Tower Bridge repairs, the future of Williamson Art Gallery and school crossing patrols u-turn

Tower Bridge repairs, the future of Williamson Art Gallery and school crossing patrols u-turn

Tower Bridge repairs, the future of Williamson Art Gallery and school crossing patrols u-turn

                            

It’s time to answer some questions from readers. First there’s a topical question.

1. How long is the Tower Bridge road closed for in Birkenhead?

Ah yes, a recurring question that pops up from the Wirral motorist wanting to get from Wallasey to Birkenhead (or vice versa). The bridge closed on Saturday 15th February 2014 and work is predicted to take a week for urgent repairs to the A bridge. Wirral Council say the work is necessary due to a loose steel plate.

Last week I received a phone call from a woman who wanted to know what is happening to the Williamson Art Gallery following last week’s Cabinet meeting on the 12th February to discuss the budget and that she trusted this blog to let her know what was going on.

2. What’s happening to the Williamson Art Gallery?

Well this was also mentioned at the recent Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting too. I’ve looked through the nine page handout given out during the meeting that details Labour’s proposals to the Council meeting on Tuesday 25th February to decide the budget for 2014/15.

On page six, the Williamson Art Gallery is mentioned and I quote:

Re-phasing the savings from Williamson Art Gallery (£100,000 of saving rephased to 2015/16)
The engagement of local people and ‘Friends’ groups has been welcomed in exploring new models for funding the Williamson Art Gallery in the future. It is acknowledged that more time is required to develop the proposals. Therefore the saving of £400,000 is to be delivered over the next two years, i.e. £150,000 in 2014/15 and £250,000 in 2015/16. Cabinet strongly favours keeping the Williamson open. This will be funded from reserves in 2014/15.”

The Williamson Art Gallery is in Oxton ward. Last time there was an election there it was won by the Liberal Democrats in 2012 by a majority of 263 votes (with Labour in second place). The two major issues raised by Lib Dems in Oxton in the recent past have been the future of the Williamson Art Gallery and whether schools (or Wirral Council) should fund school crossing patrols. Strangely enough school crossing patrols forms the next bit of Labour’s budget resolution which I quote here.

School Crossing Patrols
Cabinet believes the safety of children is paramount. In December Cabinet agreed to ask schools to take over the funding of school crossing patrols. Given the concerns expressed by a minority of schools, officers are instructed to continue discussions with schools with a guarantee that no funding is removed where agreement cannot be reached.”

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

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

                             

Following a previous story on this blog about Birkenhead Market, someone suggested I look at the accounts for Birkenhead Market Limited so I decided to request the latest set of accounts for Birkenhead Market Limited from Companies House.

The accounts make for very interesting reading and may be why Neptune Developments Limited was asked by Wirral Council’s Cabinet to come up with a master plan for Birkenhead Market.

A copy of the latest unaudited accounts (for the year ending 31st July 2012) are below.

Registered number: 04403580

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

UNAUDITED

ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

REGISTERED NUMBER: 04403580

________________________________________________________________________________

ABBREVIATED BALANCE SHEET

AS AT 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

2012 2011
Note £ £ £ £
FIXED ASSETS
Intangible assets 2 1 1
Tangible assets 3 1,741,325 1,799,446
Investments 4 1 1
_________ _________
1,741,327 1,799,448
CURRENT ASSETS
Debtors 5 26,148 36,138
Cash at bank and in hand 59,931 101,441
_________ _________
86,079 137,579
CREDITORS: amounts falling due within one year 6 (4,308,952) (4,365,582)
_____________ _____________
NET CURRENT LIABILITIES (4,222,873) (4,228,003)
_____________ _____________
NET LIABILITIES (2,481,546) (2,428,555)
_____________ _____________
CAPITAL AND RESERVES
Called up share capital 7 10,000 10,000
Profit and loss account (2,491,546) (2,438,555)
_____________ _____________
SHAREHOLDERS’ DEFICIT (2,481,546) (2,428,555)
_____________ _____________

The directors consider that the company is entitled to exemption from the requirement to have an audit under the provisions of section 477 of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) and members have not required the company to obtain an audit for the year in question in accordance with section 476 of the Act.

The directors acknowledge their responsibilities for complying with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 with respect to accounting records and for preparing financial statements which give a true and fair state of affairs of the company as at 31 July 2012 and of its loss for the year in accordance with the requirements of section 394 and 395 of the Act and which otherwise comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 relating to financial statements, so far as applicable to the company.

The abbreviated accounts, which have been prepared in accordance with the special provisions relating to companies subject to the small companies regime within part 15 of the Companies Act 2006, were approved and authorised for issue by the board and were signed off on its behalf on 24 April 2013.

(signature of LD Embra)

Mr L D Embra

Director

The notes on pages 2 to 5 form part of these financial statements.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________
1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

1.1 Basis of preparation of financial statements

The full financial statements, from which these abbreviated accounts have been extracted, have been prepared under the historical cost convention and in accordance with the Financial Reporting for Smaller Entities (effective April 2008).

1.2 Going concern

The company meets its day to day working capital requirements through a combination of bank loans and overdraft facility. The company is currently in discussions with its bankers regarding the term of its loan and believes from current discussions with its bankers that the loan will be renewed on a basis that will enable the company to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due over at least the next 12 months. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that would result from the withdrawal of support from the company’s bankers. The directors therefore consider the going concern basis of accounting to be an appropriate basis to produce the financial statements.

While the company does have net liabilities at 31 July 2012 of £2,481,546, the balance sheet includes leasehold property at a historical cost carrying value of £1,683,406 in respect of an asset which is considered by the directors to have a considerably higher current market value.

1.3 Turnover

Turnover comprises revenue recognised by the company in respect of goods and services supplied during the year, exclusive of Value Added Tax and trade discounts.

1.4 Intangible fixed assets and amortisation

Goodwill is the difference between amounts paid on the acquisition of a business and the fair value of the identifiable assets and liabilities. It is amortised to the Profit and loss account over its estimated economic life.

1.5 Tangible fixed assets and depreciation

Tangible fixed assets are stated at cost less depreciation. Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write off the cost of fixed assets, less their estimated residual value, over their expected useful lives on the following bases

L/Term Leasehold Property – 50 years straight line
Fixtures and fittings – 25% reducing balance

1.6 Investments

Investments held as fixed assets are shown at cost less provision for impairment.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

2. INTANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS

£
Cost
At 1 August 2011 and 31 July 2012 1
_________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1
_________
At 31 July 2011 1
_________

3. TANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS

£
Cost
At 1 August 2011 2,747,799
Additions 2,250
___________
At 31 July 2012 2,750,049
Depreciation
At 1 August 2011 948,353
Charge for the year 60,371
___________
At 31 July 2012 1,008,724
___________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1,741,325
___________
At 31 July 2011 1,799,446
___________

Under the small companies regime the company is exempt from preparing consolidated accounts and has not done so, therefore the accounts show information about the company as an individual entity.

3. FIXED ASSET INVESTMENTS

£
Cost or valuation
At 1 August 2011 and 31 July 2012 1
___________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1
___________
At 31 July 2011 1
___________

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

4. FIXED ASSET INVESTMENTS (continued)
Subsidiary undertakings
The following were subsidiary undertakings of the company.

The aggregate of the share capital and reserves as at 31 July 2012 and of the profit or loss for the year ended on that date for the subsidiary undertakings were as follows.

Name Aggregate of share capital and reserves Profit/(loss)
£ £
Birkenhead Market Services Limited 189,459 (48,927)
___________ ___________

Under the small companies regime the company is exempt from preparing consolidated accounts and has not done so, therefore the accounts show information about the company as an individual entity.

5. DEBTORS

Included within other debtors are loans to the following related companies Liverpool Developments (2001) Limited, London Provincial and Overseas Limited, Europa Plaza Developments Limited, Jelder Consultants Limited and Landmark Projects and Developments Limited.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £12,600 due from Liverpool Developments (2001) Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £12,600.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £29,721 due from London Provincial and Overseas Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £29,721.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £735 due from Europa Plaza Developments Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £735.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £109,152 due from Jelder Consultants Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £109,152.

All of the above loans and associated accrued interest are still due and payable to the company. All amounts have been provided against on the grounds of prudence, due to uncertainty over recoverability.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

6. CREDITORS
Amounts falling due within one year

The bank loan and overdraft facility are secured by a first legal charge over the property and its associated asset, debentures by, and unlimited cross guarantees by and between the Borrower and Birkenhead Market Services Limited and a guarantee for £150,000 by Mr L D Embra.

7. SHARE CAPITAL

2012 2011
£ £
Allotted, called up and fully paid
10,000 Ordinary shares of £1 each 10,000 10,000
___________ ___________

DIRECTOR’s BENEFITS: ADVANCES, CREDIT AND GUARANTEES
The balance on Mr D F Doyle’s loan account is £nil (2011 £4,588). The maximum amount due in the year was £4,588. No interest was charged during the year.

The balance on Mr J E Richardson’s loan account is £5,000 (2011 £3,000). The maximum amount due in the year was £5,000. No interest was charged during the year.

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 rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

                        

Cllr George Davies (Claughton) tells the Planning Committee why he thinks they should reject plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell

Cllr George Davies (Claughton) tells the Planning Committee why he thinks they should reject plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell

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 OUT/13/01184 starts at 6:20 in the video above.

Despite a recommendation from planning officers to approve plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell, after hearing representations from the lead petitioner, a representative of Condy & Lofthouse Architects Ltd and Cllr George Davies (Claughton), the Planning Committee decided unanimously to reject the plans due to the impact on the character of the area (policy HS4), drainage concerns (policies GR7 and HS4) and because it would have an impact on the character and environmental qualities of Noctorum Ridge (policies HS4 and SPD2).

The lead petitioner said, “Many residents are elderly, frail or vulnerable like myself. My husband suffered a stroke ten years ago, he will not cope with the disturbance that this will cause and I as his carer neither will I. As a Council you have a duty of care to your public and the people who vote for you to be in the position that you hold.”

Councillor Stuart Kelly said that three-storey buildings would be out of character for the area and also highlighted concerns he had about flooding and drainage. Cllr Anita Leech also had concerns about drainage and the overbearing impact on nearby bungalows.

Cllr Denise Roberts (Claughton) moved refusal of the planning application, which was seconded by Cllr Denise Realey.

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

Consultation launched after police ask Wirral Council to do more about alcohol related crime in Birkenhead

Sergeant Barrigan (Licensing Sergeant, Merseyside Police) explains to Wirral Council’s Licensing Act 2003 Committee why the police want a special cumulative impact policy due to high levels of alcohol related crime in downtown Birkenhead

Consultation launched after police ask Wirral Council to do more about alcohol related crime in Birkenhead

                            

Sergeant Barrigan (Licensing Sergeant, Merseyside Police) explains to Wirral Council's Licensing Act 2003 Committee why the police want a special cumulative impact policy due to high levels of alcohol related crime in downtown Birkenhead

Sergeant Barrigan (Licensing Sergeant, Merseyside Police) explains to Wirral Council’s Licensing Act 2003 Committee why the police want a special cumulative impact policy due to high levels of alcohol related crime in downtown Birkenhead

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.

This item starts at 21:44 in the video above.

Merseyside Police’s Sergeant Barrigan addressed councillors on Wirral Council’s Licensing Act 2003 Committee calling for a change to their licensing policy. He told councillors about concerns raised about alcohol related antisocial behaviour in the Charing Cross area of Birkenhead and showed those present maps of street drinking reported to Merseyside Police between the 1st April 2012 and the 1st March 2013. These reports were clustered around the Charing Cross area of Birkenhead.

He also showed a map of crimes reported between November 2012 and October 2013 in this area and said that 52% had taken place on licensed premises and referring to areas of Liverpool which already had four areas covered special cumulative impact policies.

Sgt Barrigan quoted statistics on how alcohol was a reason in a high proportion of the theft offences in that area. Street drinkers were a problem in the area with people drinking on the streets for reasons such as an inability to afford heating or to avoid being evicted. The street drinking was connected to a high number of off-licences in the area. In answer to a councillor’s question he said that the boundaries of the area he wanted covered by the special cumulative impact policy would cover both sides of the road on the boundary. He asked if councillors had any questions?

A few councillors asked questions, then others spoke in support of a special cumulative impact policy in the Charing Cross area and it was agreed that a special cumulative impact policy would be consulted on. Cllr Jean Stapleton welcomed this decision.

Cllr Tony Norbury said he was concerned that it might move the problem to outside the area covered by the special cumulative impact policy. A Council officer said that they would consult on the new policy and if the committee then agreed to amend the guidance then it would be kept under review.

A special cumulative impact policy (if agreed following consultation) in the Charing Cross Area of Birkenhead would mean that there would be a special policy of rebuttal regarding licence applications in this area. This would mean that applications in that area that were likely to add to the existing problems would be refused or subject to limitations (but only if relevant representations had been made).

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

Secrets about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration revealed

Secrets revealed about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration plans and Neptune

Secrets revealed about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration plans and Neptune

                             

Indicative illustration of Neptune Development Limited’s masterplan for Birkenhead Town Centre
Indicative illustration of Neptune Development Limited’s masterplan for Birkenhead Town Centre

Earlier this year I made a Freedom of Information request for the procurement advice that Wirral Council received from Peter Oldham QC and also Weightmans’ partner Sean Crotty about the regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre.

A Rosemary Lyon (one of Wirral Council’s in-house solicitors) refused this request on grounds of commercial confidentiality (its own and other third parties). She stated that providing the information would “adversely affect its [Wirral Council’s] bargaining position concerning potential regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre which would result in less effective use of public money” and “make it less likely that companies or individuals would provide the Council with commercially sensitive information in the future and consequently undermine the ability of the Council to fulfil its role”. They even went so far as to claim that releasing the information “would adversely affect the course of justice”.

However, this blog post is the story behind what went on behind the scenes that Wirral Council clearly (according to the response to my Freedom of Information Act request) didn’t want to be disclosed to the public or written about in the media for reasons I will go into below.

On the 16th July 2013, the Leader of Wirral Council Cllr Phil Davies (under delegated decision making powers meaning that he made the decision on his own) gave his agreement to a “preferred development agreement” with Neptune Developments Limited to “allow them to work up a comprehensive redevelopment proposal for Birkenhead Town Centre incorporating Council owned land on Europa Boulevard and involving the re-modelling and offer of Birkenhead Market”.

In the report seen by Cllr Phil Davies before reaching his decision reference was made to “a commitment to develop a clear master plan for Birkenhead Town Centre” in the 2013/16 Corporate Plan. Reference was also made to the previous offer to Wirral Council in 2010 by William Tar Developments to build a casino on two out of three plots of land owned by the Council on Europa Boulevard. That offer was rejected in September 2010.

However what’s not been known widely by the public until now is that “At the same time and in response to the marketing exercise Neptune Developments Limited (NDL) submitted a proposal requesting that the Council move away from disposing of the sites separately and instead work with them to develop a wider regeneration scheme for Birkenhead. NDL had already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street and they suggested that this coupled with Council owned land on Europa Boulevard could be combined to allow a more comprehensive redevelopment scheme to be worked up and in turn would give a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites were developed separately” and that “negotiations have been continuing with NDL since the completion of the marketing exercise”.

Detailed below is Neptune’s proposal,

“Neptune proposes that the project is taken forward on the basis of a two stage agreement. The first, which is the subject of this Report, will involve granting NDL Preferred Developer Status which will be extendible to a period of 12 months and will be subject to NDL meeting the following performance targets:


  • Work up the Master-plan into a detailed implementation strategy for approval by the Council
  • Working with the Council, NDL will develop proposals which will reposition the town as a retail and leisure destination
  • NDL will negotiate further site acquisitions if necessary to deliver the agreed strategy.”

Subject to securing Members (Ed – Members means councillors) approval to the Strategy and Master-plan NDL would then be required to enter into a second Conditional Development Agreement which would commit them, at their own risk, to work up the proposals into a position were they could be implemented and to deliver the returns that are needed to secure the wider regeneration of this part of the Town.

It is proposed that the Conditional Development Agreement with NDL will be structured to ensure the Council receives the best value obtainable for the 3 sites on Europa Boulevard which will be determined by an independent valuation and all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk.”

In a section titled “Other options considered” it’s basically stated that no other options were considered because NDL has an interest in the land needed to build Birkenhead Market on once its moved.

“An initial assessment of the NDL proposals confirms that if delivered the scheme will have the potential to revitalise an important part of Birkenhead Town centre delivering a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites identified in this report were developed out separately. No other options have therefore been considered as NDL has already secured an interest in the balance of the land that is needed to deliver the re-provided market.”

The section on consultation states this “There will be a need to carry out extensive consultation on the scheme prior and during the detailed planning process. This will be carried out jointly between the Council and NDL.”

The section on legal implications refers to the advice that my Freedom of Information request in September was about (and refused). Once again Members means councillors.

7.1 In the event that Members want to pursue this proposal and to ensure that it is compliant with current EU procurement law, Officers have sought advice from Weightmans LLP and Counsel about its legality.

7.2 The advice has now been received and it concludes that the Council would at this stage be able to enter into a Stage 1 Preferred Development Agreement on the proviso that a final test of lawfulness is carried out when the Stage 1 work has been completed and the detailed arrangements can be assessed.

7.3 NDL is aware of this advice and would be prepared to complete the first stage obligations at risk to allow the final lawfulness test to be undertaken when the scheme has been fully worked up.”

In other words Wirral Council’s happy to pass on the advice it received (at a cost of £7,404 of taxpayer’s money) to Neptune Development Limited to help them in a commercial venture as it may result in Wirral Council receiving money in the future for land in Birkenhead that it doesn’t want.

According to this article in the Wirral Globe in July 2013 Wirral Council wants to rebuild Birkenhead Market and move it.

Neptune Development Limited clearly as they have “already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street” have a commercial interest in any master plan proposals and would be able to “negotiate further site acquisitions” in advance of the master plan becoming public knowledge.

Doesn’t this all sum up how Wirral Council tries to operate though and considering the public interest in the regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre being done in accordance with EU procurement law do you dear reader think I should make a further Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the advice they received from Peter Oldham QC and Sean Crotty of Weightmans in relation to this matter in the hope that they would provide it this time?

P.S. If anyone would like to have a stab at translating ”all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk” into plain English that can be understood by the average person please leave a comment!

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