November, 2014 | 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:

11 more pages of Wirral Council councillors' mileage claims (Elderton, Hornby, Kelly, Povall, Salter, H Smith and P Williams)

11 more pages of Wirral Council councillors’ mileage claims (Elderton, Hornby, Kelly, Povall, Salter, H Smith and P Williams)

A long time ago I was up to the travel expenses for Cllr Phil Davies in the extra pages supplied last month that should’ve come in the original tranche in September.

The rests were scanned in, just until now haven’t been uploaded or blogged about. For the sake of convenience, I am just putting the remaining pages below. These aren’t complete for the 2013-14 as many are pages originally missing from those supplied by Wirral Council’s Human Resources department as part of the original request. For the other pages for those councillors you’ll have to look elsewhere on this blog.

These are a further eleven pages that cover Cllrs David Elderton, Mike Hornby, Stuart Kelly, Cherry Povall, John Salter, Harry Smith and Patricia Williams. I may blog about them in detail another time, but at least by publishing the rest of the pages are in the public domain should you wish to view them. Councillors are in alphabetical order by surname. There are multiple pages for some councillors.

There is also a mysterious taxi contract for councillors. I’m still awaiting further details on that and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s expenses for 2013-14.

Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 1

Cllr Mike Hornby expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 4

Cllr Mike Hornby expenses claim 2013 page 2 of 4

Cllr Mike Hornby expenses claim 2013 page 3 of 4

Cllr Mike Hornby expenses claim 2013 page 4 of 4

Cllr Stuart Kelly expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 1

Cllr Cherry Povall expenses claim 2014 page 1 of 1

Cllr John Salter expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 1

Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 2

Cllr Harry Smith expenses claim 2013 page 2 of 2

Cllr Patricia Williams expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 1

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

Wirral Council in numbers: 3 senior managers leaving, 2 buildings fall down and 2 public meetings cancelled

Employment and Appointments Committee 27th October 2014 Committee Room 2 L to R Cllr Gilchrist Lib Dem, Chris Hyams Head of HR, Cllr Adrian Jones Labour Chair, Andrew Mossop Committee Services and Graham Burgess outgoing Chief Executive

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.

VIDEO ONLY

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.

AUDIO ONLY

You can watch the meeting of the Employment and Appointments Committee of 27th October 2014 above at which the Employment and Appointment Panels referred to below were created.

As there is so much happening at Wirral Council now, I thought it was best to write a general piece about a few different topics at Wirral Council.

The public meeting of the Coordinating Committee last week which met to decide a call in of the decision to consult on closure of Children’s Centres was unexpectedly brought to a halt and adjourned (without yet reaching a decision or hearing all witnesses) as the Wallasey Town Hall was evacuated due to the collapse of two Council-owned buildings in nearby King Street.

This story has been widely covered by the media. The main road outside where the building collapsed was closed that evening (but has since been reopened). As I was nearby that evening, I can say that there was a large emergency services response (Merseyside Police, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and North West Ambulance Service) and also organisations such as National Grid responded to cut off the gas supply.

As Wirral Council owned the properties that fell down, questions were asked by politicians and the press as to why the buildings fell down. However I will leave that story for now and move to other matters.

Two public meetings that should have happened in the next week at Wirral Council have been cancelled. These are:

19th November 2014 5.30pm Licensing Act 2003 Committee, Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall (contact: Anne Beauchamp | Chair: Cllr Bill Davies (Labour)
24th November 2014 6.00pm Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee, Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall (contact: Shirley Hudspeth | Chair: Cllr Bill Davies (Labour))

Presumably standards are now so high at Wirral Council that there can be a budget saving achieved from councillors travel expenses, employee costs and the room hire for the cancelled Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee not meeting. The Licensing Act 2003 Committee’s remit is not unsurprisingly to do with the Licensing Act 2003 c.17. As everyone on Wirral knows, there are no problems whatsoever with pubs, clubs, off licences, late night refreshment or other related activities on the Wirral. Wait a sec, news just in. Seems there is a problem (according to residents). Here’s a question submitted by one of the Oxton residents to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting of 30th October 2014:

“Name: Alfred Lennon (Oxton Village People)
Date Received: 23rd October 2014
Query: Wirral has a problem with alcohol as detailed it its Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and requiring the recent police crackdown. Yet the Authority persists in licensing ever more premises with ever longer drinking hours. Why cannot the Authority be brave, reduce the number of licensed premises AND reduce their opening hours?

Response from Wirral Council Licensing Section:

The Licensing Application Process

When a Licensing Authority received an application for a new premises licence or an application to vary an existing premises licence, it must determine whether the application has been made in accordance with section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act), and in accordance with regulations made under sections 17(3) to (6), 34, 42, 65 and 55 of the Act. This means that the Licensing Authority must consider among other things whether the application has been properly advertised. These requirements are different to those connected to the Planning process.

Under the licensing regime an applicant is required to display a blue notice on the premises and publish a notice in a local newspaper providing details of the application. The applicant must also serve the application on the Responsible Authorities which are: the Police, the Fire Authority, Trading Standards, Environmental Health, Planning, the Area Child Protection Board, the Licensing Authority and Public Health who are all entitled to make representations. In addition to this, the Council published details of all application on the Council’s website and circulates these details to all Councillors. Representations can also be made by any person, which can include residents and businesses whom may be affected by a premises.

The Licensing Authority may only accept relevant representations. A representation is “relevant” if it relates to the likely effect of the grant of the licence on the promotion of at least one of the four licensing objectives. In other words, representations should relate to how the licensable activities carried on from premises impact on the objectives. For representations in relations to variations to be relevant, they should be confined to the subject matter of the variation.

Four Licensing Objectives:

The Protection of Children from Harm
The Prevention of Crime and Disorder
The Prevention of Public Nuisance
Public Safety

”

Wirral Council’s question then goes on for a further A4 side on Cumulative Impact. Just commenting on their answer for a moment to this point from what I remember of current policy (I may be a little rusty so don’t rely on this), as a general rule (*which depends on the circumstances of the application) if there are objections to a new premises licence or application to vary a premises licence it gets decided at a public meeting of the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee by 3 councillors.

A certain amount of other applications don’t get this scrutiny and are either decided by officers (based on a policy agreed by councillors). What’s left out of the answer is that anyone can request a licence review (if you have the time, paper and postage to do this) which results in an existing licence being reviewed.

This doesn’t happen very often (rarely is what I’d say) as either most people don’t know they can do this, or don’t want to or they don’t know how. I doubt it would be in Wirral Council’s financial interests to tell people how as it would lead to more public meetings of the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee and then they’d have to put up the fees charged to those running premises as it costs Wirral Council £thousands (room hire, councillors travel expenses, employee time, website running costs, printing of agenda/reports, postage et cetera) each time they hold a public meeting.

However moving on from employee time to an employee leaving. On 31st December 2014 Graham Burgess (the Chief Executive leaves). There isn’t time to appoint a new Chief Executive to start on 1st January 2015 as the post hasn’t even been advertised yet.

The Chief Executive is also Wirral Council’s Head of Paid Service, Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer.

So before a new Chief Executive is appointed who will fill these important roles (the latter two especially important because there is an election for Wirral’s 4 MPs and 22 councillors in May 2015). The Head of Paid Service, Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer role are all ones Wirral Council is under a legal obligation to have someone in post for. However the decisions have to be made by Council (a meeting of Wirral Council’s councillors) before 31st December 2014.

In addition to Graham Burgess leaving on the 31st December 2014, so is Vivienne Quayle (currently Director of Resources and s.151 officer).

So these are the interim management arrangements currently down to be discussed which will then (assuming the Employment and Appointments Panel approve them) be a recommendation to Council which meets on the 8th December 2014 (this report has a typographical error and states 8th December 2015 by mistake) to decide on an Acting Chief Executive and Acting Head of Paid Service.

Also Council on the 8th December 2015 will need to appoint a Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer.

These are the following recommendations (subject to Employment and Appointments Panel agreement and Council agreement on the 8th December 2014):

Returning Officer: Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services)
Deputy Returning Officer: Joe Blott (Strategic Director of Transformation and Resources)
Acting Electoral Registration Officer: Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services)
Acting Deputy Electoral Registration Officer: Joe Blott (Strategic Director of Transformation and Resources)
Acting Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service: recommendation to be made by appointment panel on 24th November 2014 to Council meeting on the 8th December 2014

Due to Vivienne Quayle leaving, these are the proposed interim management arrangements recommended to the Employment and Appointments Panel who then have a choice whether to recommend these to Council regarding Ms Quayle leaving:

Acting Section 151 Officer: Tom Sault (Head of Financial Services) regraded from HS2 (now not the proposed railway but a salary grade at Wirral Council) to HS1 for interim period
Acting Deputy Section 151 Officer: Jenny Spick (Finance Manager)
Acting Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) (recommendation to Council): Mike Zammit (Chief Information Officer)
Audit function and Procurement function (functional responsibility in Resources division): Tom Sault

There is also a third member of the senior management team leaving too, but arrangements won’t be decided on that until a meeting on the 10th December 2014. That person leaving is Emma Taylor (Head of Specialist Services) in the Families and Wellbeing Directorate. Emma Taylor leaves in December 2014 and the responsibilities of the Head of Specialist Services post are children’s social work, fostering, adoption and children in care.

Helping Wirral Council with the above are Penna PLC (for which they are being paid £15,000 for each post so £45,000 in total) and the Local Government Association.

The seven councillors who will be making the above recommendations to Council in the near future are the seven on the Employment and Appointments Panel who are:

Cllr Phil Davies (Labour)
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Labour)
Cllr George Davies (Labour)
Cllr Adrian Jones (Labour)
Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative)
Cllr Lesley Rennie (Conservative)
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Lib Dem)

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

6 more pages of the Wirral Schools Services Limited contract with Wirral Council

Continues from The first 17 pages of Wirral Council’s contract with Wirral Schools Services Limited. This is a further six pages in the same contract.

THIS AGREEMENT is made on 27 March 2001.

BETWEEN:

(1) WIRRAL BOROUGH COUNCIL of Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral, Merseyside, CH44 8ED (the “Authority”; and

(2) WIRRAL SCHOOLS SERVICES LIMITED a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with registered number 41156367 whose registered office is at Frogmore Park, Watton-at-Stone, Hertford SG14 3RU (“Project Co”).

BACKGROUND:

(A) By virtue of sections 13 and 14 of the Education Act 1996, the Authority as local education authority is under statutory duties to secure that efficient primary and secondary education are available to meet the needs of the population of its area and that sufficient schools for providing such education are available for its area.

(B) By virtue of section 16 of the Education Act 1996, the Authority as local education authority may, for the purposes of fulfilling the above duties, establish and maintain primary and secondary schools.

(C) By a notice dated 17 November 1998 in the Official Journal, the Authority invited expressions of interest from appropriately qualified tenderers for the provision of accommodation and related support services for eight secondary schools and one primary school in accordance with the Government’s Private Finance Initiative.

(D) Project Co has submitted a proposal which, as negotiated through the negotiated tender process, has been agreed to by the Authority.

(E) The Authority and Project Co have agreed to work together in a spirit of co-operation to achieve the objectives of the Project. The Authority and Project Co have agreed to carry out the Project on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement.

(F) The Project is a private finance initiative project within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

IT IS AGREED as follow:

RMLIB01 #659790 v14 03/04/2001 15:25

PART 1 – INTERPRETATION

1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1.1 Definitions

In this Agreement (including the Background), the following terms shall, unless the contract otherwise requires, have the following meanings:

“1999 Act” means the Local Government Act 1999;

“Academic Year” means from the first day to the last day (excluding holidays) of the school year, such period not to be more than 195 days;

“Accommodation Actual Completion Date” means, in respect of the Accommodation Works at a Site, the date on which those Accommodation Works are Complete, being either the date stated in the certificate issued persuant to Clause 14.6 (Completion) or if this date is disputed in accordance with the Fast Track Resolution Procedure, the date determined under that procedure, as being the date upon which such certificate should have been issued;

“Accommodation Completion Date” means, in relation to the Accommodation Works at a Site, the date set out in column (1) of the Schedule of Key Dates by which such Accommodation Works must be Complete;

“Accommodation Services” means the services described in the Accommodation Services Output Specifications;

“Accommodation Services Output Specifications” means the specifications contained in Schedule 5 (Accommodation Services) as may be amended by a Variation or otherwise in accordance with this Agreement;

“Accommodation Works” means the works listed in Schedule 3 Part 4A;

“Acquired Rights Directive” means Council Directive 77/187 EEC as amended;

“Act of Vandalism” means a wilful, deliberate or malicious act carried out by Authority staff or pupils, guests, visitors or other persons authorised by the Authority who are properly on the relevant Site which results in damage to the relevant Facility or Site or any Fixed and/or Moveable Equipment thereon;

“Actual Date of Completion” means:

RMLIB01 #659790 v14 03/04/2001 15:25

(a) in respect of the Initial Works at a Site, the date on which those Initial Works are Complete, being either the date stated in the certificate issued persuant to Clause 14.4 (Completion) or if this date is disputed in accordance with the Fast Track Resolution Procedure, the date determined under that procedure, as being the date upon which such certificates should have been issued; or

(b) in respect of any Variation Works, the date on which the Variation Works are Completed in accordance with the relevant Variation Report agreed or determined (as appropriate) pursuant to Clause 32 (Variations) and certified as such pursuant to Clause 14.4 (Completion);

“Adjudication” means the procedure set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 (Dispute Resolution);

“Adjudicator” means an adjudicator appointed under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 (Dispute Resolution);

“Affected Party” means a Party affected by the occurence of the events listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of Force Majeure;

“Agenda 21” means the action plan establishing a framework for law in the field of sustainable development known as “Agenda 21” adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992;

“Agent” means Societété Générale of SG House, 41 Tower Hill, London, EC3N 4SG and its successors and assigns;

“Alternative Scheme” means one or more pensions scheme(s) each of which is approved or capable of approval under Chapter 1 Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 or the trustees of such a scheme as the case may be;

“Amended Plans” has the meaning given in Clause 32.12 (Plans);

“Ancillary Documents” means:

(a) the Shareholder’s Agreement;

(b) Project Co’s memorandum of association and articles of association;

(d) the Support Services Management Agreement;

RMLIB01 #659790 v14 03/04/2001 15:25

(e) the Direct Agreements;

(f) the D&B Contract Performance Guarantee; and

(g) the Support Services Management Agreement Performance Guarantee;

“Annual Debt Service Cover Ratio” or “ADSCR” whilst the Initial Funding Agreements are in force shall have the meaning given to Senior Debt Service Cover Ratio in the Initial Funding Agreements and thereafter means in respect of any period for which it falls to be calculated the ratio of A:B where:

A is the aggregate of Cash Available for Debt Service for that period; and

B is the Annual Debt Service Obligations for that period;

“Annual Maintenance Programme” means the Maintenance programme agreed or determined pursuant to Clause 19.3 (Annual Maintenance Programme);

“Annual Net Third Party Profit” means Gross Third Party Revenues earned in respect of third party use during a Year less the Third Part Costs incurred in respect of third party use during that Year;

“Annual Utility Services Consumption Targets” has the meaning given in paragraph 2.1 of Part 6 (Utility Services) of Schedule 4 (Payments);

“Appeal” means all or any of the following:

(a) an appeal to the Secretary of State in accordance with Section 78 of the Planning Acts against:

(i) a conditions attached to the Full Planning Permissions or Variation Planning Approvals and/or a refusal of a planning application for Planning Approvals and/or Variation Planning Approvals; or

(ii) non-determination of a planning application for Planning Approvals and/or Variation Planning Approvals; or

(b) the reference of a planning application to the Secretary of State under Section 77 of the Planning Acts,

and the expression “to Appeal” shall be construed accordingly;

RMLIB01 #659790 v14 03/04/2001 15:25

“Approved Leased Equipment” means sanitary equipment, fire detection and prevention systems, telephone systems, photocopiers and vehicles;

“Arbitration” means the procedure set out in paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 (Dispute Resolution);

“Arbitrater” means an arbitrator appointed in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 (Dispute Resolution);

“Asbestos” means any of the following minerals; crocidolite, amosite, chrysolite, fibrous actinolite, fibrous antthophyllite, fibrous tremolite and any mixture containing any of those minerals;

“Asset Register” means, with respect to each Facility, the asset register to be compiled by Project Co pursuant to Clause 22.18 (Asset Registers);

“Associated Company” means, in respect of a relevant company, a company which is a Subsidiary or a Holding Company of that relevant company or a company which is a Subsidiary of a Holding Company of that relevant company but not that relevant company itself and, in the case of Project Co, shall include each of the Consortium Members (the terms “Holding Company” and “Subsidiary” bearing the meanings defined in part XXXVI of the Companies Act 1985);

“Authority’s Confidential Information” has the meaning given in Clause 48.1 (The Authority’s Confidential Information);

“Authority’s D&B Contract Direct Agreement” means the direct agreement of the same date as this Agreement between the Authority, the D&B Contractor and Project Co;

“Authority’s Service Adviser” means the person appointed by the Authority (and notified to Project Co) to act pursuant to Clause 40 (Representatives);

“Authority’s Share” means the percentage figures in the fourth column of the table set out below corresponding to the amount of Cumulative Capital Expenditure at the relevant time, as shown in the first column of the table set out below:

Cumulative Capital Expenditure	Project Co’s Share	Cumulative Cost to Project Co	Authority’s Share
£0 – £0.6 million	100%	£600,000	0%
£0.6 – 1.2 million	75%	£1,050,000	25%

RMLIB01 #659790 v14 03/04/2001 15:25

£1.2 – 1.8 million	50%	£1,350,000	50%
£0.6 – 2.4 million	25%	£1,500,000	75%
Over £2.4 million	0%	£1,500,000	100%

“Authority’s Solicitors” means Rowe & Maw of 20 Black Friars Lane, London EC4V 6HD;

“Authority’s Support Services Management Direct Agreement” means the direct agreement of the same date as this Agreement between the Authority, the Support Services Manager and Project Co;

“Authority’s Works Adviser” means the person appointed by the Authority (and notified to Project Co) to act pursuant to Clause 40 (Representatives);

“Availability Deduction” has the meaning given in Part 1 (Definitions) of Schedule 4 (Payments);

“Base Case Financial Model” means the financial model as at the Effective Date setting out the basis on which the financing of the Project and the costs of and revenue from the Project have been calculated by Project Co (including the assumptions used, the cell logic network for the financial model software and any software and accompanying documentation necessary to operate the financial model) in the Agreed Form;

“Bebington” means Bebington High School;

“Bebington Asset Register” means the asset register to be compiled by Project Co pursuant to Clause 22.18 (Asset Registers);

“Bebington Headlease” means the lease between the Authority and Project Co substantially in the form set out in Part 1 (Bebington Headlease) of Schedule 1 (Land);

“Bebington Site” means the land identified in the Bebington Headlease and shown edged red on Plan B;

“Benchmarked Price” has the meaning given in paragraph 2.4 of Part 8 (Value for Money Testing) of Schedule 4 (Payments);

“Benchmarking” means subjecting a Support Service to the market price comparison procedure set out in Part 8 (Value for Money Testing) of Schedule 4 (Payments) with the aim of ensuring that the Support Service being tested is provided

RMLIB01 #659790 v14 03/04/2001 15:25

Continues at 38 more pages of the Wirral Schools Services Limited private finance initiative (PFI) contract with Wirral Council.

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:

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

Share this:

11 more pages of Wirral Council councillors’ mileage claims (Elderton, Hornby, Kelly, Povall, Salter, H Smith and P Williams)

Share this:

Wirral Council in numbers: 3 senior managers leaving, 2 buildings fall down and 2 public meetings cancelled

Share this:

6 more pages of the Wirral Schools Services Limited contract with Wirral Council

Share this:

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

Share this: