Highways and Traffic Representation Panel | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Wirral Council: It's time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making

Wirral Council: It’s time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making

Councillor Tony Smith at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Lyndzay Roberts

Well Emma Rigby has beaten me to it by about six to seven hours about the special Cabinet meeting on the 17th December 2014 is to decide on the future of Lyndale School.

The special Cabinet meeting to discuss the future of Lyndale School is now down to meet in Committee Room 1 in Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe starting at 6.15pm. It’s a public meeting so anyone can attend. The agenda should be available around the 10th December. However many of the reports that will be on the agenda have already been published either as part of the consultation or for previous Cabinet meetings on this subject.

I’m glad it isn’t the other special meeting of Cabinet next week which will be about something else.

I’ve done a bit of thinking about the consultation, officer advice and councillor decision-making on the subject of disability issues ahead of Friday’s meeting of the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel.

The constitution of Wirral Council states that councillors have to take on board the responses to a consultation and officer advice when making decisions.

What used to happen was a consultation would be agreed. It would run for x weeks or xx weeks, then there’d be a further public meeting at which all the consultation responses were published and the matter discussed.

Now what seems to happen at Wirral Council is this (not just over Lyndale but other matters).

A consultation on whatever change or policy issue is held running from date x to date y.

Following the end of the consultation (date y) Wirral Council employees read through the consultation responses. They then pick out the bits out of the responses they want to and put them in a report. In fact, as the ideas expressed in this report won’t be attributed back to the consultation respondees in academia it would be classed as plagiarism.

Once they’ve cherry picked the bits of the consultation they want to respond to, they’ll include a summary of them in the report, but alter the responses by including a response from officers.

Often these responses will state how the people responding (although they raise valid points) are somehow wrong and the recommendation consulted on should just be agreed (by councillors).

Councillors never see the consultation responses, nor do the public. Some consultation responses people with publishing capabilities (for instance individual councillors or political parties) are published during the consultation.

So what eventually happens is politicians just see a one-sided report written by officers, with brief references to the consultation responses but with more in the report stating officer’s advice than the actual consultation responses.

Naturally anything inconvenient brought up in the consultation, or points raised that officers don’t have a clever answer to gets left out of the public report.

Those who responded to the consultation (if they’re lucky) turn up to the public meeting where this is decided. If by some minor miracle one of the people responding to the consultation actually gets permission to speak at the meeting from the Chair.

Usually they are told they can’t speak as Article 21 although signed up to by Wirral Council was never implemented in their constitution. Although people do have a legal right (in the Human Rights Act 1998 c. 42) to freedom of expression, they will be told they can’t speak either. In an authority that gets annoyed with the press for filming public meetings what do you expect?

In my opinion, it’s a terrible, terrible way to run local democracy and make decisions. It leads to widespread resentment of certain politicians (and Wirral Council employees) and makes people think it’s terribly unfair. Maybe it suits some people though.

It means you have a two tier system. Those with the education, resources and/or connections can get their voice heard on any issue they want. Everyone else (even if they’ve responded to a consultation) just gets lost in the crowd.

It’s something I find personally very wrong about Wirral Council democracy and needs to change as a matter of urgency.

Take both Liverpool City Council and Chester West and Chester as examples. In both cases people can table questions at certain public meetings and speak at public meetings even if they’re not councillors or employees of the organisation.

On Wirral, especially since the abolition of the Area Forums, the public seem to have been written out of the political process. OK they get a vote (or two votes next year), but that’s about it. In many places people know their vote won’t make a difference to the outcome leading to apathy.

The rest of the time (outside of elections) the public are politely ignored by politicians who know they only need to get a minimum of 42% of the votes of the people who do vote to get re-elected under the first past the post system. It’s led to a situation where senior Wirral Council officers and senior politicians have too much power and the checks and balances just aren’t even there or ain’t working.

When the checks and balances are used (such as call in) councillors are just accused of playing party politics for actually holding other politicians to account!

Nothing will change unless the people demand it. Even then the politicians will probably get excuses from the employees as to why changes can’t be made. Even the unions seem to be having a hard time.

I despair of Wirral Council politics at times, I really do! The fallout from what’s going on affects my workplace too. However it’s time to come up with a plan to bring about change and to carry it out. I know the press from a balance perspective aren’t really supposed to have an opinion on matters other than freedom of speech/freedom of expression/the media.

However it’s time to point out that although there are always the elections in May 2015 that the fundamental nature of how Wirral Council makes decisions is either broken, fundamentally flawed or being routinely abused by those with vested interests in maintaining their power base.

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

The many reasons I’m objecting to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road

Public notice of proposed traffic regulation order (9th July 2014) Wirral Globe Birkenhead Market Service Road

I’d better point out than along with Leonora we are both objectors to this proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This is about item three (OBJECTION: PROPOSED WAITING & LOADING RESTRICTIONS – BIRKENHEAD MARKET SERVICE ROAD, BIRKENHEAD). The report and map is already on Wirral Council’s website.

Previous articles on this matter can be read at:

Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road (25/9/14).

http://johnbrace.com/2014/09/17/a-meeting-with-2-wirral-council-officers-about-parking-behind-birkenhead-market-and-disability-issues/ (17/9/14)

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking (8/8/14)

Below is my submission (in the interests of openness and transparency) to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel that meets on the 21st November 2014 starting at 9.30am.

CC:
Cllr Michael Sullivan
Cllr Steve Williams
Cllr Dave Mitchell
Mark Smith
Ken Abraham
Vicky Rainsford

Subject: Agenda item 3 (OBJECTION: PROPOSED WAITING & LOADING RESTRICTIONS – BIRKENHEAD MARKET SERVICE ROAD, BIRKENHEAD) Highways and Traffic Representation Panel Friday 21st November 2014

Dear all,

As one of two objectors to the proposed TRO for Birkenhead Market Service Road, I am announcing my intention to speak at this meeting.

I have received a letter through the post detailing the date and time of the meeting. I’m also (although you may have guessed this) going to film agenda items 1, 2 and 3.

Leonora (the other objector) may wish to speak too. However as I have had time to read the report, published yesterday there were some points I wish to raise in advance of the meeting in order that officers (and councillors) are given appropriate advance notice of the points I will raise.

I refer to the original numbering of the report.

3.4 “objector’s” should read “objectors'” as there are two of us.

3.5 Although access to Birkenhead Market Service Road can travel through Birkenhead Bus Station, as you can see from the map this is one of two ways vehicles can access the Birkenhead Market Service Road. Therefore it’s misleading to imply that people in the Birkenhead Market Service Road must have come through the Birkenhead Bus Station.

It would be useful if officers could clarify which designated bays they are referring to and what specific longer observation periods they are referring to.

3.6 Both The Grange and The Pyramids (except on a Sunday) charge for parking.

Here is the detail of blue badge spaces at the other car parks referred to (total number of spaces in brackets):

Europa Square 14 blue badge (150)
Oliver Street 6 blue badge (16)
Conway Street (on street) ~6 (6)
Burlington Street unknown

Policy SPD4 (which I’m sure councillors who are currently or have been previously on Planning Committee are familiar with) state minimum numbers of spaces for vehicles carrying disabled people as follows:

1 in the first 10 spaces should be allocated for disabled people. Thereafter 1 in every 20 spaces or 6% of the total (whichever is greater).

Applied to the Europa Square car park of 150 spaces using Class A1 – Retail this is:

first ten spaces: one space
other 140 spaces: seven spaces
Total: eight

However 6% is the greater. Depending on how you calculate the 6% (whether 6% of 150 or (6% of 140)+1) it either comes out as either 9 spaces or 9.4 spaces (rounded up to 10).

However the number of blue badges issued to the Wirral population (visitors can also use their blue badges) is higher than 6% putting pressure on existing spaces in Europa Park. On the day of the site visit with officers, there were no free Blue Badge spaces available in the Europa Park car park (out of 14) and this is pretty typical of how it is during the times the shops are open.

I quote:

“Officers consider there are sufficient parking spaces within existing Council and privately owned car parks in close proximity to the Market Hall to accommodate any overspill of blue badge holder parking from Birkenhead Market Service Road.”

In order to know that you’d have to do a traffic survey of how many spaces are free in car parks in close proximity to the Market Hall, how many of those spaces are blue badge spaces and actually know how many park in the Birkenhead Market Service Road currently with a blue badge. As far as I know (although I may be wrong) this is merely based on an opinion of officers without doing a survey. Many of the “sufficient parking spaces” are unsuitable for those with disability as disabled people if they parked in the regular spaces would not have enough room around their vehicle (especially if parked adjacent to a car) to safely get in and out of their vehicle.

3.7 Of course the Birkenhead Market Hall isn’t going to object to a traffic regulation order it’s actually funding half of the cost of. Individual traders were told by officers at the site visit that the proposals wouldn’t affect their customers unloading and loading, just parking. The traders haven’t been individually consulted and unless they read the notice on the lamppost, or found out by other means they just won’t be aware of this proposed TRO. Even if they did object, they might not know how to go about it. Bear in mind the proposals weren’t available to view in the Conway Street One Stop Shop just across the road, but were a considerable distance away at Wallasey Town Hall, Seacombe.

3.8 There are various points in the Birkenhead Market Service Road (as you can see on the plan) that are much narrower than others. Cars (or other vehicles) parked there or near there (unlawfully) can be causing an obstruction to the free flow of traffic. Although Wirral’s CEOs do not have powers to remove vehicles, the police do. Wirral’s CEOs can issue tickets (which hopefully act as a deterrent).

3.9 This is an acknowledgement by officers that the draft TRO (as consulted on) cannot be decided by the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.

It is unclear from what is put in the report exactly what modifications officers are proposing to the proposed TRO. However what is clear is that only the original TRO has been consulted on (twice) and not the modified TRO.

The requirements in regulation 9 cause a public inquiry held by an inspector to be held if the requirements in regulations 9(3) to 9(5) are met.

To summarise these are (subject to paragraphs 4 and 5) for orders if:

(3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), this paragraph applies to an order if—

(a) its effect is to prohibit the loading or unloading of vehicles or vehicles of any class in a road on any day of the week–

(i) at all times;
(ii) before 07.00 hours;
(iii) between 10.00 and 16.00 hours; or
(iv) after 19.00 hours,

and an objection has been made to the order (other than one which the order making authority is satisfied is frivolous or irrelevant) and not withdrawn; or

(b) its effect is to prohibit or restrict the passage of public service vehicles along a road and an objection has been made to the order in accordance with regulation 8–
(i) in the case of a road outside Greater London, by the operator of a local service the route of which includes that road; or
(ii) in the case of a road in Greater London, by the operator of a London bus service the route of which includes that road or by London Regional Transport.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph 3(a), an order shall not be taken to have the effect of prohibiting loading at any time to the extent that it—
(a) authorises the use of part of a road as a parking place, or designates a parking place on a road, for the use of a disabled person’s vehicle as defined by section 142(1) of the 1984 Act;
(b) relates to a length of the side of a road extending 15 metres in either direction from the point where one road joins the side of another road,

unless the effect of the order taken with prohibitions already imposed is to prohibit loading and unloading by vehicles of any class at the time in question for a total distance of more than 30 metres out of 50 metres on one side of any length of road.

(5) Paragraph (3) does not apply to an order —

(a) if it is an experimental order;
(b) made under section 84 of the 1984 Act (speed limits on roads other than restricted roads); or
(c) to the extent that it relates to a road which forms part of a priority route designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 50 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (designation of priority routes in London).

(6) In this regulation “public service vehicle” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

As you can see from the above, even if the loading bays in the proposed TRO are modified to apply to all vehicles and not just goods vehicles, it’s the stretches it restricts of >30m in 50m stretches around the Birkenhead Market Services Road that are the problem. Without these being also taken out of the proposed TRO the requirement for a public inquiry by an inspector still applies.

Neither the TRO consulted on, nor the changed TRO can be decided by the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel because of Regulation 9.

3.10
The exceptions referred to in officer comments in relation to vehicles driven other than by the blue badge holder for the purposes of picking up the blue badge holder don’t as far as I can see form part of the consulted on TRO.

4.1
Even if in theory a TRO was granted, without enforcement it wouldn’t result in any change. There are plenty of loading bays and plenty of time deliveries will happen and there will be a goods vehicle already in the space they wish to load or unload. Whereas it can be inconvenient for drivers of large lorries to try and drive down the Birkenhead Market Service Road, the vast majority of vehicles there are connected to the market stalls or the Pyramids/Grange. Going one way to the Birkenhead Market Service Road, the Birkenhead Bus Station provides greater challenges to the drivers of goods vehicles than the Birkenhead Market Service Road itself in my opinion.

5.1
There are options that have not been considered these are:

A) Consulting on the modified TRO. In fact consultation is a requirement of Regulation 8 (Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996). The new proposals would also have to be published in a local newspaper (Regulation 7) and there would have to be a period for objections.

What’s interesting is the modified TRO officers propose hasn’t been consulted on, therefore can’t be decided by the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.

B) Having a public inquiry chaired by an inspector on the proposed TRO (Regulation 9, 10 & 11). Again this would require a notice in a local newspaper and 21 days notice.

Lastly I would like to request that item 3 (which is this item on the agenda) it taken ahead of item 2 as both Leonora and I planned to attend the meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority starting at 11.00am.

In order to get to that meeting, we will be able to stay at a meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel no later than 10.15am. Therefore it is important that the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel starts promptly at 9.30am and that is part of the reason why I am submitting this information in advance so that agenda item 3 can be dealt with quickly.

I realise this may inconvenience the objector to agenda item 2, however I cannot see it as being possible to deal with both agenda items in 45 minutes based on previous experience of Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meetings.

Thank you for reading this,

John Brace

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

Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road

Public notice of proposed traffic regulation order (9th July 2014) Wirral Globe Birkenhead Market Service Road

Below is our objection to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road. If you wish to also object the closing date is Friday 26th September 2014. A copy of the plan of which parts of the Birkenhead Market Service Road will be affected by the proposed Traffic Regulation Order can be downloaded from here. These plans are provided under the “fair use” provisions for news reporting in s.30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 c.48 and have already been provided to the public but are copyrighted by Ordnance Survey.

Surjit Tour,
Wallasey Town Hall
Brighton Street,
Seacombe
CH44 8ED

134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral
CH43 7PH

Dear Surjit Tour,

Your reference: KO (proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road)

Below are our objections (from both John and Leonora Brace) to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road which is being consulted on (the consultation closes on 26th September 2014).

The public notice for the proposed traffic regulation order was first published in the Wirral Globe on the 9th July 2014 with a closing date for objections of the 1st August 2014. However as a copy of the proposed order, Council’s statement of reasons and map had not been made available to the One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Seacombe when we visited on the afternoon of the 9th July 2014, it was agreed that in order for the Council to comply with the Regulation 7(3) of SI 1996/2489 that a further public notice would appear in the local press (with the necessary documents being sent to Council offices for inspection by the public during the consultation period).

This notice was published in the Wirral Globe on the 3rd September 2014. A meeting was held on site to discuss the proposed traffic regulation order on the afternoon of 17th September 2014 at which Leonora Brace, John Brace and two Wirral Council officers were present. This meeting gave an opportunity for both sides to discuss the outstanding objections we had to the readvertised traffic regulation order and to observe levels of parking in the area of the Birkenhead Market Service Road at that time.

The reasons behind the proposed traffic regulation order were explained to us by officers. The effect of the traffic regulation order (if agreed) would be to prevent parking by Blue Badge holders, as all of Birkenhead Market Service Road that was not a loading bay would have a “No waiting and no loading at any time” restriction (known as double yellow lines with kerb blips which prevents parking by Blue Badge users).

If agreed, it would displace those drivers with a Blue Badge that can park there for up to three hours to elsewhere in the area of Birkenhead Market. Although Blue Badge users can park in Council car parks without any restriction on length of stay, at the time of the site visit the nearest Blue Badge spaces in the Council car park next to Birkenhead Bus Station were all in use.

The Pyramids multi-storey car park was referred to by officers both by email and during the site visit as a potential solution to the displaced parking that would result, however it was confirmed to me by a member of the Pyramids staff that although parking there is free on a Sunday, that during Monday to Saturday a charge is made for parking. We were both told that the Pyramids Shopping Centre is one of the two bodies that are funding this traffic regulation order (the other being the organisation that runs the Birkenhead Market Hall).

During the site visit, one of the stall holders at Birkenhead Market expressed concern over the potential effect on his customers. It was clear there was confusion about the proposed traffic regulation order and there had been no consultation with each stall holder at Birkenhead Market to explain the proposed changes.

Individual stall holders have a sublease which allow them to park for up to an hour in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. Their rights are detailed in the sublease between Birkenhead Market Limited and Birkenhead Market Services Limited (which is defined in the lease as an overriding lease) and the obligations towards stallholders are specified in section 1.1 (Right to use half width of access road) and 1.2 (Rights over Market Loading Bays). There is also a lease between Wirral Council and Birkenhead Market Limited dated 31st July 2003.

Some stall holders are also in receipt of a Blue Badge, therefore can now park in some stretches of the Birkenhead Market Service Road for up to three hours. However if the proposed traffic regulation order is agreed, these disabled stall holders will be restricted to only the hour they are now granted under the sublease.

During the period of consultation on this traffic regulation order, a car parking review was undertaken by councillors which reported back to councillors on the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on Monday 22nd September 2014. One of the recommendations to a future Cabinet meeting agreed at that meeting was “Cabinet approves the following ‘Objectives’ and ‘Principles’ which should provide a guiding framework for any future Car Parking strategy.” which included the following objective relevant to this objection:

“To provide sufficient numbers of disabled parking spaces in good proximity to shops and services.”

Whereas we realise that this recommendation is yet to be agreed by a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet, the traffic regulation order as proposed would prevent parking for Blue Badge holders in the Birkenhead Market Service Road (whether customers, market stall holders or others) and displace these drivers elsewhere. As observed on the site visit, the nearest disabled parking spaces in the car park by Birkenhead Bus Station were all in use, which would force drivers with mobility problems further away from where they shop or work. The lack of spaces nearby could displace these drivers to the Pyramids car park where on a Monday to Saturday they would be charged for parking.

It is understood that a minority of careless drivers who do park in an obstructive way in the Birkenhead Market Service Road and that this can cause problems for commercial traffic wishing to load and unload. However there are existing powers to traffic wardens and the police to deal with such matters and the existing Blue Badge holders parking responsibly shouldn’t be penalised for the actions of other drivers and forced to park elsewhere!

The public notice about this traffic regulation order published in the press on Wednesday 9th July 2014 details five proposed sections on Birkenhead Market Service Road of over thirty metres of “No Waiting” and four restrictions on stretches on the Birkenhead Market Service Road of over 30 metres in “parking bays” with an exemption in the parking bays for goods vehicles.

Regulation 9 of SI 1996/2489 states that if the proposed traffic regulation order prohibits loading and unloading by vehicles of any class for a total distance of more than thirty metres out of fifty metres on one side of any length of road and an objection is made, then a public inquiry has to be held before making such an order.

If Wirral Council agrees with us that a public inquiry should be held on this matter, then the regulations require a further public notice published in the local press at least three weeks before the inquiry is held.

Our last points are that Wirral Council has duties under various pieces of legislation (Equality Act 2010 c.15, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 c.13 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 c.50) not to discriminate against the protected minority of disabled people in the way it carries out its procedures and policies. The traffic regulation order, if agreed, would prevent disabled shoppers in receipt of a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. It would also restrict disabled market stallholders in receipt of a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road from the current three hours they have to the one hour that they are granted under the sublease. It appears that this latter group of people has not been directly consulted in this matter.

For these reasons, whereas we both understand the commercial reasons why the Pyramids and Birkenhead Market Hall want Wirral Council to grant a traffic regulation order to help deal with obstructive parking on the Birkenhead Market Service Road, we formally object to the proposed traffic regulation order and look forward to hearing from you in the near future about how you wish to proceed in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

John and Leonora Brace
===================================================================================================================
Previous articles on this matter:

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

Public notice for proposed changes to parking on Birkenhead Market Service Road (deadline 26th September 2014)

In an update to yesterday’s story about the proposed changes to parking behind Birkenhead Market, here is the public notice about it published in the 3rd September 2014 edition of the Wirral Globe. I’d better declare again that my wife Leonora Brace regularly parks in the Birkenhead Market Service Road with her Blue Badge and is someone that will be affected by the proposed Traffic Regulation Order.

This the public notice about the proposed traffic regulation order about the Birkenhead Market Service Road published on page 61 of the Wirral Globe on the 3rd September 2014.

The tale which explains why they’ve had to re-advertise this Traffic Regulation Order (I’m sure the Wirral Globe doesn’t mind the extra money as it’s now been advertised twice) for the second time in the Wirral Globe is covered in this story from August 8th 2014.

One does wonder why they don’t make the plans available at the nearby Birkenhead One Stop Shop in Conway Street? Perhaps Wirral Council still have somewhat of a “beware of the leopard” mentality when it comes to people actually viewing the proposals!

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – (BIRKENHEAD CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE) – (WAITING, LOADING & PARKING PLACES) ORDER 2008 – AMENDMENT NO 1, 2014

Notice is hereby given that Wirral Borough Council in exercise of its powers intends to make the above order under Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 32, 35 and 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and of all other enabling powers.

The general nature and effect of this order will be to amend the existing order Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, (Birkenhead Controlled Parking Zone) (Waiting, Loading & Parking Places) Order 2008 by prohibiting parking and loading along sections of Birkenhead Market Service Road and to allow loading and unloading for vehicles within designated bays. The effect of this order is to improve access for vehicles servicing the Market Hall and Grange Precinct.

A copy of this Notice, the proposed Order, map, the order proposed to be amended and a statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing to make the Order, may be seen during normal office hours at Cheshire Line Buildings, Canning Street, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 1ND and on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 9am to 5pm and Wednesday 10am to 5pm at the One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe CH44 8ED.

Any objections to the Order, together with the grounds on which they are made, must be sent in writing to the undersigned (quoting reference KO) by Friday 26 September 2014.

Unless otherwise stated, all Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Public Notices are published by Surjit Tour, Head of Legal and Member Services, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Merseyside CH44 8ED and all notices are dated this 3rd day of September 2014.

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

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

I had an interesting meeting with Leonora and two Wirral Council officers in Birkenhead about the proposed changes to parking at the back of Birkenhead Market as a result of a traffic regulation order that’s being consulted on. I will start by pointing out that my wife Leonora regularly parks in the Birkenhead Market Service Road and has a Blue Badge. I did ask for my concerns to be fed into the car parking review which is now happening as a task and finish group chaired by Councillor Paul Doughty.

One of my issues was to do with the fact that if they went ahead with this traffic regulation order it would prevent users with a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. We started our survey of parking outside the One Stop Shop in Conway Street. The short 15 minute bays there were permanently in use. Each time someone moved another car came in within a few minutes. Interestingly G4S was also parked in the short stay bay there and had gone in to the One Stop Shop (G4S were the company the people were protesting about outside the Mayor of Liverpool’s house as reported in the Liverpool Echo recently).

We crossed the busy road and went past the Birkenhead Bus Station.

The blue badge bays in the car park next to Birkenhead Bus Station were (no surprise there) all in use. We then walked around the first half of the Birkenhead Market Service Roas talking on the way. The officers said that the Pyramids/Birkenhead Market were paying the costs of the traffic regulation order because of problems they had with antisocial parking blocking deliveries.

There were a number of cars and a van parked on that stretch of the Service Road but no loading or unloading was observed during the time we were there (late afternoon). What is interesting though is that the Pyramids (one of two bodies we were told would be paying for the traffic regulation order) currently charge people for parking in their multi-storey car park (apart from on a Sunday).

Leonora raised the issues she had about being (if the Traffic Regulation Order came into force at some future date) that she would be forced to park elsewhere. One of the market stall holders (who runs the flower stall) came over when he heard us talking. He was confused by what the Traffic Regulation Order was about as guess what no consultation had happened with the individual stall holders! He asked if it would it affect his customers picking up flowers? The Wirral Council officers assured him that it wouldn’t and explained it was aimed at blue badge users parking on the Birkenhead Market Service Road.

Technically if they’re only picking up prepaid flowers they were right, however if his customers were parking (rather than loading/unloading) with a blue badge it will affect them.

Wirral Council officers admitted to me that they had not consulted the individual market stall holders. Consultation problems seem to be a recurring theme with Wirral Council recently. Officers felt that consulting with the company that runs the market was enough as they so them as a representative body (even though there seemed to have been no clear communication or consultation with individualmstall holders).

What I did surprise them with though was a paper copy of Birkenhead Market Lease & sublease (which in a rather twisted irony in all this is with Wirral Council) which I received last Friday as part of the 2013/14 audit.

What’s interesting (and the detail of this was seemingly unknown to those Wirral Council officers who started asking me where I’d got the lease and sublease from the answer being Wirral Council itself) is that there is then a sublease with the market stall holders. Here are some quotes from it (which mention the Grange too):

“1.1 Right to use half width of access road

The full and free right for the owners and occupiers of the adjoining property known as the Grange Shopping Centre (“the Adjoining Land”) (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) at all times to pass and repass over and along that part of the access road situate on the Premises and shown coloured brown on the Plan with or without vehicles for the purpose of gaining access to or egress from the Adjoining Land but so that such right shall extend only to moving traffic whether pedestrian or vehicular PROVIDED that such right shall be exercised in one direction only such direction to be from the point marked X on the Plan to the point marked Y thereon or such other direction as shall be agreed from time to time between the Council the Tenant and the owner of the Adjoining Land and SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (5) of the Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer dated 1^st October 1992 and made between The Council (1) and Legal & General Assurance Society Limited (2) (“the Transfer”)

1.2 Rights over Market Loading Bays

The full and free right for the owners or occupiers of the Adjoining Land (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) to use at all times those parts of the Premises shown hatched red on the Plan for the purpose of parking motor vehicles loading or off-loading or waiting to load or off-load goods into and from the Adjoining Land or any part thereof and for no other purpose whatsoever PROVIDED that (save as mentioned in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer)(except in case of emergency) no motor vehicle shall be so parked for a period in excess of one hour at any one time nor in a manner as shall obstruct traffic on the said access road coloured brown and green on the Plan SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer”

I presume as it mentions the side run by the Pyramid/Grange that there is something similar in their lease too. In other words what’s the point of a Traffic Regulation Order as Wirral Council is currently because of the contract they signed with the tenants (at least on the market side) supposed to be managing effectively the traffic in the Birkenhead Market Service Road through this clause in the contract already?

The fact that the two officers involved with the Traffic Regulation Order didn’t know about the clauses in the Birkenhead Market sublease until I brought it up is worrying in itself as surely the Asset Management side of Wirral Council has a copy of the lease and subleases for day to day management?

One of the two officers rather amusingly asked me “Do you know the budgetary pressures the Council is under?” (or words to that effect). I have a rather short reply to that as the press I was and tried not to smile too much at the question.

The point is, if someone is parked where they shouldn’t be and caused a nuisance or blocked that road it’s a police/traffic warden issue to deal with.

Much of the road can’t be currently parked in by blue badge holders as it’s even loading bays or double yellows with kerb blips.

The issue to do with traffic flow is also a civil matter too to do with how you enforce the lease. The fact the traffic side at Wirral Council doesn’t know what the asset side at Wirral Council is doing (and seemingly don’t talk to each other) is perhaps a rather worrying sign of a “silo mentality”.

The fact that the costs of the Traffic Regulation Order are being paid for by a company that will benefit from people paying an extra £2 at the expense of the disabled who will be prevented from parking for free here is again another worrying example of Wirral Council seemingly being on the side of commercial interests.

Officers did suggest as a compromise that if we dropped our objections to the proposed traffic regulation order that they would monitor the parking situation in a year’s time. This was not accepted. I also asked for these issues to be fed into the current car parking review and promised to email the relevant sections of the Birkenhead Market lease to them.

Sadly this is another tale where there has been lack of consultation with the individual market stallholders on an issue that will affect their trade. Wirral Council seem to take the “Beware of the Leopard” mentality of saying that they don’t have to consult with them and the plans were available and that it’s not their fault if people didn’t go and look at them.

Anyway the consultation on this proposed Traffic Regulation Order runs to Friday 26th September. If there are any unresolved objections after that it goes to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. The Highways and Traffic Representation Panel can then make recommendations to their parent committee.

However that’s just democracy for you. It seems however that Wirral Council once again are rubbing disabled people up the wrong way and who’s Wirral Council supposed to represent anyway, the people or “commercial interests”?

According to Wirral Council officers today (who aren’t going to just drop the plans because of these objections) the commercial interests of the people paying for the Traffic Regulation Order seem to (at the moment) carry more weight than the concerns of the people this will affect. Leonora did have a few things to say about the culture at Wirral Council, but I gather producing the lease & sublease (which came as a total surprise to them), shows there are existing contract obligations which as that covers most of the people using this road duplicates the purpose behind the Traffic Regulation Order.

Are they really going to go to the costs of possibly renegotiating the subleases with all market stall holders over this? Why do I ask that? Yes market traders have a specific badge on their car, but some of them will have Blue Badges and will park in the service road, which if the new Traffic Regulation Order comes into effect will mean they’d get (if a traffic warden was around) a ticket as market stall holders are limited to an hour maximum. Why can’t Wirral Council just deal with this as another other landlord/tenant issue? Words do fail me on this one really, but I could go on for a further thousand words on the thorny issue of parking and Wirral Council and still just be scratching the surface.

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

Wirral Council: It’s time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making

Share this:

The many reasons I’m objecting to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road

Share this:

Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road

Share this:

Public notice for proposed changes to parking on Birkenhead Market Service Road (deadline 26th September 2014)

Share this:

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

Share this: