he felt that as the maximum age of the children at the school was eleven that all that was required was a single storey building as a sports hall. Cllr Hale said that very few children he knew could hit a shuttlecock higher than the height of a normal ceiling. His objection was to the Planning Committee approving an application for a “monstrosity” in a residential area.

Cllr Tony Norbury asked what the reason was for the height of the sports hall? Sheila Day replied that the height was a recommendation by Sports England as it would be used for badminton. Cllr Simon Mountney asked to see elevations of the proposed buildings. Cllr David Elderton said that he lived about half a mile away from the school and that he had lived in the area since the 1950s. In his opinion it was of a “grossly intrusive industrial style” and based on what he’d seen on the site visit would affect the visual and local neighbourhood amenities. He said he was all in favour of facilities but that it was a “bridge too far”, “too big” and that he’d prefer they go away and come back with something more sympathetic. Cllr Elderton said he would be voting against approval.

Cllr Christina Muspratt asked why they were no changing facilities? Sheila Day answered that the school had existing changing facilities elsewhere on the site. Cllr Phil Brightmore described the sports hall as “huge” compared to the surrounding buildings. Sheila Day replied that the officer’s opinion was that the height of the proposed sports hall was similar to the heights of the surrounding houses.

Cllr Eddie Boult asked what the extra height added to the existing building would be if planning application for the sports hall was approved? As it was a sloping roof on the sports hall an officer answered that it would be an extra 3.5 metres at one end and 2.5 metres at the other. Cllr Eddie Boult said he had listened to people’s point of view and was proposing refusal of the application based on his view that the height and bulk of the building was unsympathetic and that it affected the amenities of the surrounding area contrary to policy HS15. Cllr Simon Mountney seconded refusal of the application.

Twelve councillors voted to reject the application (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes). No councillors voted against refusal but Cllr Anita Leech abstained. The planning application for the sports hall was refused.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Mark Latham of Wirral Street Pastors tells Wirral’s councillors graphic stories about Birkenhead’s boozy night life

Mark Latham of Wirral Street Pastors tells Wirral’s councillors graphic stories about Birkenhead’s boozy night life

Mark Latham of Wirral Street Pastors tells Wirral’s councillors graphic stories about Birkenhead’s boozy night life

                       

Mark Latham from Wirral Street Pastors told councillors on Wirral Council's Licensing Act 2003 Committee about his experiences of Birkenhead's night life and alcohol (19th March 2014)
Mark Latham from Wirral Street Pastors told councillors on Wirral Council’s Licensing Act 2003 Committee about his experiences of Birkenhead’s night life and alcohol (19th March 2014)

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The presentation by Wirral Street Pastors starts at 1:39 in the video above.

Councillors on Wirral Council’s Licensing Act 2003 Committee yesterday listened to a brief talk from a Mark Latham of Wirral Street Pastors about what Wirral Street Pastors do on a Friday evening and Saturday morning in Birkenhead. Mr. Latham said that he would give a quick overview of what Wirral Street Pastors do and what they are and hoped from that that the councillors would glean valuable information.

He said that his role as coordinator was to try to develop a better relationship between local government, Wirral Council and the police. So far he had had meetings with the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside (Jane Kennedy), Rt Hon Frank Field MP, Rt Hon Esther McVey MP, Cllr Ian Lewis and Emma Degg (a couple of times). Mr Latham said that these meetings were to bridge the gap between what the Wirral Street Pastors do and what they see.

He explained that street pastors started ten years ago when they saw a need that people in the night-time economy were drinking, being drunk and that there were lots of problems relating to those things such as fighting, antisocial behaviour, violence and crime in general. Mr Latham said that Wirral Street Pastors did the same as what other street pastors across the country did and that they were out on Friday night around Birkenhead patrolling the streets, making sure people were safe and making sure particularly vulnerable individuals got home safely.

The example of a young girl on her own was given and he said that one of his team (which were made up of female and male individuals) would stay with them and either ring their parent or a friend or get them into a taxi to make sure they get home safely. Wirral Street Pastors also gave out free flip-flops to ensure that women who had taken their shoes off don’t stand on broken glass or the general filth that’s on the streets.

In addition to free flip-flops Wirral Street Pastors also give out bottles of water and space blankets to the homeless and people who’d had one too many to drink. The aim of this was to hydrate them so that the taxis would take them. He said that some people were so drunk that taxi drivers refused them rides as the taxi drivers were concerned that these people would throw up in the back of their taxi.

Mr Latham said that the average cost to the National Health Service of a drink related incident was £4,000. He said every pair of flip-flops that they gave out meant that that person wasn’t standing on broken glass requiring an X-ray which would cost the taxpayer money. For every fight that the Wirral Street Pastors had broken up, every antisocial behaviour incident that was simmered down put less of a strain on police resources.

He said that they had a standard operating procedure with the police that allowed Wirral Street Pastors to engage with people allowing the police to concentrate on what they needed to do. Mr Latham said the Wirral Street Pastors dealt with the homeless who they gave space blankets too as well as signposting them to the Wirral Churches Ark Project, ARCH Initiatives and other agencies.

Mark Latham gave an example of somebody having their head stamped on a fortnight ago was given, Wirral Street Pastors stayed with him until the ambulance turned up and that he was fortunate that Wirral Street Pastors had been with him “because he would have been dead within about half an hour” because he was losing consciousness.

He told councillors about another person who was “roaming round”, who was “suffering from mental illness” that the Wirral Street Pastors “got back on his medication” and dealt with his needs. Mr Latham said that most of the time that the Wirral Street Pastors were just there to make sure people are safe and to be a listening ear. He referred to Cllr Ian Lewis coming out with the Wirral Street Pastors recently and that Cllr Ian Lewis could relate his experiences of that to the other councillors on the Licensing Act 2003 Committee. Mr Latham said that the Wirral Street Pastors were engaging with the community, the neighbourhood and the people who were out in the night-time economy. He said that there was much more to it than he had outlined, but he was happy to take questions from councillors.

The first question was from Cllr Harry Smith asking if the Wirral Street Pastors were connected to a church and whether they wore any special gear when they were out at night. Mark Latham replied that they had a uniform that they had to wear which was a DayGlo duotone blue jacket. He said that it was a condition of their insurance that they had to wear these uniforms but also so that they were identifiable and that the police knew who they were. He said that the Wirral Street Pastors are a Christian organisation. He said there were various inter denominational churches across the Wirral that were involved.

Mr Latham said that the Wirral Street Pastors were the only recognised ministry by the police and that the reason why it was recognised was because it wasn’t proclamation, that the Wirral Street Pastors didn’t go out preaching but they were just there to help people. He added that the Wirral Street Pastors were a highly trained group of individuals that had “police training”.

Cllr John Salter asked who the Wirral Street Pastors got funding from? Mark Latham answered that they don’t and that all volunteers paid £300 each to do it. Although it was supported by the Home Office, their standard operating procedures were “signed off by Scotland Yard and the Home Office” that that was the entirety of their involvement. He said that the national statistics were fed back regularly to David Cameron, but that the only funding they got was what they received from individuals as well as grants from Christian organisations.

Cllr Andrew Hodson asked how many Wirral Street Pastors there were in total and how many were out on the streets? Mark Latham answered that there were fifteen. He said that they went out every Friday night in teams of four (two men and two women) starting at half past ten at Charing Cross and finish at four.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.