What was the 2016 EU Referendum result on the Wirral and the UK? The 2016 EU Referendum result on Wirral was as follows: Remain 88,931 (51.6%) Leave 83,069 (48.4%) 137 ballot papers were rejected. Total votes cast 172,137 (turnout 70.96%). However nationally the result was different: Leave 17,410,742 Remain 16,141,241 25,359 ballot papers were … Continue reading “What was the 2016 EU Referendum result on the Wirral and the UK?”
What was the 2016 EU Referendum result on the Wirral and the UK?
The 2016 EU Referendum result on Wirral was as follows:
However there were a number of things that happened during the EU Referendum campaign that could trigger a legal challenge to the result.
I outline below an email I sent yesterday to the Returning Officer Eric Robinson here on Wirral about a UKIP poster telling me to vote Leave propped up on the wall of my local polling station.
He sent me a very quick and polite reply back!
Dear Eric Robinson,
I went to vote today this morning at my polling station at
which is a polling station for polling district AC in the Bidston and St. James ward.
When I left the polling station, I saw outside a few yards from the entrance to the polling station (still in the grounds of the school being used as a polling station) against a wall a large UKIP poster on corrugated plastic suggesting I vote leave.
Obviously it didn’t influence me as I have already voted, but I immediately brought it to the attention of one of your election staff who was in the corridor outside the room used for voting.
She immediately came with me and removed the UKIP poster which shouldn’t have been there and commented that "they keep sneaking in".
It was in a position that people had to pass to get in to the polling station, however I will point out it wasn’t there when I entered the polling station.
Please could you regard this as a recorded compliment to that member of staff for the efficient and effective way that they dealt with my query and removal of the poster.
I would also be keen to know if you in your capacity as Returning Officer will be writing to UKIP (and/or referring this matter to the police) reminding them that leaving posters outside polling station entrances propped up against walls suggesting which way people vote is not allowed!
Thank you,
—
John Brace
3/10/2016 UKIP have been in touch to state that they wouldn’t sanction what happened at the polling station detailed above.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Planning Committee to decide on plans for 26 flats on site of former Corsair pub in Bidston Village
Planning Committee to decide on plans for 26 flats on site of former Corsair pub in Bidston Village
The first month I started this blog I wrote a story on the demolition of the Corsair pub at one end of Bidston Village. I finished that piece by stating "I will be making enquiries to see if there are any future plans for the site." The site in 2015 still looks as much of an eyesore as it did when the photo was taken in 2010.
Verum Victum Healthcare Limited (the agents) have applied for planning permission for twenty-six one-bedroom apartments on the site of the former Corsair pub. The planning application will be decided when Wirral Council’s Planning Committee next meets (unless councillors agree to a site visit). You can see elevations for how the agent envisages it would look on Wirral Council’s website. The elevations however don’t show the metal railings around the perimeter to a height of 1.5 metres that are part of the plans.
Such a modern looking building of three stories would be out-of-place in Bidston Village and it’s sad that the designs submitted with the plans aren’t more in keeping with the surrounding area. Although the site of the former pub is just outside the Bidston Village Conservation Area, it borders the Conservation Area on two sides. Across the road to the east is Church Farm and the buildings to the north across the road are set back from the road. None of the buildings nearby are of a similar height.
The sheer size of what is proposed and the design would not be in keeping with the rural nature of this part of Bidston Village and I hope this planning application is refused by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Incredible: Why did ICO find Wirral Council twice broke the law by taking too long to reply to 2 requests?
Incredible: Why did ICO find Wirral Council twice broke the law by taking too long to reply to 2 requests?
A bit like the experience I had recently of waiting ages for a bus in Liverpool recently, only for four buses back to back to turn up, the Information Commissioner’s Office have in the last fortnight issued two decision notices involving FOI requests to Wirral Council.
The decision notice states “As the information was disclosed outside the 20 working day timescale the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached the requirements of regulation 5(2). ”
I made the request on the 26th January 2015. Wirral Council ignored my request, so on the 24th February 2015 I requested an internal review. Wirral Council responded to the internal review on the 23rd March 2015 stating it had the information but was withholding it based on a regulation 12(5)(e) exemption.
“(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect
(e) the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;”
“Following your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Council has decided to reverse its position, having previously relied on the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I do not consider that releasing the information would now adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party. The address of the property, which you have requested is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead. I have copied this response to the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
As mentioned in my opening sentence, I’m also aware of a decision notice involving a Freedom of Information request that’s been issued recently that hasn’t yet been published on ICO’s website.
“2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request.
3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council should inform the complainant whether the requested information is held. If the information is held it should provide it to the complainant or else issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
4. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this Decision Notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”
and
“9. On receipt of the complaint the Commissioner contacted the Council to remind it of its duty to respond to requests for information within 20 working days and to ask that it respond to the complainant. Neither the complainant nor the Commissioner received a response.”
as well as
“11. The complainant made his request for information to the Council on 6 May 2014 but has failed to receive a response. The Council has clearly exceeded the 20 working day limit very significantly and therefore the Commissioner has found that the Council breached section 10(1) in its handling of the request.”
Certainly the common theme running through the two decision notices is Wirral Council exceeding the time limits in the legislation on responding to requests.
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 U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office
Wirral Council U-turn on refusal of request for information after complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office
Last year, during the 2013/14 audit I requested various information on various payments Wirral Council has made to legal firms. One of these was an invoice for £700 for conveyancing done by DLA Piper UK LLP (a copy of which is below).
As you can see above it’s for a BACS payment (although the payments over £500 list this as a CHAPS payment) for £700, split into £200 for a contribution towards sewers (although the rest of what the £200 is for can’t be made out due to bad handwriting) and £500 to do with the purchase of the freehold title.
If you look at the image above you’ll find the address of the property is blacked out. Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 allow Wirral Council to redact information if it relates to a member of their staff (or payments or other benefits made to their staff connected with their employment) or to withhold personal information if the external auditor agrees to it.
So going back to the PR1 form above I wanted to know what the address that this £700 for conveyancing spent by Wirral Council was, so back on the 26th January 2015 I asked using the Freedom of Information Act for the address.
By the 24th February 2015, having received no reply to my request of the 26th January 2015 within the 20 days Wirral Council have to respond to FOI requests, I requested an internal review because of the lack of response.
She then went on to refuse the request using an exception in Regulation 12(5)(e) which states:
“the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;”
The reasons she gave for refusing the request were:
“in that a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. I have had regard to the guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office, “Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information (regulation 12 (5) (e) Version 1.2. I consider that the following applies to the requested information in the context of the other information included in the payment requisition fund:-
The information is commercial or industrial in nature
Confidentiality is provided by law
The confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest
The confidentiality would be adversely affected by disclosure.
I consider that the information relates to the commercial activity of a third party. I also consider that confidentiality is provided by law in that it is imposed on the Council as a public authority by the common law of confidence and contractual obligation. I consider that the confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest. The First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) confirmed in Elmbridge Borough Council v. Information Commissioner and Gladedale Group Ltd (EA/2010/0106, 4 January 2011) that to satisfy this element of the test, disclosure of the confidential information would have to adversely affect a legitimate economic interest of the person the confidentiality is designed to protect. I consider that disclosure of the requested information would adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of the third party and also that of the Council.
This exception is subject to the public interest test.
Public interest factors in favour of disclosure
Promotion of transparency and accountability of public authorities
Public interest factors in maintaining the exception
Disclosure would adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party and interfere with commercial bargaining in the context of existing or future negotiations
Disclosure of the requested information would also affect the bargaining position of the Council with third parties.
I consider that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. I am therefore refusing your request for information on the basis that the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the EIR applies.”
On the 25th March 2015 I appealed Wirral Council’s refusal to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Today Wirral Council reversed their position and stated:
“Following your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Council has decided to reverse its position, having previously relied on the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I do not consider that releasing the information would now adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party. The address of the property, which you have requested is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead. I have copied this response to the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
Now I know the address is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead, I know what this payment for conveyancing is for. The properties in this road as far as I remember had been demolished by the date that this payment to DLA Piper UK LLP for conveyancing happened in August 2013.
In August 2013, Keepmoat were granted planning permission for 125 new houses here and have since built them and sold them on. In fact 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead doesn’t exist any more, it’s either part of the public open space at the back of the Laird Street Baptist Church or an off-street car parking space for one of the new properties.
So what was the “legitimate interest of a third party” that Wirral Council claimed it was protecting by not supplying the address? How on earth does giving this address interfere with Wirral Council’s “commercial bargaining in the context of existing or future negotiations”?