What’s in Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s planning application for a new fire station in Saughall Massie?

What’s in Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s planning application for a new fire station in Saughall Massie?

What’s in Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s planning application for a new fire station in Saughall Massie?

                             

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station thumbnail
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station

The planning application for a new fire station in Saughall Massie has been made to Wirral Council by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.

The application number is APP/16/00985 and the description is, "A single storey two bay community fire station incorporating operational and welfare accommodation, offices and meeting space, external drill and training facilities and associated car-parking." at "land adjacent to SAUGHALL MASSIE ROAD, SAUGHALL MASSIE" .

The planning application form for this is 9 A4 pages long so I will summarise the details below. Further details are expected to be published on Wirral Council’s website in the near future.

You can make a comment supporting or objecting to this planning application on Wirral Council’s website which also contains the documents that are part of the planning application.

It is expected after a period of consultation with the public for the planning application to be decided by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee in October 2016.


1. Applicant Name, Address and Contact Details

Mr Colin Schofield
Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service
Merseyside FRS HQ
Bridle Road
Bootle
L30 4YD

2. Agent Name, Address and Contact Details

Mrs Dawn Coward
Ryder Architecture
Innovation Centre
131 Mount Pleasant
Liverpool
United Kingdom
L3 5TF

Tel: 0151 237 1300
Email: dcoward@ryderarchitecture.com

3. Description of the Proposal

A single storey two bay community fire station incorporating operational and welfare accommodation, offices and meeting space, external drill and training facilities and associated car-parking.

Has the building, work or change of use already started? No.

4. Site Address Details

Land of Saughall Massie Road
Saughall Massie
Upton
Wirral

Easting 325469
Northing 388515

5. Pre-application advice

Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application? Yes

Officer name:
Mrs Sheila Day
Department of Regeneration and Planning
04/11/2015

Details of the pre-application advice received:

Following request for pre-application advice and meetings with planning case officer and colleagues, a detailed response was received and covered the following:
– Advice on scale, massing and positioning of the building.
– Advice on landscaping
– Advice on highway interfaces and parking
– Review of ground investigation.
– Request for further particulars that justified the location of the fire station and evidence of community consultation
– Request for details of training procedures and frequency

6. Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way

Is a new or altered vehicle access proposed to or from the public highway? Yes

Is a new or altered pedestrian access proposed to or from the public highway? Yes

Are there any new public roads to be provided within the site? No

Are there any new public rights of way to be provided within or adjacent to the site? No

Do the proposals require any diversions/extinguishments and/or creation of rights of way? No

If you answered Yes to any of the above questions, please show details on your plan/drawings and state the reference of the plan(s)/drawings(s)

28042 – 691 – P2-A3.pdf
28042 – 692 – P2-A3.pdf
28042 – 693 – P2-A3.pdf
28042 – 615 – P2-A1 PLAN.PFG
J667 Saughall Massie Fire TS.pdf

7. Waste Storage and Collection

Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste? Yes

If Yes, please provide details:
Enclosed bin store

Have arrangements been made for the separate storage and collection of recyclable waste? Yes

If Yes, please provide details:
Separate storage bins within bin store.

…..
9. Materials

Please state what materials (including type, colour and name) are to be used externally (if applicable):

Boundary Treatments – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
Polyester powder coated mesh fencing, earth embankment retaining walls with soft landscaping treatment as appropriate.

Doors – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
Polyester powder coated aluminium / steel

Lighting – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
PPC steel / aluminium street lamps and aluminium bollards

Roof – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
Aluminium standing seam cladding.

Vehicle Access – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
Tarmacadam and concrete surfacing

Walls – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
Aluminium standing seam cladding. Timber rain screen vertical cladding. Dark grey facing brickwork. PPC aluminium curtain walling in silver grey.

Windows – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
Polyester powder coated aluminium

OTHER – description:
Description of proposed materials and finishes:
Polyester powder coated aluminium glazed overhead sectional doors

Are you supplying additional information on submitted plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement? Yes

If Yes, please state references for the plan(s)/drawing(s)/design and access statement:

Design_and_access_statement_reduced_final.pdf
2864-01-MFRS_RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-2000-S0-P2 – Location Plan.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-0001-S0-P1-Existing Site Information.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-2001-S1-P8-Site Plan.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-9001-D1-P3_Site Sketch Sections.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-00-DR-A-3001-S1-P6_Proposed GA Plan.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-R0-DR-A-3002-S1-P1_Proposed GA Roof Plan.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-3602-S1-P5-GA Elevations.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-3603-S1-P1-Training tower alternating position.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-3901-S1-P1_Typical Strip Section 01.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-3903-S1-P1_Typical Strip Section 03.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-3904-S0-P1_Typical Strip Section 04.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-3601-S0-P3_External Views.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-DR-A-3801-S0-P1_GA Sectionss.pdf
Q10568-01.pdf
2864-01-MFRS-RYD-00-ZZ-VS-A-1402-S1-P1_CGI Street View Visualisation.pdf
3371.PR-03 Saughall Massie F&R Colour Landscape Layout.pdf
28042 – 615 – P2-A1 PLAN.PDF
Saughall Massie F&R General Arrangement Plan 3371_PR_01 rev A.pdf
Saughall Massie F&R Planting Plan 3371_PR_02 rev A.pdf
Saughall Massie F&R Tree Protection Plan_final_reduced.pdf
28042 Saughall Massie FRA rev 3 reduced.pdf
20662R01PKmdw.pdf
LG28042 – Phase I Preliminary Risk Assesment VrA SPLIT_Part1.pdf
LG28042 – Phase I Preliminary Risk Assesment VrA SPLIT_Part2.pdf
LG28042 – Phase I Preliminary Risk Assesment VrA SPLIT_Part3.pdf
28042 Drainage Assessment and Strategy REV 01.pdf
Leigh Ecology – Amphibian_Report – Merseyside Fire and Rescue Saughall Massie.pdf
Leigh Ecology – Ecological Appraisal – Merseyside Fire and Rescue Saughall Massie.pdf
28042 – 691 – P2-A3.pdf
28042 – 692 – P2-A3.pdf
28042 – 693 – P2-A3.pdf
70019-R-002 – Saughall Massie Fire Station – Travel Plan Framework_V2-2.pdf
70019-R-002 – Saughall Massie Fire Stn – TPF Appendices_V2-2.pdf
J667 Saughall Massie Fire TS.pdf
SM Heritage Statement February 16_reduced.pdf
2864_01_Statement of Community Involvement_FinalCombined.pdf
2864_01_Ryder Planning Statement – Very Special Circumstances FINAL 20160715

10. Vehicle Parking

Total proposed (including spaces retained)

Cars 11
Cycle spaces 12
Disability spaces 2
Motorcycles 4
Other (e.g. bus) 2

Short description of Other Fire appliances (note: within appliance bay)

11. Foul Sewage

Please state how foul sewage is to be disposed of:

Mains sewer

Are you proposing to connect to the existing drainage system? Yes

If Yes, please include the details of the existing system on the application drawings and state references for the plan(s)/drawing(s):
28042 Drainage Assessment and Strategy REV 01.pdf

12. Assessment of Flood Risk

Is the site within an area at risk of flooding? No

Is your proposal within 20 metres of a watercourse (e.g. river, stream or beck)? No

Will the proposal increase the flood risk elsewhere? No.

How will surface water be disposed of? Sustainable drainage system Main sewer

13. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Is there a reasonable likelihood of the following being affected adversely or conserved and enhanced within the application site, OR on land to or near the application site:

a) Protected and priority species
No

b) Designated sites, important habitats or other biodiversity features
No

c) Features of geological conservation importance
Yes, on land adjacent to or near the proposed development

14. Existing Use

Please describe the current use of the site:
Vacant land

Is the site current vacant? Yes

If Yes, please describe the last use of the site: Vacant grass land

Does the proposal involve any of the following? If yes , you will need to submit an appropriate contamination assessment with your application.

Land which is known to be contaminated? No

Land where contamination is suspected for all or part of the site? No

A proposed use that would be particularly vulnerable to the presence of contamination? No

15. Trees and Hedges

Are there any trees or hedges on the proposed development site? Yes

And/or: Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character? Yes

If Yes to either or both of the above, you may need to provide a full Tree Survey, at the discretion of your local planning authority. If a Tree Survey is required, this and the accompanying plan should be submitted alongside your application. Your local planning authority should make clear on its website what the survey should contain, in accordance with the current ‘BS5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations’.

16. Trade Effluent

Does the proposal involve the need to dispose of trade effluents or waste? No

17. Residential Units

Does your proposal include the gain or loss of residential units? No

18. All Types of Development: Non-residential Floorspace

Does your proposal involve the loss, gain or change of use of non-residential floorspace? Yes

Total gross new internal floorspace proposed (including changes of use) (square metres) 737
Use Class/type of use: Other

19. Employment

If known, please complete the following information regarding employees:

Proposed employees 10 (full-time)

20. Hours of Opening

No Hours of Opening details were submitted for this application

21. Site Area

What is the site area? 4,950.00 sq. metres

22. Industrial or Commercial Processes and Machinery

Please describe the activities and processes which would be carried out on the site and the end products including paint, ventilation or air conditioning. Please include the type of machinery which may be installed on site:

Compressors for refilling and testing of breathing apparatus.
Hydraulic cutting devices for car cutting during road traffic collision simulation.

Is the proposal for a waste management development? No

23. Hazardous Substances

Is any hazardous waste involved in the proposal? No

24. Site Visit

Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land? Yes

If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one)

The agent

25. Certificates (Certificate B)

Certificate of Ownership – Certificate B
Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Certificate under Article 14
I certify/ The applicant certifies that I have/the applicant has given the requisite notice to everyone else (as listed below) who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was the owner (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) and/or agricultural tenant (“agricultural tenant” has the meaning given in section 65(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) of any part of the land or building to which this application relates.

Owner/Agricultural Tenant
Wirral Metropolitan Council
Brighton Street
Wallasey
CH44 8ED

15/7/2016

Mrs Dawn Coward
AGENT
15/7/2016

26. Declaration

I/we hereby apply for planning permission/consent as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information. I/we confirm that, to the best of my/our knowledge, any facts stated are true and accurate and any opinions given are the genuine opinions of the person(s) giving them.

15/7/2016



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

EXCLUSIVE: Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) states altered plans for Saughall Massie Fire Station will be submitted “either this month or early January [2016]”

EXCLUSIVE: Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) states altered plans for Saughall Massie Fire Station will be submitted “either this month or early January [2016]”

                                              

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.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting 17th December 2015 L to R Treasurer, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan, Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens, Chair Cllr Dave Hanratty
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting 17th December 2015 L to R Treasurer, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan, Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens, Chair Cllr Dave Hanratty

At a meeting of councillors, on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority held on the 17th of December 2015, Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), gave an update on the progress of plans for a new fire station at Saughall Massie. You can read his report on this matter on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s website.

Dan Stephens said, “Paragraphs twenty-one to thirty on pages sixteen to eighteen provide an update on the Saughall Massie merger.

A pre-application for advice has been submitted to Wirral Borough Council on the 8th October and a planning meeting was held with planning officers from Wirral on the 4th of November.

Following on from this meeting a letter from Wirral planning officers was sent to the agents acting on behalf of the Authority, but unfortunately was given to a Wirral councillor beforehand.

That letter was subsequently passed on to the Liverpool Echo and the Wirral Globe who ran a story quoting sections of the letter. Clearly that was before we’d had sight of that.

I’ve since written to the Head of Regeneration and Planning at Wirral raising a number of issues that relate to that, and they are outlined within paragraphs twenty-six. Paragraph twenty-seven details the position over the medium pressure gas main which runs under the land.

Following on from the planning advice, the size of the station and the design that we would intend to submit a planning application on, has been significantly reduced to the point where the medium pressure gas main would no longer run underneath the main building, thus negating the requirement for it to be rerouted.

It is our intention to submit a full planning application, taking into account the pre-planning advice that we’ve received from Wirral at some point either this month or early January which would allow for consideration by the Planning Committee at some point next year possibly in April.

Paragraph thirty makes the point that any decision by Wirral to grant planning permission will almost certainly be referred to the Secretary of State. I need to make it clear to Members at this point that if planning permission is not granted, then the inevitable consequence will be the outright closure of West Kirby fire station with the resulting increase in response times.”

The reference to Secretary of State above refers to a government minister (however generally such decisions although taken in a minister’s name are decided by civil servants following the policy the minister decides upon).

The Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority referred later in the meeting to his desire that the press would write "good news" stories about Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service. The above story is either good or bad news depending on your political viewpoint.

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

Why did Wirral Council spend £534.90 on catering for a meeting with Dong Energy?

Why did Wirral Council spend £534.90 on catering for a meeting with Dong Energy?

                                                                            

It’s no secret that Wirral Council have been trying to persuade businesses to create jobs on the Wirral. Last year Cammell Laird applied for planning permission (planning application APP/14/00352) for "an on shore office, warehouse building and pontoon that will serve as a marine operations and maintenance facility for off shore projects" on a car park in Alabama Way. This was so Cammell Laird could expand to the "green energy" sector such as maintenance for wind turbines such as the Dong Energy wind farm at Burbo Bank.

Below is an invoice from Carrington Catering Ltd paid by Wirral Council for catering at a meeting on the 8th May 2014 with Dong Energy. You can click on the thumbnail for a higher resolution version.

Wirral Council invoice Carringtons Catering Ltd Dong Energy Meeting 8th May 2014 catering £534.90 thumbnail
Wirral Council invoice Carringtons Catering Ltd Dong Energy Meeting 8th May 2014 catering £534.90 thumbnail

On the 23rd July 2014 it went to be decided by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee (you can watch video footage of the meeting below). The Planning Committee refused the application based on the effect it would have on the flats nearby. That refusal was appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

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.

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee refuse Cammell Laird’s planning application (APP/14/00352) 23rd July 2014

Cammell Laird (before the planning appeal had been decided) submitted a revised planning application in December 2014 (APP/14/01585). This also went to Planning Committee for a decision and after nearly an hour of discussion it was refused on the 19th February 2015 (see video of the decision below).

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.

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee refuse Cammell Laird’s planning application (APP/14/01585) 19th February 2014.

Eventually a planning inspector on the 13th October (after informal hearings on the 25th February and the 19th May and site visits on the 18th May and 4th June 2015) issued a 29 page appeal decision overturning the earlier decisions of the Planning Committee.

I’ll point out at this stage that the planning application is in Birkenhead and Tranmere ward (currently represented by Cllr Phil Davies (Labour), Cllr Jean Stapleton (Labour) and Cllr Pat Cleary (Green)).

As detailed in the planning appeal decision, although the plans would have created an estimated sixty to sixty-five jobs, nearby LDRA Ltd had threatened to relocate to Newbury taking fifty local jobs away if the plans for expansion at Cammell Lairds were approved.

So the news reported in the Wirral Globe yesterday that an alternative site has been found at Kings Wharf in Seacombe, as the "new home of [Dong Energy’s] offshore-wind manufacturing and maintenance facility" means a compromise must have happened. The Alabama Way site is referred to in a quote in that article from Cllr Phil Davies as, "Alternative sites had been considered in Birkenhead, but were rejected by my council team responding to community concerns."

However the number of jobs created seems to have gone from sixty to sixty-five jobs (the number referred to in the planning appeal) down to forty jobs. This seems to be another example of where Wirral Council is spending Regional Growth Fund money (you can also read a story published on this blog last week on how £4 million of Regional Growth Fund money is being spent on a new Unilever building in Port Sunlight).

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

Unilever starts construction on North West Innovation Centre aided by £4 million of Regional Growth Fund money

Unilever starts construction on North West Innovation Centre
aided by £4 million of Regional Growth Fund money

                                                   

Construction starts on Unilever's North West Innovation Centre L: Cameron Jones (Port Sunlight site leader) Unilever R: Dave Penrith (Vice President Technology & Engineering) Unilever
Construction starts on Unilever’s North West Innovation Centre L: Cameron Jones (Port Sunlight site leader) Unilever R: Dave Penrith (Vice President Technology & Engineering) Unilever

I rarely write stories based on press releases as churnalism isn’t the purpose of this blog, but this story about Unilever and the £4 million of taxpayers’ money it received for a new Advanced Manufacturing Centre in Port Sunlight is one of those rare exceptions.

Unilever (for those who don’t know) is a major employer on the Wirral and employ at Port Sunlight nearly as many employees as Wirral Council including Wirral Council’s own Cllr Steve Foulkes.

Wirral Council’ Planning Committee met on the 20th August 2015 earlier this year and approved plans for the Advanced Manufacturing Centre and you can view the plans on Wirral Council’s website and video of that meeting below.

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.

Wirral Council Planning Committee meeting of 20th August 2015 which starts at item 15 (planning application APP/15/00829) Unilever Plc, QUARRY ROAD EAST, BEBINGTON – Proposed combined research and development building with ground & first floor offices, conference facilities, warehousing and pilot plant chamber for R & D projects. Constructed within the existing Unilever campus/site to the south-west of the Port Sunlight conservation area. All associated highway access/egress to remain as existing. The proposed development retains the quantity of vehicle parking facilities, cycle parking and also pedestrian access arrangements on site on completion of this development.

Since the planning application was approved in August, work has recently started (as you can see from the first photo in this article). Unilever has received £4 million of Regional Growth Fund money (which they are matching with their own resources). Both Wirral Council and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority have a role in the organisations that Regional Growth Fund monies are allocated to.

I recently brought up with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s Audit Committee, that as the LCRCA now has a website that the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 means the LCRCA is required to publish information on its websites about grants over £500 such as Regional Growth Fund money (in fact this is a legal requirement). This was referred to Merseytravel’s Head of Internal Audit, yes the person who referred to some whistleblowing as "Mickey Mouse" and "complete nonsense" so I’m not holding my breath for a quick response!

I also raised it with the LCRCA Monitoring Officer Angela Sanderson. However the same Code apply to Wirral Council too.

Earlier this year, I exercised a right and request to inspect some information during the period over the summer about some of the payments Wirral Council make to businesses relating to the Regional Growth Fund. The regulations required Wirral Council to provide this within the three-week inspection period.

I barely got to see 10% of what I’d requested, not one page of the councillors’ expenses (perhaps a sore topic since publishing these last year) and despite pointing this out to the Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour via email, so far I have just received stony silence.

So that’s why I’m writing about the £4 million Unilever received of Regional Growth Fund based on a press release, because the mandatory openness and transparency that should be there at Wirral Council and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority over how millions of pounds is spent doesn’t seem to be happening!

I will point out that the LCRCA state that they publish this information on Merseytravel’s website instead, however considering how many payments Merseytravel make over £500, however finding this sort of information is like finding a needle in a haystack!

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

VIDEO: A round-up of local Wirral and Merseyside politics by John Brace (part 1)

VIDEO: A round-up of local Wirral and Merseyside politics by John Brace (part 1)

VIDEO: A round-up of local Wirral and Merseyside politics by John Brace (part 1)

                                                            

Screenshot from Youtube video of John Brace
Screenshot from Youtube video of John Brace

Below is a transcript of a video I’ve recorded about a range of local political matters. I’ve added some extra detail which I don’t say on the video in [] brackets and of course links to more detailed stories. I realised when I finished recording that I’d been talking for nearly eighteen minutes. It’s about a variety of local political issues.

At the time of publishing this blog post the video has been uploaded to Youtube, but is still processing at Youtube’s end.

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.

John Brace on local Wirral and Merseyside politics (part 1)


JOHN BRACE: Hello, I hope you can hear me clearly. I’m John Brace and I’m going to be filming a series of videos as due to the half term holidays next week, there’s a shortage of public meetings.

So, I thought I’d start off by looking at one of the bigger stories on my blog this week.

That was about what I said at a meeting of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority to the Chair Cllr Dave Hanratty and his response about councillors’ expenses.

I suppose I’d better briefly explain what the situation is regarding councillors’ expenses and allowances.

Councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority are entitled to claim expenses for instance for travel to public meetings and each year they’re supposed to publish a table detailing each councillors’ name and how much has been spent over the year in expenses for that particular councillor in various categories.

In fact that’s a legal requirement, a very basic level of transparency.

However unfortunately what Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service was doing was, where they received invoices directly rather than councillors claiming back expenses they’d incurred themselves, where trips were booked through Capita, train travel that kind of thing, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service were invoiced directly but this wasn’t appearing on the actual annual lists so that about £6,000 or so of expenses were being left off. So I have been pointing this out over the past few months.

There’s also the issue that councillors get paid allowances and on this National Insurance and presumably things like income tax were paid. Now those amounts weren’t included in the annually published lists either.

I did ask Councillor Hanratty earlier, I think it was the day before yesterday whether these amounts would be included in future, didn’t get an answer.

Asked a question about this at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee, told it was a matter for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service/Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

I think they don’t want to give me answers on this, I think they hope I’ll just stop writing about it and move on to other things. After all I think there are far less councillors getting a taxi from home to the public meetings now since I started publishing what these expenses were for.

Anyway, another news story that’s seems to be popular on the blog is that Merseytravel’s Chief Executive David Brown is leaving. I think he’s leaving from some time next month to become Chief Executive of Transport for the North. Obviously that’ll be news for people that work at Merseytravel and I suppose you’re wondering what Transport for the North is!

Well it’s a new kind of regional body that’s been set up regarding transport matters and eventually it’ll become like Merseytravel is and the Combined Authority a statutory body. So I wish him luck in his new job and I think the Deputy Chief Executive Frank Rogers will be Acting Chief Executive until councillors decide on who the permanent Chief Executive should be, which should come to a future meeting in the future.

Anyway, another thing I’ve written about on the blog recently is to do with the whole Lyndale School closure matter. Now for those who have been following this story this is probably going to repeat what you already know, but Wirral Council officers said the reason the school had to close was that from 2016/17 which is the next academic year, that funding that they’d get for education from the government would be based on pupil numbers rather than place numbers.

Now at the moment I think there are about forty places at Lyndale School and about must be a dozen or so pupils. So basically they were saying that from next year, there would be a shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget.

But this hasn’t happened!

The Cabinet still decided to close the School, but the funding changes haven’t happened, Wirral Council will get the same funding as they did the previous year.

However despite them getting the same funding, they have actually made cuts from the SEN budget because there is flexibility at Wirral Council in that they can move money around within the education budget. They’ve still got to spend it on education, but they can move money around from say that allocated for teaching assistants for special educational needs to something else within that education budget and one of the things that’s been causing pressures on the budget is that they have a massive contract, I think it’s about half way through thirty years or something.

I’ve read through the contract and it’d take too long to go into here, but it’s a contract with Wirral Schools Services Limited for basically to rebuild a number of schools, but as well as the payments that relate to that there are also payments of millions a year I think that the schools have to pay this private company for services to do with the schools. For instance I think school meals is part of it, possibly cleaning and maintenance.

So the situation had been that Wirral Council was getting a grant from the government for some of this, but the contract meant that the costs were rising each year for PFI.

What was happening was, this money was being funded outside the education budget by Wirral Council. But then a political decision was made [by Wirral Council councillors] not to do this, which meant that a few million had to be cut out of the education budget elsewhere.

Hence why special educational needs got a cut, but again one of the other interesting twists and turns that came out in the Lyndale School saga is that the whole issue of whether the School should be closed or not seemed to arise around the time there was a revaluation of the land and buildings.

Off the top of my head I think the valuation was about £2.4 million [it was actually £2.6 million]. I’d better make it clear at this stage this is a what they call a technical, what’s it called, depreciated replacement cost value. It’s not a they send in an estate agent and they say how much would would we get for this and how much would we get for the school playing fields and so on?

No, it’s more they have to have on their asset list, a list of how much their assets are because obviously as a Council they have liabilities, they have to offset that with their assets.

But it’s a great shame what happened regarding Lyndale School, it’s not closed yet, it’ll close at the end of the academic year, but I think it could’ve been handled a lot better.

Obviously there’ve been recent revelations come out that the person that chaired the consultation meetings on the Lyndale School closure wasn’t in fact a Wirral Council employee, but is a what do you call it, a temp, a temporary worker because they couldn’t recruit somebody to the post [for £775+VAT/day].

He’s called Phil Ward and the problem was that, there was quite a bit of criticism levelled at him for the way he chaired the consultation meetings. Now obviously you can criticise anybody for chairing high profile consultation meetings. I’m sure there were criticisms of how Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority did their consultation meetings.

But moving back to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, the Saughall Massie issue, it was agreed by councillors on the Fire Authority to go ahead, they’ve agreed the four or so million pounds in the capital budget and a planning application has been submitted.

Now I’ve checked on Wirral Council’s website and I can’t see a planning application there yet but obviously they have to scan it in and put it on the website for consultation so people can make their comments and so on.

The other issue is there was a vote recently on whether Wirral Council should give the land or they may get something for it I don’t know, maybe they’ll give it to them, should give this land to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority for this new fire station in Saughall Massie.

Now, that was a five for, five against vote with one abstention so it got deferred to another meeting.

Now obviously it would be better if Wirral Council could make a decision reasonably quickly but I understand the point that councillors made at the meeting, that they felt they were only hearing one side of the argument and that they hadn’t got the information in front of them regarding the emails that had been released under Freedom of Information Act requests, they hadn’t heard the Fire and Rescue Service’s point of view because nobody had been invited along from the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and basically better decisions are made by politicians when they have the facts in front of them and they don’t like making decisions if they’re going to be made fools of later when it turns out there’s something they should’ve known or was in the public domain.

An example of that New Brighton car parking Fort Perch Rock fiasco. Now that went out to budget consultation, was agreed by Cabinet, was agreed by Council but what wasn’t known at the time was that Wirral Council had a lease for the Marine Point complex and that lease said that if Wirral Council introduced car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, that they could be introduced in the car parking elsewhere there and Liverpool Echo journalist I think it was Liam Murphy got in touch with the company that runs the Marine Point complex and they said yes they’d have to introduce charges because obviously if Wirral Council had introduced charges at Fort Perch Rock car park then it would’ve displaced some parking to the free parking elsewhere, so then they’d feel they’d have to introduce charges themselves, but once these matters came out then there was a U-turn done on it and they decided they’ll make up the budget shortfall somewhere else.

But that goes back to my point about politicians having the information in front of them so they can make reasonably informed decisions. Now the reports that go before officers, sorry politicians whether that’s at Wirral Council, Liverpool City Council, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, Merseytravel and so on are written by officers. That is employees of the particular public body that the politicians are politicians for.

But there’s a question of, officers can have a particular point of view and make a recommendation and therefore ask the councillors to approve it, but officers aren’t actually going to know everything, but where do the public fit in all this?

Because of course in an ideal world, like for instance the Planning Committee yesterday where the public gets to speak for five minutes if they’ve got a qualifying petition. In an ideal world, if you were making a decision, say a major decision about a fire station being built, well that’s two decisions really, it’s a planning decision and whether Wirral Council give them the land. When you’re making a major decision like that, then not only should you have some sort of consultation with the public and by consultation I don’t mean publishing the papers for the meeting a week before, although that does give some advance warning so people can lobby the decision makers.

I’m talking about that people who are affected by the decision should have their say at a public meeting and I know there’ve been consultation meetings, that the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service have run and that’s fine. But what I’m saying is the ball’s now in Wirral Council’s court, there has to be the usual consultation on planning applications, but it’s a very emotive issue.

And I think basically if I can sum up the positions, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service have received a grant for some of the cost of this fire station and of course with the West Kirby and Upton fire stations being closed, they’ll receive something for the sale of those but basically they want to build it now in Saughall Massie because the site in Greasby has been withdrawn.

But the problem is that this is greenbelt land and there’s a lot of resistance from the residents regarding a fire station there.

Now in the not too distant past Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service did put in a planning application for a temporary fire station in Oxton while Birkenhead Fire Station was being rebuilt. I know that was later withdrawn but that caused a similar level of fuss and outrage and politicians saying they were against it and so on.

But the problem was that was only a temporary ~12 month arrangement, eventually they found some way round finding somewhere else. But the same issues that were brought up then, have been brought up regarding this Saughall Massie issue, you know the issues regarding sirens, traffic and so on but I think the elephant in the room really for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service is that a number of the fire stations they’ve got are part of the PFI scheme, so they can’t close those without massive penalties.

I mean I think Birkenhead Fire Station is one example of one of the fire stations they’ve got under this PFI scheme.

So there are fire stations they can’t shut, so that leaves if they want to make any budget savings, for instance through cutting jobs and merging fire stations, they’ve only got the ones that aren’t the PFI fire stations that they can choose from.

And that’s part of the reason why Upton and West Kirby got chosen.

But I think one of the things that has currently got the public going, is that after there was pressure put regarding the Greasby site, that the offer of Greasby where there’s a library and community centre there was withdrawn and people are asking why Wirral Council isn’t doing the same thing with Saughall Massie?

Well basically these are decisions yet to be determined, it’s a party political matter because three political parties involved in the last decision on this voted three different ways, but I can see a problem because firstly Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service can’t keep Upton and West Kirby open. They just don’t have the budget for the amount of firefighters that would take.

Now one alternative is, just keep Upton open, now the downside to this according to the Chief Fire Officer is that this would increase response times to the Hoylake and West Kirby area, so that’s why they want somewhere roughly in between the two stations.

However then people raised the issue of Upton’s close to Arrowe Park Hospital, so it’ll take longer to get to there so wherever you have a fire station there’ll be people that have a quick response time and people that have a slow response time.

But the fire engines aren’t always at the fire station all the time, I mean about half the time they’ll be called out on a job, well maybe a bit more than that, they’ll be out somewhere else and that can’t really be predicted where they’d be at, whether they’d be fitting a smoke alarm or something like that.

So there are a lot of issues to do with the Saughall Massie fire station and basically I’ll be reporting on it, but at the same time I think it’s interesting seeing both the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meetings and the Wirral Council meetings and how this issue has been dealt with at both of them.

Of course if the government hadn’t offered Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service a large grant to build a new fire station there, then I doubt this would’ve gone ahead, admittedly they could’ve borrowed the money or found the money from somewhere but I think that what’s interesting is I did make a FOI for the grant application that they made to DCLG, was told that this information would be published in the future so I couldn’t have it now and I’d have to wait till after the consultations were finished and by that they didn’t just mean the Upton and West Kirby consultations but they meant the other consultations because this grant is not just for a fire station at Saughall Massie, there are similar consultations and mergers and closures happening elsewhere across Merseyside.

So hopefully that will sum up things and I’ll point out that tonight at the Wallasey Constituency Committee, I won’t be there but I noticed because I read through the reports and the agenda, that the Motability, they have a little place in Birkenhead that hires out wheelchairs and things like that are looking to set up a place in New Brighton, so people can hire wheelchairs and that kind of thing.

So that’s a possibly positive move for New Brighton, because I know there’s been a lot of criticism at New Brighton and a large petition over the dropped car parking plans.

Anyway I’d better finish for now, but thanks for listening.

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