John Brace | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

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

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

I received a response yesterday from the Education Funding Agency to my Freedom of Information Act request about Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee (that was later withdrawn).

Wirral Council assumed it would make a successful application for an exemption from the 98.5% minimum funding guarantee. This was what led to the predicted shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget of £72,000 for 2014/15. This application was later withdrawn (before the Education Funding Agency reached a decision on it) which led to Lyndale School’s financial forecast for 2014/15 changing from a deficit to a surplus.

The detail of the rationale behind the application is interesting though and is included below. It seems to it was emailed to the Education Funding Agency by an Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager, School Funding & Resources). The date of the email isn’t included, however I’ve submitted an internal review request for that too.

What’s interesting is that it in the application Andrew Roberts states “However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.” However at the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February the eight Labour councillors voted against an amendment (six voted for the amendment who were the Lib Dem councillor, five Conservative councillors and the parent governor rep) proposed and seconded by the Conservative councillors that was “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.”

Wirral Council’s Andrew Roberts also states “Without capping the MFG (minimum funding guarantee) costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.”

This however seems to contradict what Surjit Tour stated at Budget Cabinet on the 12th February 2014 in his advice to Cabinet deciding on their recommendation to Council for the Schools Budget for 2014/15 (I’ve underlined the relevant section of what Surjit Tour said) which was

“Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.

One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.”

The contingency referred to was for £908,900. At this point you might point out that £908,900 is more than enough to cover the £800,000 extra needed by the minimum funding guarantee. However if you read this report to the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 it states what the £908,900 contingency is planned to be used for and I quote:

Contingency. The contingency identified of £908,900 is required to cover the potential costs of:

Adjustments with the EFA for post 16 students. There are ongoing discussions about the costs of mainstream school and academy High Needs places (£6,000 per place) which potentially will cost £372,000
Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.
Unfunded growth in place numbers – there has been a small net increase in the planned number of High Needs places
Any mismatch between places identified with providers and places taken up.
Inflationary pressures within Non Maintained Special Schools.
Uncertainty about the overall statement numbers

So with Wirral Council officers stating that funding Lyndale School is first “unaffordable”, then another officer stating that “provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications” is it any wonder that people are confused on this point?

The minutes of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call in state “The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”

How can it be “more affordable” though? Has the designation of what the contingency fund to be used for changed from what was agreed by the Wirral Schools Forum in January (as outlined above) to a decision behind the scenes to withdraw the minimum funding guarantee exemption application and use the contingency to fund the minimum funding guarantee? Is the reason why funding is no longer mentioned with regards to Lyndale School because officers stated (at different times) that it was both affordable and unaffordable (and as the underlying budget hasn’t changed both positions can’t both be accurate can they)?

Wirral Council’s Julia Hassall now says that the consultation on closing Lyndale School is because of pupil numbers as there are twenty-three children at the school which has a capacity for forty. Following the review by Eric Craven there was a reduction in the planned admission number for Lyndale School last year from forty-five to forty. I’m sure Wirral Council (if it wanted to) could reduce the planned admission number at Lyndale School for future years to a lower number such as thirty or twenty-five.

Wirral Council’s policy on the admission arrangements for primary schools for 2015-16 was agreed by Cabinet last Thursday. In it it states at “3.5 Special Needs. All schools will be required to admit a pupil with a Statement of Special Educational Needs naming the school.”

Therefore if Wirral Council started naming Lyndale School in SEN statements, rather than sending more pupils to oversubscribed special schools such as Elleray Park (currently with 91 pupils and 80 places) wouldn’t this help increase numbers at Lyndale towards its place figure of forty?

What’s interesting is that money was put in the budget for next year to increase the numbers of places at Elleray Park by ten. So why can’t Wirral Council agree to reduce the number of places at Lyndale School by ten?

Below is Wirral Council’s application (later withdrawn) from Andrew Roberts for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee which guarantees that schools receive at least 98.5% of the money they received the previous year.
——————————————————————————————————-

This letter is requesting exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG included within the 2014 – 2015 DSG additional conditions of grant. Paragraph g “In deciding on top up funding rates for the pupils it will place in special schools …. and the total number and type of places received the same in the 2 financial years the school or Academy budget would receive by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013 – 2014 and 2014 – 2015.”

Over the past 12 months a Schools Forum SEN finance group has met to develop proposals for high needs funding and particularly to agree a banded approach for specialist SEN provision.

A banded system (with 5 bands) was developed taking account of a number of issues:

The need for stability
The fluctuation arising from part year places and the need to have places available.
To take account of the increasing demands and population with social communication needs and to recognise the resource intensive nature of provision for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.

These 5 bands have also been applied to SEN resourced base provision in mainstream schools and academies. The bands used take account of the same needs identified within Wirral’s 11 special schools and in addition gives an equivalent level of funding for each child.

Changes of this nature will result in movement of resources and a number of schools will as a result receive more funding and others will receive less. However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.

The SEN top up proposals were subject to a full consultation with all schools and providers in Wirral, commencing on 3rd July and closing on 18th October. The consultation papers included an illustration for each school of the funding a school might receive using current numbers and numbers at capacity, compared with the level of funding provided in 2013 – 2014. In addition there has been a series of meetings with schools to discuss the changes suggested.

24 responses were received including 10 out of 11 special schools and 6 out of 14 school SEN resource bases. Overall the responses were supportive and in favour of the local authority’s proposals.

Since the consultation was launched schools were asked a supplementary question about views on seeking an exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG. This approach has been adopted because the MFG will not work with the new top up bands. Without capping the MFG costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.

Schools were asked for their preferences based on a table illustrating:

No MFG (7)
An Average MFG (phased over 3 years) (5)
A full MFG (0)
The responses are shown in brackets above.

This issue was discussed at the Schools Forum meeting on 13th November 2013. The recommendation from the forum was “That Forum supports an application to the EFA for an exemption from the requirement to use an MFG (Option 1) on Top Ups for 2014 – 2015, and failing that Forum request the EFA agree the use of an average MFG (Option 2)”

A number of papers are attached to this e-mail including:

School Forum Agenda from 13 November 2013:
– Element 3 Top up funding arrangements for pupils with high needs (SEN) and for pupils attending Alternative Provision. (This report includes the consultation paper and letter to schools about the MFG)
– An extract from the Schools Forum minutes

Please let me know if you would like further details.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours sincerely

Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338
andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

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

Cabinet agree to Wirral Council using £100,403 grant to increase voter registration in “deprived wards”

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

The Cabinet item on the individual electoral registration scrutiny report starts at 3:16 in the video above.

Councillor Jean Stapleton addresses the Cabinet about upcoming changes to the way people register to vote

The first main item on the Cabinet last agenda was a scrutiny report on individual electoral registration that was referred to it by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee at its meeting on the 15th January. The original report to that committee can be read here, along with the scrutiny report as the report on Cabinet’s agenda was just a copy of the minutes of that meeting. It does however raise the question of as there have been five Cabinet meetings since the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 15th January (last Thursday’s was the fifth) why hasn’t it appeared on an agenda before now?

However, Councillor Jean Stapleton the Chair of the Scrutiny Panel addressed Cabinet on the subject of individual electoral registration (the other panel members were Councillor Moira McLaughlin, Councillor Denise Roberts and Councillor Steve Williams whose mug shots can be found on at the bottom of page 14 of the
report). Cllr Jean Stapleton explained what officers had told them they were doing to prepare for individual electoral registration.

In case you are wondering what individual electoral registration actually means, at the moment each year a form goes out to each household annually to confirm who is registered to vote there. However there will be a change (although not until after the next set of elections in May) and voters will be expected to register to vote on an individual, not household basis.

Councillor Jean Stapleton said that officers had told them that based on their test of matching data on the electoral roll with other information held by Wirral Council such as Council Tax information, that it was estimated (across the whole of Wirral) that 89% of people would be transferred to the new register automatically. However this percentage was lower in the “deprived areas” (and although she didn’t explicitly say it the wards that return Labour councillors at elections). She wanted Wirral Council to actively target these areas to maximise the numbers of registered voters and to use the additional funding they had been given this financial year by the Cabinet Office of £100,403 with a further unknown amount expected from the Cabinet Office in 2014/15.

She felt that it should be a high priority in 2014 as she felt that the public were virtually unaware of this change. She said that non-IER registered voters would remain on the register for the 2015 General Election (originally the change was planned to be in place for the 2015 General Election but proved too contentious) and said that once the new register was published on the 1st December 2015 that these non-IER registered voters would be removed. She asked Cabinet to accept the recommendations.

Councillor Phil Davies said, “Ok thanks Jean. I mean I think it’s an excellent piece of work, I think you’ve highlighted I think a key issue really in the report which is about those areas of the Borough where there’s a need to do some targeted work to increase registration. Just to explain a little bit about what form that targeted work might take out of interest?”

Councillor Jean Stapleton said that there would be opportunities to target particular areas, even to drill down to postal districts “within a deprived ward”. She said it was a fantastic opportunity for Wirral Council to go round “knocking on doors”. Cllr Stapleton said that they pass “swathes of doors” where people weren’t registered to vote and she said it was an opportunity to talk to those people. She said she was “delighted with the opportunity” but that the real worry she had was over the register used at the 2016 elections.

Councillor Ann McLachlan, Cabinet Member for Governance and Improvement said, “Yes, thank you Chair. I mean first of all I’d like to say how I welcome this report and I’d like to start by congratulating the members of the panel on a really excellent piece of work. When we set up the policy and performance committees, this is exactly the kind of work that we hoped would be done as scrutiny work.

Thanks Jean, Councillor McLaughlin Moira McLaughlin and Denise Roberts and Councillor Steve Williams for plodding through and it really is an excellent piece of work. The report it does really highlight you know the areas of deprivation that we are going to target them and I’ve noticed that there is issues around possibly using local media, radio, ICT and of course you know the key role of elected Members is in highlighting .. you know those crucial tools to ensure that we want to make sure people are retained on the register because although there’ll be this changeover to the new register, people are going to be asked for additional information. Where that information around National Insurance numbers and dates of birth is not there, if people don’t respond and react to that they could fall off the register.

So it’s really key that we ensure that we you know as elected Members, but as Council play a role in that and I hope that some of that work that we’ll do in you now using the money that’s being fully funded, is being fully funded by the government I hope we’ll use that work in terms of making sure that we use you know ICT, use local media to ensure that we do update, to ensure that people aren’t but I notice as well in the report that you highlight the work and preparation that the Council has already done and in terms of data matching we came out quite above the average really on the work that’s been done so far and we’ve got in place an electoral management system and I think we’re working closely with other authorities on this, you know … Merseyside wide authorities so there’s some kind of project plan for the media to ensure that when the Electoral Commission fund and launch their campaign that we’re running with our campaign locally.

So you know I think as I said this is an excellent piece of work, a fully funded piece of work. I fully endorse the report and completely accept the recommendations that are there which I’m sure we’ll want to do and a fabulous piece of horizon scanning work so you know we need to pass on our thanks to the members of the panel and I’d like that recorded thank you.”

Cllr Jean Stapleton responded to Cllr Ann McLachlan’s comments. Cllr Phil Davies referred to recommendation three in the report that “Chairs of constituency committees are requested to include IER
as a topic for discussion as part of their forward planning in the New Year”. He said that they would have to pass this request on as not all constituency chairs were councillors.

Cllr Phil Davies went on to describe it as an “excellent piece of work” and congratulated her and the team behind it. Cllr Jean Stapleton congratulated the officers and Cabinet agreed to endorse all the recommendations.

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

Wirral Council reconsiders secrecy over hourly rates for solicitors and barristers and decides to keep them secret

Last year I blogged about how Wirral Council had entered into a contract with solicitors and barristers chambers to keep the hourly rates it was being charged “confidential” (and therefore redacted on the invoices and contract I requested to inspect), when I exercised my right under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18 as part of last year’s audit to inspect various legal invoices Wirral Council had received and the hourly rates included as part of the North West Legal Consortium Collaboration Agreement.

There’s a Management Board for the North West Legal Consortium Collaboration Agreement and a Consortium Contract Manager and last year I asked for their views on the redaction and pointed out that the contract does allow the hourly rates for legal services to be disclosed with the consent of the companies involved. The response I got is detailed in excerpts from two emails below.

Interestingly the contract also specifies in pages 15 and page 16 that if there are any FOI requests relating to these matters that the Consortium Contract Manager must be notified of any FOI requests relating to it (which is probably why Cllr Ian Lewis’ recent FOI request about the fee Wirral Council paid to the barrister Sarah O’Brien took four weeks to answer.

I thought the answer to the question about supplying the legal rates that I received last year from Wirral Council would be interesting to publish here as it runs completely counter to what politicians say in public about the Labour administration being “open and transparent”.

I’ve not included the person who sent these two emails as he’s merely passing on a response he’s received and I don’t want anyone to “shoot the messenger”.

from: @wirral.gov.uk
to: john.brace [at] gmail.com
cc: Financial Services Coordination
date: 30 August 2013 17:04
subject: RE: legal invoices

Hello Mr Brace,

Thank you for your e-mail

…….

Redaction of Evershed’s and Weightman’s invoices

Your request has been forwarded to the Management Board of the NW Legal Consortium which meets next week. We will get back to you once a response is received from the NWLC Management Board on this matter. Depending upon the outcome of this we can then take a view on your subsequent questions.

I am on leave for the next two weeks. If you have any further need to contact us could you please send it to the financial Services coordination e-mail address and copy in my email address. Matters can then be picked up in my absence.

——————————————————————————————————-

from: @wirral.gov.uk
to: john.brace [at] gmail.com
date: 19 September 2013 16:02
subject: RE: legal invoices
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Redaction of Evershed’s and Weightman’s invoices

Your points have been put to the consortium as requested. The response received is contained below.

There was expectation from the bidders that the hourly rates were provided in confidence. The expectation of bidders whilst submitting the hour rates the information would be used only for the purposes of the tenders only.
We believe that disclosure of the hourly rates would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the law firms that tendered for the contract. As this exemption relates to the legal firms, the Council sought the views of the firms. In response, the Council was provided with the responses below:

(a) The rates on which our legal services are provided to clients are highly sensitive and often pivotal in whether we win or loose work from a client;
(b) There is a real and significant risk that disclosure of the Rates would enable our competitors to undercut us when the Council puts its legal services out to tender again, and also where we are bidding for other public sector work;
(c) The rates were provided in a highly competitive environment and they remain current. The market in which we operate is highly competitive and – more than ever during the recession – clients have been willing to ‘shop around’ for legal services with hourly rates being a key determining factor as to where to place work. Given the Rates are highly competitive (significantly below even our standard local government rates), it is a real risk that this could lead to clients on less competitive rates taking their work elsewhere or not placing work with us. It is also probable that, if the Rates were disclosed and became more widely known, some of our existing Clients will seek to re-negotiate rates to the level of or close to the Rates which again could lead to a significant financial impact on the law firms. Law firms have not gone unscathed in the recession and many firms have been forced to make redundancies and some have even gone out of business. Disclosure of the Rates could therefore lead to not-only a direct and significant impact on our revenue but also damage to our reputation and to the confidence that our clients have in us;
(d) For the reasons described above, disclosure of rates information for legal services could deter legal services providers who may think twice about whether working for public sector clients in the future. This could lead to a market in which the public sector has a diminished pool of legal services providers to choose from (driving quality down and rates up).

If you wish to pursue this latter matter further you would probably need to take your own legal advice regarding the contract confidentiality versus the Audit Commission Act. The Council has erred on the side of contract confidentiality.

The guidance issued by the Audit Commission regarding inspection rights does state that ‘Your right to inspect the accounts is personal which means the external auditor can not get involved.’ My reading of this would mean that neither Grant Thornton nor the Audit Commission would be able to provide a view on this issue.

I hope that this answers your queries.

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

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

Share this:

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

Share this:

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Share this:

Cabinet agree to Wirral Council using £100,403 grant to increase voter registration in “deprived wards”

Share this:

Wirral Council reconsiders secrecy over hourly rates for solicitors and barristers and decides to keep them secret

Share this: