Wirral Council take over 19 months to respond to FOI request on Birkenhead Park and other matters
Wirral Council take over 19 months to respond to FOI request on Birkenhead Park and other matters
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.
I’m beginning to think I should look for sponsorship from a black marker pen manufacturer as even the minutes they have supplied have been heavily redacted. Below is an example of set of minutes I’ve finally received, which is the minutes of the Birkenhead Park Advisory Committee meeting of the 17th October 2012. I think over 19 months is a record by Wirral Council for responding to one of my FOI requests.
Birkenhead Park Advisory Committee Minutes of meeting 17th October 2012
Attendance Chair: Cllr George Davies Councillors: Cllr Denise Roberts, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Cherry Povall, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Jean Stapleton, Cllr Alan Brighouse Members:XXXXXXXXXXXX Wirral Council Officers: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Item 1 Apologies
Cllr Brian Kenny, Insp Roy McGregor, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Item 2 Minutes of previous meeting
The minutes were accepted as a true record.
Item 3 Matters arising
Cllr Elderton raised an issue over traffic calming measures. XXXXXXXXXXXX confirmed signage for the advisory speed limit had been approved by the Conservation Officer.
There was then a question over funding for the above and a request for legal advice on how this advisory speed limit could be made enforceable.
Item 4 Park Manager’s Report XXXXXXXXXXXX reported the fall in the number of school visits and suggested possible reasons for it, including poor weather and the closure of two schools which regularly visited the park.
Cllr Stapleton asked why such small numbers from University Academy. XXXXXXXXXXXX suggested the loss of the education officer has affected contact. XXXXXXXXXXXX suggested a possible role for a volunteer to contact schools and encourage visits.
XXXXXXXXXXXX reported that the work experience programme was a real success as was the Physical Activities programme. XXXXXXXXXXXX suggested that income from commercial activities could help with finances. XXXXXXXXXXXX said an increase was required in commercial operations. XXXXXXXXXXXX predicted that this will increase.
XXXXXXXXXXXX reported to the group regarding the park’s drainage.
It was agreed by all that exceptional weather this year had caused flooding and was unavoidable.
XXXXXXXXXXXX the Events Arena could take surplus water which will also enhance biodiversity.
XXXXXXXXXXXX referred to the increase in concreting over gardens which doesn’t allow the water to drain and thereby causes increased flooding.
XXXXXXXXXXXX reported on underground water tank proposed by United Utilities because of flooding to basements in Park Road South. XXXXXXXXXXXX said there was a potential revenue asset from development of remaining plots in the park, and the United Utilities proposal to build a storage tank on the plot by Gothic Lodge would make this asset difficult to sell.
Cllr George Davies reported that the ESWA club was closing down and the building was for sale. XXXXXXXXXXXX asked if the park could make use of the area.
Cllr George Davies suggested keeping eye on developments.
XXXXXXXXXXXX reported the launch of the Park Watch scheme, adding that members were being recruited before calling the first (inaugural) meeting.
XXXXXXXXXXXX gave a report on IRIMS Incident Reporting and Management System, saying there were some “glitches” remaining but it should be up and running in a couple of months.
XXXXXXXXXXXX reported on the new Dog Control Order being proposed to exclude dogs from all children’s play areas in Wirral. He also reported on the possibility of a further Dog Control Order requiring an owner to put a dog on lead if requested, currently the byelaws state only that the dog must be under control.
Cllr Elderton suggested publicising the result of any further action after the event be recorded. XXXXXXXXXXXX expressed his concern at the nature and number of dog related incidents, suggesting the voluntary code of conduct was no good.
XXXXXXXXXXXX updated the group on the success of the Forest Schools initiative.
Item 5 Membership of Birkenhead Park Advisory Committee
Cllr George Davies requested to expand group to take in the councillor with cabinet responsibility for Cultural Services. This was agreed by all.
Item 6 Any Other Business XXXXXXXXXXXX suggested an opportunity for external funding for restoration of the Jackson Memorial, Bandstand, Conservatory and Horticultural Training. XXXXXXXXXXXX suggested that the Friends of Birkenhead Park be invited to submit a report to a future meeting.
Item 7 Date of Next Meeting
It was agreed to meet in Mid April 2013.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?
Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?
The Cheshire Cat from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version) which seemed about the only image that seemed ideal for this story about Lyndale School and Wirral Council
First, if you’ve been away on holiday the past two months a recap on what’s happened so far in a saga that’s seems to quickly becoming as complicated as the plot to the Lord of the Rings.
It starts with a proposal to Wirral Council’s Cabinet by Wirral Council officers to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting Wirral Council’s officers also proposed introducing a new system for funding “high needs” students where from 2014-15 extra funding to schools would be determined by which one of five bands that school’s pupils were categorised as being in. There was an emotional plea made to councillors on the Cabinet by Dawn Hughes (who has a child at the school) not to agree to consult on closure of Lyndale School (which was reported on this blog). However Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided to both agree to consult on closing Lyndale School and also the banding proposals too.
It’s important at this stage to state the reasons given back in January for consulting on closing Lyndale School by Wirral Council officers, which are detailed both in the minutes and the report.
Here are some quotes from the report (although at this point in time some of these purported facts have been found to be factually incorrect).
“The closure of the Lyndale School is proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll, which both contribute to a difficult financial position.”
“In 2013-14 the school has set a budget for the year based on School Funding of £761,733 with a small deficit of £3,647. This was achieved using all accumulated balances brought forward of £51,707. The latest position indicates there will be deficit at the year end of £15,667. This has resulted from changes in staff costs and support services.”
“In 2014-15 the school forecast, before any corrective action, is that there would be a deficit of £72,000. This deficit has the potential to increase to in excess of £232,000 based on the numbers of children currently on the school roll.”
…
“This means that for 2014-15 the shortfall the school may experience will be approximately £72,000 for the year based on the number currently on school roll. This is approximately 9% of their budget.”
Wirral Council did at some point make an application to the Education Funding Agency for the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% not to apply to it in 2014-15 (although I’m waiting for this Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency to be answered as to the details on that). On the 27th January 2014 Cllrs Tom Harney, Phil Gilchrist, Jeff Green, Ian Lewis, Cherry Povall and Pat Williams called in the two Cabinet decisions.
These two decisions then went to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 5th February 2014 to be looked at again. However the Coordinating Committee didn’t have the required parent governor representatives and Diocesan Body representatives that they were required by legislation to have when making decisions on educational (or school) related matters. So the meeting of 5th February 2014 was adjourned and a recommendation made to the Council meeting on the 25th February 2014 so that the parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives could be added to the Coordinating Committee. This was agreed at a meeting of the full Council on the 25th February 2014.
While all this was going on, the Cabinet made its recommendation on the 2014-15 Schools Budget to Council on the 12th February 2014 and Council agreed the Schools Budget on the 25th February 2014 (including matters that were yet to be decided because of the adjourned Coordinating Committee meeting). The issue of the upcoming call ins was raised at the Cabinet meeting and councillors were told that there was a contingency (of £908,900) included as part of the Schools Budget which would mean that whatever the outcome of the call ins were that it could still be funded.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Video of the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February to consider the Lyndale School consultation closure call in (adjourned from the Coordinating Committee on the 5th Feburary).
On both matters the draft minutes state that a majority of the councillors plus the parent governor representative present who had a vote, voted to uphold the original Cabinet decisions. It’s worth pointing out that on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision the Conservative councillors proposed instead a review (which was voted against by nine votes to six). On the banding proposals the Conservative councillors proposed the following motion “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children” (which was lost by seven votes for the motion and eight against).
The votes on the Labour councillor’s recommendations to uphold the two original Labour Cabinet decisions were on the Lyndale School consultation closure decision nine votes to six (the Labour councillors plus the Lib Dem councillor Cllr Alan Brighouse voted in favour of a consultation on closure whereas the Conservative councillors and parent governor representative voted against). The vote on a recommendation by Labour councillors to uphold the Labour Cabinet decision on the banding proposals was won by a narrower margin of eight votes to seven (the Labour councillors voted for it with the Lib Dem councillor, Conservatives and parent governor representative being opposed to it).
So, what’s new? Well unfortunately I had to go (and as the first call in on consulting closing Lyndale School had taken three and half hours had run out of tape anyway) after the first decision over the Lyndale School closure consultation decision. So I’ve only found out what happened at the second part of the meeting by reading the draft minutes of that meeting were available at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting.
Here is what the draft minutes state about the minimum funding guarantee. My comments are in italics underneath.
The first quote is about the explanation of the banding proposals decision by the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.
“Basically, the report had dealt with the banding model and informed how top ups would be made. The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”
Then this in the draft minutes from the evidence of the Vice-Chair of Governors at Lyndale School (and Chair of their Finance Committee) Ian Harrison.
“Mr Harrison informed that the Lyndale School now had a surplus forecast for 2013/14. It was going to get the minimum funding guarantee. There would be a small surplus in 2014/15.”
So if the original reason for consulting on closing Lyndale School was that an officer (or officers) at Wirral Council thought it wouldn’t have enough money, but the minimum funding guarantee exemption request has been withdrawn so that Lyndale School is now projecting a surplus (at least for 2014/15), why is Wirral Council going to the trouble of a twelve week consultation on closing the school?
“Members then asked Mr Harrison some questions which he answered as appropriate. It was noted that:
The Cabinet had received an early estimate rather than one at the end of the period when it would have been more realistic.”
Perhaps councillors were too polite to suggest that the Cabinet had based their decision on an estimate based on an assumption about the minimum funding guarantee (that is that the assumption that it would be approved and not withdrawn) which turned out not to be the case.
None of the special schools agreed with the formula that had been approved.
There are eleven special schools on Wirral (Hayfield, Clare Mount, Orrets Meadow, Gilbrook, Stanley, Elleray, Lyndale, Foxfield, Meadowside and Kilgarth). The 2014-15 budgets for each special school would have each been affected by the banding proposals. Had the minimum funding guarantee exemption application not been withdrawn, other schools could have been facing deficits (although Lyndale was the school most affected). The motion that was agreed on this item is stated in the draft minutes as “That the Committee upholds the Cabinet’s decision and it be ensured that consultation is meaningful, informed and transparent”. This is very unclear. Does that mean there’s going to be a consultation on the banding proposals or is it referring to the consultation to close Lyndale School?
So to summarise, Wirral Council officers thought there would be a large deficit in Lyndale School’s budget so recommended to the Cabinet that they should consult on closing the school. This decision was called in and during the call in it was discovered that Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee had been withdrawn. So now there’s a legal requirement that Lyndale School will get at least 98.5% of the amount they got in the previous year. As Lyndale School had looked into reducing costs of non teaching staff to reduce the original estimated large deficit, they now estimate a small surplus in their budget for 2014/15.
However Wirral Council is still going to carry out a twelve week consultation on closing the school based on an estimated deficit in Lyndale School’s budget that now can’t happen because the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% is a legal requirement on Wirral Council.
How much is such a consultation, based on a guesstimate by officers (which ended up being wrong) going to cost? Bearing in mind the above, is it any wonder that people get confused by Wirral Council’s decision-making and politics? Am I missing something vital or is everything I’ve stated here correct?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!
Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
This is a rather complicated saga, so it’s best to go back to the beginning and have a recap of what’s happened so far in chronological order. Way back on the 16th January despite an emotional plea from a parent, the Labour Cabinet decided to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting the same Cabinet also decided to agree to change how they divide up funding for pupils at special schools (which has an effect on Lyndale School).
The two decisions were then called in by councillors. The decision to consult on closing Lyndale was called in by Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Phil Gilchrist, Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Ian Lewis, Cllr Cherry Povall and Cllr Pat Williams. The decision on allocating funding (called proposals for change to school top up payments for students with high needs) was also called in by the same six councillors.
A meeting of the Coordinating Committee was arranged to consider the call in which prompted a blog post titled Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council Committee? along with another poll that asked whether it should be decided by the Coordinating Committee or the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee along with another poll in which 100% voted that it should be decided by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee.
At this point it’s worth pointing out what it states in Wirral Council’s constitution on call ins (it’s at 35 (3)(b) (page 138) if you wish to check this out for yourself) “(b) The relevant Chief Officer and all members will be notified of a call-in immediately and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed. A decision of the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet or individual Cabinet member may be called in only once.”
I’ve added some underlining to emphasise the bit “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed”.
However agenda item seven for tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting has an agenda item “Schools Budget 2014/15”, which is officer’s recommendation to Cabinet for the schools budget which will then be recommended to Budget Council on the 25th February.
The make up of this block is complex. It is based on the “place plus” system introduced by the DfE [Department for Education] from April 2013 and includes:
Special schools (pre and post 16), school bases and independent non-maintained special schools. All receive a base level funding of £10,000 per place following agreement of place numbers with the Education Funding Agency (EFA).
Alternative Provision Bases and WASP. This provision is funded at £8,000 per place.
Additional funding over and above that provided for places will be paid in the form of “top ups”. These will be provided on a per pupil basis. The top up, or “plus” element of funding, is based on the agreed assessed needs of pupils and is paid by the “commissioner” responsible; this may be Wirral Children’s Services, a school or another Local Authority. In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.
The costs of all education and training for post 16 specialist and LLDD provision (top ups) to colleges and private providers.
2.2 “with each school receiving an amount of £10,000 per place and an additional top up based on individual pupil needs.”
2.4 “Top Up funding (ie the “Plus” element) reflects the additional support costs in excess of place funding for individual pupils and students and takes into account factors such as the pupils individual needs and facilities / support provided.”
“This is a significant piece of work that has been undertaken with Wirral’s Schools Forum’s SEN Finance Steering Group, the outcome of which has resulted in a banded approach to top ups for:”
…
“Students in post 16 provision with element three costs; Further Education Colleges, Sixth Forms and Independent Specialist Providers (ISP);
Basically the proposals mean the same (but written with slightly different words). If these recommendations from officers on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 are agreed by Cabinet, it will become recommendations to Budget Council on the 25th February (and recommendations to Council can’t be called in). If that’s the case then the call in decision by the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February on the top up payments for students with high needs becomes a fait accompli as the decision on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 will have been made already by Council on the 25th February.
I pointed this out by email to the Cabinet Member (Cllr Tony Smith), Cllr Phil Davies (who chairs Cabinet meetings), the Chair and spokespersons on the Coordinating Committee, the councillors who called in the decisions, Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer), Graham Burgess (Chief Executive who has a role in the call in process) and Andrew Roberts (the officer who wrote the report to Cabinet) which outlined what had happened and contained the following four questions.
I know there is a reserve Budget meeting set aside for the 4th March. Therefore my questions are:
1) Would it not be better to consider the schools budget on the 4th March as by this time the decisions reached by the call in meeting on the 27th February will be known?
2) Bearing in mind the constitutional requirement that “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed” can either the Cabinet on Wednesday recommend a schools budget (when an element of that budget being proposed has been called in) or Council on the 25th February decide on a schools budget (for the same reasons) without being accused of making a decision in breach of Wirral’s constitution?
3) If the schools budget is to be decided on the 4th March, will an extra Cabinet meeting be required between the 27th February and the 4th March to consider any recommendations arising from the call in
meeting?
and
4) In order for these decisions to be made according to Wirral Council’s constitution does this require the budget council procedure (agreed by Cabinet on the 16th January) to be altered so that the
schools budget is dealt with as a separate matter to the rest of the Budget?
Thank you for taking the time to read this, I look forward to either hearing a response to these questions at Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting or receiving a formal response by email before then.
So far I’ve received responses from two councillors. One just stated “Thank you for the information”, the reply from the other councillor stated that they’d follow up my query with the report author Andrew Roberts.
So what’s really going on? The line written in the report “In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.” makes it sound like the outcome of the call in is being predicted by an officer before it’s even taken place! So what’s really going on? Does anybody really know or is this just the uniquely strange and peculiar way that Wirral Council makes decisions?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
The Chair said the sound equipment wasn’t working and welcomed people to the first meeting of 2011/2012. He asked those present to introduce themselves. After introductions he asked for declarations of interest. Cllr George Davies declared that his wife was a member of the Fund and that he chaired a Merseyside Board. He also asked if he needed to declare an interest every time or whether it could be recorded and him not needing to do so.
The Chair said he had to declare personal or prejudicial interests in relation to the pension committee agenda.
The minutes of the previous meeting were accepted.
There were two nominations for Vice-Chair, Cllr Cherry Povall and Cllr Ann McLachlan. The vote on Cllr Ann McLachlan was held first. There were five votes for (Cllr Ann McLachlan forgot to vote, but tried to after the votes had been counted), five votes against. The Chair had a casting vote and voted against. Therefore Cllr Cherry Povall was elected as Vice-Chair.
Item 4 was about the Local Government Chronicle Investment Conference in Newport. The Chair asked people if they were going. Cllr Harney said he wasn’t able to go but sending people was valuable. The Chair said he was willing. Cllr McLachlan said she was not available. Cllr Jones asked about the spare place. Cllr Harry Smith said he had “got things to do”. Cllr McLachlan suggested those on the committee were consulted by email so they could consult their diaries, it was agreed it would be delegated to officers.
