Category: Cabinet

Will Wirral Council be more transparent on its Pacific Road Arts Centre plans due to a mistake?

Will Wirral Council be more transparent on its Pacific Road Arts Centre plans due to a mistake?

Will Wirral Council be more transparent on its Pacific Road Arts Centre plans due to a mistake?

                    

Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral,
CH43 7PH

12th February 2014

RE: Agenda Item 14 (Former Pacific Road Arts Centre and Taylor Street Transport Museum)

Dear Surjit Tour,
I am sure you are aware of the requirement in Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meeting and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 which require Wirral Council to publish a notice 28 clear days prior to holding a Cabinet meeting at which the press and public are excluded detailing the reasons why.
Such a notice about appendices 3 and 4 was published on 15th January 2014. Clear days does not include the date of the meeting, nor the day the notice is published, therefore the latest it should have been published was the 14th January 2014.
No notice has been published five days before the meeting indicating that the agreement of the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee has been obtained. Therefore I request a copy of appendices 3 and 4 and respectfully point out that the Cabinet has no legal power to exclude me from the part of the meeting (agenda item 14) when they are discussed.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

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

Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?

Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?

Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?

                        

The information for these tables I’ve used from a Department for Communities and Local Government policy paper which has an explanatory note on how these figures are calculated. Spending power refers to the overall money available for to local councils combining how much they have from Council Tax, business rates and government grants.

Local Authority 2013-14 Spending Power (adjusted) (£ million) 2014-15 Spending Power including Efficiency Support Grant (£ million) Change £ million Change %
Knowsley 198.784 187.589 -11.194 -5.6%
Liverpool 571.351 540.223 -31.129 -5.4%
Sefton 271.588 260.465 -11.123 -4.1%
St Helens 176.510 168.318 -7.832 -4.4%
Wirral 328.860 315.035 -13.825 -4.2%
Merseyside Fire 67.863 64.048 -2.816 -4.1%

The population covered by each is different though, so here is a table showing the spend by dwelling.

Local Authority 2013-14 Spending Power (adjusted) per Dwelling 2014-15 Spending Power including Efficiency Support Grant per Dwelling (£ per dwelling) Change £ per dwelling Change %
Knowsley 3,058.35 2,886.12 -172.23 -5.6%
Liverpool 2,636.01 2,492.39 -143.62 -5.4%
Sefton 2,164.67 2,076.01 -88.65 -4.1%
St Helens 2,193.15 2,095.64 -97.51 -4.4%
Wirral 2,250.35 2,155.75 -94.60 -4.2%
Merseyside Fire 107.10 102.65 -4.44 -4.1%

But what about the Shire I can imagine a politician saying (seemingly forgetting that the Shire is better known for being a fictional place inhabited by hobbits in a fictional world invented by JRR Tolkien)? There are five types of shire, shire unitaries with and without fire, shire counties with and without fire and shire districts. The change in their spending power collectively of each type of shire varies from a 1.2% drop (for shire counties with fire) to a 2.9% drop (for shire unitaries without fire). So yes, in percentage terms the cuts to shires’ budgets are less than the drop in Wirral’s spending power.

However it’s important to note that the spending power of shires was to start with much lower per a dwelling to begin with than Wirral’s. These range from £296.22 per a dwelling for shire districts compared to Wirral’s £2,250.35 to an average of £2,028.61 per a dwelling for shire unitaries with fire.

But what about North Dorset (which seems to be the favourite council for certain Wirral politicians to compare Wirral to)? Well North Dorset has about a fifth of the dwellings that Wirral does. Its spending power for 2013-14 is £7.729 million (2.4% of Wirral’s). Its cut is 2.8% of its budget. Personally I hardly think it’s a fair comparison (although I very much doubt that’ll stop Labour politicians using it).

If we compare Wirral Council to other Merseyside councils (plus the fire authority), the cuts to Wirral Council aren’t exceptional or extraordinary. If we rank the cuts as a percentage to the five councils on Merseyside (plus the fire authority) the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget only come out at fourth.

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

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

Incredible: Lyndale School call in causes second constitutional crisis for Wirral Council!

                            

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

This is a rather complicated saga, so it’s best to go back to the beginning and have a recap of what’s happened so far in chronological order. Way back on the 16th January despite an emotional plea from a parent, the Labour Cabinet decided to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting the same Cabinet also decided to agree to change how they divide up funding for pupils at special schools (which has an effect on Lyndale School).

On the 20th January I wrote a blog post headlined “Was the Wirral Council Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School lawful?” which included two polls. The first poll asked readers if they thought the decision was lawful (so far 92.31% think it wasn’t and 7.69% that it was) as well as a second poll on whether the decision should be called in (75% voted yes, 25% voted no).

The two decisions were then called in by councillors. The decision to consult on closing Lyndale was called in by Cllr Tom Harney, Cllr Phil Gilchrist, Cllr Jeff Green, Cllr Ian Lewis, Cllr Cherry Povall and Cllr Pat Williams. The decision on allocating funding (called proposals for change to school top up payments for students with high needs) was also called in by the same six councillors.

A meeting of the Coordinating Committee was arranged to consider the call in which prompted a blog post titled Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council Committee? along with another poll that asked whether it should be decided by the Coordinating Committee or the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee along with another poll in which 100% voted that it should be decided by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee.

I wrote a further blog post on the 4th February headlined The Reasons why Wirral Council’s Lyndale School call in is being delayed. Councillors on the Coordinating Committee met on the 5th February (covered in “When is a call in meeting not a call in meeting? When it’s adjourned…”) and agreed a recommendation to adjourn the call in meeting to the 27th February until after the Council meeting on the 25th so that Council could co-opt the necessary parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives onto the Coordinating Committee.

At this point it’s worth pointing out what it states in Wirral Council’s constitution on call ins (it’s at 35 (3)(b) (page 138) if you wish to check this out for yourself) “(b) The relevant Chief Officer and all members will be notified of a call-in immediately and no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed. A decision of the Cabinet, a committee of the Cabinet or individual Cabinet member may be called in only once.”

I’ve added some underlining to emphasise the bit “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed”.

However agenda item seven for tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting has an agenda item “Schools Budget 2014/15”, which is officer’s recommendation to Cabinet for the schools budget which will then be recommended to Budget Council on the 25th February.

At 4.3.5 of the report to Cabinet it states the following:

4.3.5 High Needs Block

The make up of this block is complex. It is based on the “place plus” system introduced by the DfE [Department for Education] from April 2013 and includes:

  • Special schools (pre and post 16), school bases and independent non-maintained special schools. All receive a base level funding of £10,000 per place following agreement of place numbers with the Education Funding Agency (EFA).
  • Alternative Provision Bases and WASP. This provision is funded at £8,000 per place.
  • Additional funding over and above that provided for places will be paid in the form of “top ups”. These will be provided on a per pupil basis. The top up, or “plus” element of funding, is based on the agreed assessed needs of pupils and is paid by the “commissioner” responsible; this may be Wirral Children’s Services, a school or another Local Authority. In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.
  • The costs of all education and training for post 16 specialist and LLDD provision (top ups) to colleges and private providers.
  • The Hospital Schools budget

Compare the above to the report titled Proposals for Changes to School Top Up Payments for Students with High Needs which went to be decided by Cabinet on the 16th January, resulted in Cabinet agreeing the proposals and was then called in (quoted below).

2.2 “with each school receiving an amount of £10,000 per place and an additional top up based on individual pupil needs.”

2.4 “Top Up funding (ie the “Plus” element) reflects the additional support costs in excess of place funding for individual pupils and students and takes into account factors such as the pupils individual needs and facilities / support provided.”

“This is a significant piece of work that has been undertaken with Wirral’s Schools Forum’s SEN Finance Steering Group, the outcome of which has resulted in a banded approach to top ups for:”
…
“Students in post 16 provision with element three costs; Further Education Colleges, Sixth Forms and Independent Specialist Providers (ISP);

Basically the proposals mean the same (but written with slightly different words). If these recommendations from officers on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 are agreed by Cabinet, it will become recommendations to Budget Council on the 25th February (and recommendations to Council can’t be called in). If that’s the case then the call in decision by the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February on the top up payments for students with high needs becomes a fait accompli as the decision on the Schools Budget for 2014/15 will have been made already by Council on the 25th February.

I pointed this out by email to the Cabinet Member (Cllr Tony Smith), Cllr Phil Davies (who chairs Cabinet meetings), the Chair and spokespersons on the Coordinating Committee, the councillors who called in the decisions, Surjit Tour (Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer), Graham Burgess (Chief Executive who has a role in the call in process) and Andrew Roberts (the officer who wrote the report to Cabinet) which outlined what had happened and contained the following four questions.

I know there is a reserve Budget meeting set aside for the 4th March. Therefore my questions are:

1) Would it not be better to consider the schools budget on the 4th March as by this time the decisions reached by the call in meeting on the 27th February will be known?

2) Bearing in mind the constitutional requirement that “no action will be taken to implement the decision until the call-in procedure has been completed” can either the Cabinet on Wednesday recommend a schools budget (when an element of that budget being proposed has been called in) or Council on the 25th February decide on a schools budget (for the same reasons) without being accused of making a decision in breach of Wirral’s constitution?

3) If the schools budget is to be decided on the 4th March, will an extra Cabinet meeting be required between the 27th February and the 4th March to consider any recommendations arising from the call in
meeting?

and

4) In order for these decisions to be made according to Wirral Council’s constitution does this require the budget council procedure (agreed by Cabinet on the 16th January) to be altered so that the
schools budget is dealt with as a separate matter to the rest of the Budget?

Thank you for taking the time to read this, I look forward to either hearing a response to these questions at Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting or receiving a formal response by email before then.

So far I’ve received responses from two councillors. One just stated “Thank you for the information”, the reply from the other councillor stated that they’d follow up my query with the report author Andrew Roberts.

So what’s really going on? The line written in the report “In 2014/15 it is anticipated that a new banded top up system (with 5 bands) will be introduced and will be used to allocate funding to special schools, resourced based and alternative provision.” makes it sound like the outcome of the call in is being predicted by an officer before it’s even taken place! So what’s really going on? Does anybody really know or is this just the uniquely strange and peculiar way that Wirral Council makes decisions?

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

Extra £7 million announced by government in funding for councils to help with flood costs: Will Wirral apply?

Extra £7 million announced by government in funding for councils to help with flood costs: Will Wirral apply?

Extra £7 million announced by government in funding for councils to help with flood costs: Will Wirral apply?

                      

At a recent Cabinet meeting I heard Cllr Phil Davies talking about how some (£250,000) of the projected underspend for this year’s Budget was set aside to pay for the clean up and repairs to infrastructure after the floods in December. He said that although there was a government fund that local councils could apply to for emergency financial help following such events (called the Bellwin scheme), Wirral Council didn’t qualify as it hadn’t spent more than 0.2% of its annual budget which for Wirral is £930,432.

However the government has since announced a further £7 million of funding to councils for this kind of expenditure in what they call a severe weather recovery scheme. Half of it is for repairing roads damaged by flooding and the other half for expenditure incurred through supporting communities.

Applications for this money have to be made by February 19th February at 5pm and ministers have stated that all local authorities in England who apply and are eligible will receive the money. To qualify for the community element of the grant Wirral Council will need to show that “at least ten residential and/or commercial properties had been reported as flooded (water having entered the property)” in Wirral and that Wirral Council had “incurred expenditure on supporting their communities during the recovery phase”.

To qualify for the highways element Wirral Council would have to prove that the floods caused damage to parts of the highway of more than one and a half metres that they were responsible for. Whether Wirral Council qualify for this element I’m not sure. However as some of their expenditure on the community element side would seem to be eligible, here’s a link to the application form. After all if Wirral Council is entitled to the money why don’t they apply for it?

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: