Author: John Brace

New media journalist from Birkenhead, England who writes about Wirral Council. Published and promoted by John Brace, 134 Boundary Road, Bidston, CH43 7PH. Printed by UK Webhosting Ltd t/a Tsohost, 113-114 Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, England, SL1 4PF.

What Really Matters budget options, Improvement Board review, Foxfield School move, Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre, Rock Ferry High and Acre Lane sale, Fernbank Farm update, contracts and Wirral Council’s response to critical reports

What Really Matters budget options, Improvement Board review, Foxfield School move, Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre, Rock Ferry High and Acre Lane sale, Fernbank Farm update, contracts and Wirral Council’s response to critical reports

What Really Matters budget options, Improvement Board review, Foxfield School move, Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre, Rock Ferry High and Acre Lane sale, Fernbank Farm update, contracts and Wirral Council’s response to critical reports

                                 

The first half of last week saw each of the new policy and performance committees met to discuss the current What Really Matters? consultation on Wirral Council’s budget options for 2013-14.

The first policy and performance committee (Families and Wellbeing), which has a remit covering both education and social services met on Monday. As education and social care are about three-quarters of Wirral Council’s budget there was much discussion about what the impact of the budget options would be. At about two and a half hours long councillors asked questions of officers of the fifteen budget options that fell within the remit of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee. The budget options ranged from cutting £100,000 of funding to reduce teenage pregnancies and £60,000 to try to reduce substance misuse to getting schools to pay for school crossing patrols, the school improvement service and the early retirement costs of their staff (a saving of £1.215 million over two years). Another budget option (saving £2 million over two years) discussed was reducing the opening hours of twelve Children’s Centres. If this option is agreed then there will be a future public consultation on outsourcing the running of Wirral’s Children Centres to the private, faith or voluntary sector. As the What Really Matters consultation runs to the 6th December you can respond to the consultation by completing the questionnaire on Wirral Council’s website.

The second policy and performance committee (Regeneration and Environment) met on Tuesday evening to discuss ten budget options. Being Guy Fawkes night what politicians said was at times drowned out by fireworks, however the meeting started with the unusual scene of a committee Vice-Chair (Cllr Steve Foulkes) arguing with its Chair (Cllr Alan Brighouse). Normally a committee’s Chair is of the same political party as the Vice-Chair, but as the Lib Dems only have one representative on the Regeneration and Environment Committee the Chair and Vice-Chair are from different parties. The source of Cllr Steve Foulkes’ ire towards Cllr Alan Brighouse was about a Oxton Lib Dem Focus in which Cllr Foulkes claimed that Cllr Alan Brighouse was critical (or at least was associated with critical comments about) the What Really Matters? consultation. The rest of the meeting was about the budget options ranging from the not particularly controversial (the Floral Pavilion or Floral Hall as one councillor called it charging a £1 booking fee on tickets), to the Friends of Birkenhead Kennels running Birkenhead Kennels resulting in its opening hours reducing to 8am to 8pm (from a twenty-four hour service), cancelling maintenance of the non-golf and non-football pitch parts of Arrowe Park as well as cancelling maintenance of “fourteen local parks, thirty-two natural and semi-natural green spaces, and forty-four amenity green spaces”, switching off more street lights (alternate lights in residential areas) to charging at car parks at Fort Perch Rock, Royden Park, Wirral Country Park, Eastham Country Park and Arrowe Country Park. The charging at these five car parks is particularly unpopular with the public and a petition against introducing car parking charges at Eastham Country Park has attracted over a thousand signatures.

Wednesday saw the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee meet to consider five budget options and there were more fireworks. Cllr Chris Blakeley who welcomed the new councillor Matthew Patrick followed by saying that “might be the only kind word you’ll hear from me” wanted the meeting adjourned and resumed after the consultation had finished. The four Conservative councillors voted for an adjournment but were outvoted by the Labour councillors, a Lib Dem councillor and an independent councillor. The budget options they discussed (although the Conservative councillors decided not to ask any questions after being outvoted over having an adjournment) was to axe the Council Tax discount of 7.76% to the over 70s (or in an option that saved less money limit the discount to Band A, B and C properties), increasing what Wirral Council charges for its costs for Magistrate’s Courts summons for Council Tax non-payment or business rates non-payment from £85 to £95, charging people extra when they use their credit card to pay Wirral Council for something, an option involving merging their telecommunications contracts, reviewing mobile phone usage and buying cheaper printing equipment and finally transforming Wirral Council (basically making five hundred staff redundant and reducing redundancy payments to the legal minimum).

Thursday saw a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet. A revised recommendation for item 17 (progressing neighbourhood working including strategic reviews of street scene and community safety) was agreed that requested a further report and delegated future decisions about this area to individual Cabinet portfolio holders. The financial monitoring halfway through the Council’s financial year projected nearly a £600,000 underspend. However most of the underspend was agreed to be set aside to meet future restructuring costs with £100,000 released from reserves for spending to do with the Open Golf tournament next year. Cllr Phil Davies also made a comment about car parking charges and stated that the income from car parks had gone up this year to £1.4 million compared to £1.2 million the previous year (although not as much as expected). He singled out Cllr Stuart Kelly for particular criticism for commenting on the car parking charges shortfall in the press and used this opportunity (as many Wirral Labour councillors do) to blame their problems on the Coalition government finishing by calling on opposition councillors to “be more responsible”. He also reported that Wirral Council had received almost all of its Icelandic investment back and were confident of receiving the whole amount.

Cllr Ann McLachlan gave an update on the Improvement Board. There is a consultation on a review of the Improvement Board’s work followed by a public question and answer session of the Improvement Board on Friday. As part of its review a report has been published which makes for interesting reading including the view of the Improvement Board that when it first started its work that Wirral Council was denying it had the corporate governance problems that were identified by the Improvement Board.

The outcome of the consultation on moving Foxfield School from Moreton to Woodchurch was also reported (the Planning Committee recently granted Wirral Council planning permission for the move) and Cabinet agreed to move the school. The Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee talked about a report produced as a review by councillors looking into the outcomes for looked after children. The report’s recommendations were agreed.

Ben Harrison of the Byrne Avenue Community Trust told the Cabinet that they had got agreement on £350,000 of funding (to match Wirral Council’s £350,000) and wanted to start work on repairing the sports hall. The Byrne Avenue Community Trust wanted to restore the building, creating employment and asked that the asset be transferred to the Byrne Avenue Community Trust. David Armstrong (the Assistant Chief Executive) talked about the history of the site, which was classed as a surplus Council asset. He pointed out that the big funders (Sports England and the National Lottery) had turned down grant applications from the Byrne Avenue Community Trust and that the Community Trust hadn’t submitted a business case to the Council. The Council’s view that was due to the presence of asbestos that the repairs would cost three or four times more than the £700,000 allocated to give it a lifespan beyond the short term and that it had very significant running costs. There were serious structural problems with the building and their concern would be that however well intentioned that it would only be partially restored. He referred to other sports facilities nearby that had been built over the last ten years. Cllr Phil Davies commented on it and his memories of the building.

Cllr Adrian Jones, the Cabinet Member for Central and Support Services expressed his regret at the unhappy position the Cabinet found themselves in. He showed photographs of rusting steel reinforced beams supported by steel acro bars that were rotting away and estimated the cost of repairs at two to three million pounds. He said that the £350,000 was desperately needed and wouldn’t be wasted or lost and that he was sure they’d go away painting him as the bad guy. Cllr Phil Davies said that the condition of the building was more serious than they’d originally been told and that £700,000 wouldn’t go near what was needed to bring it to a minimum safety standard. He referred to the nearby Oval and facilities at Prenton High School for Girls. The Cabinet agreed the recommendations in the report which were to retake possession of Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre from Byrne Avenue Community Trust, withdraw the offer of a £350,000 grant and reallocate it to other Community Asset Transfer activities, declare the asset surplus and give authority to its disposal and if sold on the open market to do so at auction. David Armstrong reassured the Byrne Avenue Community Trust that Wirral Council would allow them to make a photographic record and recover any of their property so that the community would have a record of Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre.

There was a slight change to the recommendation agreed in the report on asset management and disposals. Although Acre Lane (the former professional excellence centre) and the former Rock Ferry High school were both declared surplus to requirements, the land at Manor Drive (called Fernbank Farm) was not declared surplus to requirements due to the Birkenhead County Court case hearing on the 21st November. Cllr Phil Davies said that they had a challenge to try and find an alternative site for the pony club which he knew was much loved and cherished. He said that they wouldn’t lose anything by awaiting the outcome of the legal case and it was agreed that a decision on declaring Fernbank Farm would be deferred to the next Cabinet meeting (which would be after the court case on the 2nd December). This change to the original recommendation was agreed by Cabinet.

The Cabinet then agreed to note a report on proposed public health contracting arrangements for 2014/15 and to a further report in February 2014 which would include a recommendation to agree to all 2014/15 contracts. Cabinet also agreed the award of the reablement and domiciliary support contract to providers named in the exempt appendix.

Agreement to proceed with a joint procurement for garden waste (including the option of providing composting services in-house through the Parks and Countryside service) was agreed by Cabinet.

The Highways and Engineering Services Contract for 2014-2018 (currently run by Colas) was awarded to either BAM Nuttall, Galliford Try or North Midland Construction. The “preferred bidder” that Cabinet decided on was again in an exempt appendix. Approval to start a tender for a four year traffic signals maintenance contract (with an option for a two year extension and cost of £350,000 a year) was also given by the Cabinet.

A two year pilot of emergency accommodation for homeless sixteen and seventeen year olds was agreed by Cabinet. Finally Cllr Phil Davies welcomed the Council’s new Director of Resources (and s.151 officer) Vivienne Quayle and expressed his thanks to Jim Molloy and his work as Acting Director of Resources. The Cabinet then excluded the press and public from the remainder of the meeting which included two business grants to Wirral companies or businesses, the exempt appendix for the Reablement and Domiciliary Support Procurement contract, the exempt appendix for the Options Appraisal for the Future Treatment of Wirral’s Kerbside Collected Garden Waste, the exempt appendix for the Highway Services Contract 2014 – 2018 and exempt appendix for the Emergency Accommodation Provision for 16 and 17 Year Olds.

Later this week a special meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will consider a report on Wirral Council’s response to critical reports (2010 – 2013) and a review of the Improvement Board which includes a suggestion that Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee should co opt some independent members to itself.

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’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

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.

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 first planning application starts at 5:15 in the first video above.

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

                              

This continues from Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits.

The first planning application decided (and the one that many people had come along to see a decision made on) was for four bungalows and some amenity open space on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby.

The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney asked an officer to introduce the planning application. He explained what it was for, why the officers had recommended it for approval and the officer’s response to the objections raised (which were mainly highway safety issues). He said that although it had a value as an open space, it was not designated as a green space or open to the public.

The lead petitioner introduced herself as Helen O’Donnell and explained why a hundred and forty-nine people had signed a petition objecting to the planning application. The first area of concern was safe access into and out of the housing estate, the petitioners felt that leaving this land open had been integral to the design of the original RAF estate. The petitioners felt that building here would lead to a loss of sight lines and a reduction in highway safety. Concerns were also raised about what would happen to the laybys which the petitioners felt were needed for a free flow of traffic. Helen O’Donnell also wanted the green rural route protected by the Planning Committee not approving the planning application.

The applicant, who introduced herself as Mrs. Glynn said that she hadn’t seen the photos circulated by Helen O’Donnell. She pointed out that the planning officers had recommended it for approval and that the proposed buildings were single storey and of a low density. She felt that everything had been done to meet the objector’s needs and repeated that it was recommended for approval by the planning department.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said he would like to hear from councillors who had been on the site visit. The Chair said that she had been on the site visit and that she couldn’t see what difference four households would make to access. Cllr Wendy Clements asked where the dwellings would be and asked for a response from the officers about the speed of traffic.

Matthew Rushton referred to an extra condition on the late list and that the greenery on the other side of the roundabout was maintained as public open space. An officer responded on highways safety grounds that there had been no accidents there over the last five years.

Cllr Eddie Boult said that he couldn’t see a problem with traffic on the site visit and that he found the photo circulated by the petitioners misleading as it was of a different area.

Cllr Geoffrey Watt said that he had also been on the site visit. Although he would be sad to see the loss of openness, there were still some green spaces left and he couldn’t think of a good planning reason for rejecting the planning application. He asked if a condition could be added to restrict the buildings to a single storey?

Cllr David Elderton pointed out that the photos weren’t of the site and that the police enforced the speed limit on this stretch of road, he agreed with Cllr Watt that it was nice to see urban green space, but again he couldn’t see any reasons for objecting to it.

Cllr Stuart Kelly agreed with what was said about traffic and pointed out that in the report it stated that it wasn’t designated as urban green space, however in the open space assessment it had been designated as open space (although officers had advised him this was in error). He referred to paragraphs seventy-four and seventy-seven of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy HS4. Cllr Kelly didn’t feel there were grounds to refuse it on highway safety grounds. He referred to a covenant on the land stating it was for grazing purposes.

The Chair thanked Cllr Kelly for his contribution. Cllr Foulkes said that when he had first joined the Council [in 1990], he had been on the Unitary Development Plan Working Party, but nobody had lobbied them then to make this land green space. He recognised that local people believed it was green space, but that the developer had set aside part of the land as an amenity space, he said he would struggle to support refusal if Cllr Kelly moved it. He felt that the extra car movements from four bungalows was insignificant and that he welcomed the comments from people who’d been on the site visit and pointed out that the photo was of somewhere else.

Matthew Davies said that it was designated in the Unitary Development Plan as a primary residential area. He referred to the criteria for a green space designation under the National Planning Policy Framework and said it couldn’t be described as beautiful and that it didn’t have historic or recreational value. If the planning application was refused on these grounds he thought that they would struggle to defend the decision at appeal.

Cllr Wendy Clements said she had looked at the map online and it was designated as urban green space.

Matthew Davies said that they had had a piece of work undertaken as part of the core strategy as to where the open spaces were. The consultant had picked this site, whereas Wirral Council had meant the consultant instead to include the site maintained by the parks and recreation department on the other side of the roundabout.

Cllr Watt asked again about a condition limiting the bungalows to a single storey. Matthew Davies replied that there could be a condition added restricted it to a single storey.

Cllr Denise Realey proposed approval (with the extra condition), Cllr Irene Williams seconded this. Eight councillors voted in favour. Three (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Geoffrey Watt and Cllr Paul Hayes) voted against. One councillor abstained, so the application was approved.

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

Labour U-turn on filming of Wirral Council public meetings

Labour U-turn on filming of Wirral Council public meetings, a report on the second reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill including quotes from the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP and Hilary Benn MP on the subject of filming Council meetings

Labour U-turn on filming of Wirral Council public meetings

                          

It’s rare I write a blog post on a Sunday but I thought it best to write an update about how the issue of filming of council meetings (at least in England) is progressing as it was discussed in the House of Commons on Monday 28th October as part of the second reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill.

I will quote from what MPs said in that debate along with my own comments on what was said. The quotes are from Hansard, you can also watch video footage of the debate on Parliament TV (the date was Monday 28th October 2013), but as the debate went on for many hours it can be difficult to find the parts about filming.

First to speak on this issue was the Minister for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP who said, “Perhaps our most significant proposal is to give people the right to film, blog or tweet at council meetings. Some councils would prefer meetings to be held behind closed doors, but the public has the right to see decisions being taken and how the money is spent.

A private Member’s Bill promoted by Mrs Thatcher introduced the right to attend council meetings back in 1960, and that in turn built on a law introduced by the Liberal Government of 1908, so this is truly a coalition of minds. It is right that we should now bring her legacy up to date for the digital age. We have previously amended secondary legislation to open up councils’ executive meetings and have encouraged councils to open up their full council and committees. Many have refused, however, citing health and safety, data protection or just standing orders. Tower Hamlets said that such a change would lead to “reputational damage”. Well, yes, it probably will when people see what is going on in their council chambers. There have even been cases of the police being called to threaten bloggers with arrest. We will therefore make the necessary changes to primary legislation to allow full councils and committees to be open as well.

Our argument is that the coalition Government are scrapping the top-down red tape of Whitehall inspection and micro-management. That will save taxpayers’ money and help to devolve power, but it must go hand in hand with local transparency and accountability. We must ensure an independent free press and scrutinise and challenge bad decisions by councils. Individual taxpayers and the new wave of citizen journalists must be let in to conduct their own scrutiny. We are localising audit and scrapping protection, while ensuring that there is protection against the bad old days of municipal corruption. In short, the Bill will deliver greater openness, stronger local democracy, accountability and significant savings for the taxpayer. I commend it to the House.”

My comments on what Eric Pickles said are that currently the public (and press) already have the right to film, blog and tweet at Wirral Council meetings already which is granted to them by article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Human Rights Act 1998 c.42. It is unlawful for any council to act in a way that is incompatible with article 10 (freedom of expression) due to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The legislation introduced by Margaret Thatcher referred to by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP is the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 c.67. The secondary legislation referred to by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP is the more recent Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (which at Wirral Council only applies to Cabinet meetings and decisions made by individual Cabinet Members).

“Many have refused, however, citing health and safety, data protection” seems to be a reference to Wirral Council, this tweet below of mine from June shows my frustration as both reasons were given in reference to a Planning Committee meeting, the same reasons (although apart from that one Planning Committee meeting not used together at the same meeting) have been given at other Wirral Council meetings in the past twelve months too. Wirral Council have never given standing orders as a reason as there isn’t anything in their current constitution (or past constitution) about it. Personally I’ve never been threatened with arrest or the police for trying to film a meeting, although in other parts of the UK people have.

Hilary Benn MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said on the issue of filming, “We will therefore support that change, and also the proposal that councils in England should allow the recording and videoing of council and committee meetings. In this day and age, big changes in technology make recording and videoing readily possible, and I cannot see the difference between sitting in a meeting, listening and writing down what is being said, or—for those who have shorthand—taking a verbatim record, and making one’s own recording.

As the Secretary of State acknowledged, a new generation of bloggers is relating to politics in a different way, which we should all warmly welcome—frankly, the more people who get to hear what their local council is doing, the better. Who knows? Perhaps this House will one day follow suit and allow those watching us to keep their own records of proceedings—indeed, I may one day be tempted to record the Secretary of State from across the Dispatch Box. I have, however, a sneaking suspicion that Brass Crosby—who, as some Members will know, was committed to the Tower of London in the 1770s for daring as Lord Mayor to release a newspaper editor who had had the audacity to report what was happening in Parliament—and indeed Thomas Hansard, after whom the Official Report is named, would both thoroughly approve of that change.”

The reason why this would only apply to councils in England is because in the other parts of the UK (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) that it’s up to the Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether they want this sort of change. Hilary Benn is right that at the moment anyone could publish a verbatim account of Council meetings, the main difference between that and an audio recording is that an audio recording also records how something is said.

Video adds an extra element of body language though, not just of the person speaking but of the reaction of other politicians to what’s being said. Hilary Benn also went as far as to tweet about this (his tweet is below):

I welcome Hilary Benn’s tweet and Labour’s support for a change in the law to make things clearer to local councils. I have seen in the past Labour councillors criticise during a Council meeting one of the opposition councillor groups for taking a different policy position to that of their party nationally. I hope Wirral Labour councillors will take heed of the tweet of their frontbench spokesperson Hilary Benn on the matter.

The next stage in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill’s progress through the House of Commons is the Committee stage which was on November 4th at 4pm in Committee Room 13 at the Palace of Westminster (ironically for a bill with accountability in the title this stage is being held in private not public). I’m sure myself and many other bloggers in England will be keen to follow this bill and await the text of the amendments to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill in relation to filming with interest.

The tweet of Labour’s spokesperson nationally on this issue will hopefully prevent any attempts by Wirral Labour councillors at censorship of filming of Wirral Council meetings between now and when the bill becomes law, as if they do try to stop filming they will lay themselves open to the criticism they make of others in saying one thing nationally, but doing another at the local level.

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

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits

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 Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits

                         

After the Chair explained who people were and the procedures they’d use. The minutes of the meeting held on the 26th September 2013 were approved without any alterations and the Planning Committee moved to declarations of interest.

Cllr Stuart Wittingham declared a personal interest in item 4 (APP/13/00404: Shell Service Station, Church Lane, Woodchurch, CH49 7LR – New single storey retail unit).

Cllr Geoffrey Watt explained that he had been a lately agreed deputy to the Planning Committee and had previously met with the objectors to item 15 (APP/13/01144: Co Operative Food Store, Frankby Road, Newton, CH48 9UU – The installation of a new ATM and shopfront sections) at a time when he was planning to speak on their behalf as their ward councillor. He declared a prejudicial interest in this item and stated he would leave the room while it was discussed.

Cllr David Elderton requested site visits for item 9 (APP/13/00980: The Shieling, 60 Pipers Lane, HESWALL, CH60 9HN – Two Storey detached domestic property) and item 19 (APP/13/00956: 9 Garden Hey Road, Meols, CH47 5AS – Erection of a single storey rear extension, garage conversion and alterations to existing roof to include a hip to gable and rear dormer). Cllr Anita Leech requested a site visit for item 4 (APP/13/00404: Shell Service Station, CHURCH LANE, WOODCHURCH, CH49 7LR – New single storey retail unit). The three requests for site visits were agreed by the Planning Committee.

The Planning Committee then discussed the first planning application which was item 6 (OUT/13/00826: Paddock, KINLOSS ROAD, GREASBY, CH49 3PS – Outline application for development of 4 residential units, and the provision of amenity open space).

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

Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Governance and Improvement (Cllr Ann McLachlan)

Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Governance and Improvement (Cllr Ann McLachlan) on freedom of information requests, the Improvement Board, information governance and assistant Cabinet Members

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.

These questions start at 10:24 in the video above.

Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Governance and Improvement (Cllr Ann McLachlan)

                               

Continues from Council (Wirral Council) 14th October 2013 Answers to Questions to the Cabinet Member for the Environment and Sustainability (Cllr Brian Kenny).

Cllr Lesley Rennie asked, “I’ll put a question really regarding the freedom of information item on your report because it’s rather unfortunate really that the Administration does appear to try to deflect the Council’s well documented inability to deal with the number of Freedom of Information requests that we’ve actually received from a number of people by in some way trying to imply that in some way that it’s members of the public’s own fault that they ask far too many questions really. Would the Cabinet Member agree with me that if in fact local people were able to trust the Council and that in fact the Council was more honest, more open, more trustworthy and transparent then members of the public would not need quite clearly to avail themselves of going down the route of Freedom of Information requests and also I hope that she would also agree with me that some of the information that indeed Members have to ask for should be freely available to Members of the Council to the elected Members to carry out their elected Member duties?”

Cllr Chris Blakeley asked, “The Cabinet Member will be aware that on the 16th July the Chief Executive sent an email out to the councillors. ‘It has come to my attention that a number of freedom of information requests have been made by elected Members for information relating to Council FOI and corporate FOI procedures. Members of course have a right to make FOI requests but I felt it was … in my view that… that I’d be very happy to… I’ve always more than happy to provide a written response personally to any information request.’

In the end Cllr McLachlan, on the 22nd August when I made a request of the Chief Executive for information, I was told that request was unreasonable and therefore had to submit a freedom of information request to which I received an answer in the prescribed time. Perhaps the Cabinet Member could persuade her officers to be more open and transparent and then maybe there won’t be as many freedom of information requests?”

Cllr Bill Davies asked, “My question for the Cabinet Member for Improvement and Governance would be regarding section one of your report on the Improvement Plan, is it too soon for the Improvement Board to consider leaving?”

Cllr Jean Stapleton asked, “Ann, regarding section three of your report on information governance, can you advise if elected Members will be affected by this please?”

Cllr Ian Lewis asked, “Cllr McLachlan, under item two under performance management you make reference to Member development training. On a previous question to a previous Council meeting, I asked you if Members had been appointed as assistant Cabinet Members and you replied in the minutes of the last meeting you said that the Labour Group had appointed assistant Cabinet portfolio holders, they were not within the constitution but the appointments had been made by the Labour Group to assist their Members in training. You say they’re not within the constitution, but on page 239 of the constitution, item F it states that assistant portfolio holders are within the constitution. Can I therefore ask you again to publish the names either in written form after the meeting or now of those assistant Cabinet Members please?”

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