Green Party | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

UPDATED: 9 Labour councillors vote to continue to next stage of consultation on closing Lyndale School despite concerns raised

Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts — Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School which was being reviewed by the Coordinating Committee on 2nd October 2014 L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts

Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee (which comprises fifteen councillors, two parent governor representatives, a Catholic rep, is required to have an Anglican rep but at this stage I don’t really know why there isn’t one), met on the evening of 2nd October to reconsider the Cabinet decision of 4th September 2014 which made a decision to consult on closure after the “consultation” earlier this year. Neither of the two parent governor representatives (who have speaking and voting rights) nor the Catholic representative (who also has speaking and voting rights) were present.

According to correspondence received hours before the meeting, a senior Wirral Council officer stated they have previously tried to persuade the Church of England to appoint an Anglican representative, but have failed and refers to this as merely an “anomaly”.

Here is the list of the people who made the decision itself and were there on the night, including matters such as whether they are spokesperson, Chair, Vice-Chair and which political party. I have listed people who are on the committee first, it is unclear to me who the Conservative spokesperson was or whether it was Cllr Bruce Berry or Cllr Leah Fraser who was deputising for him:

Labour
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Chair), Labour
Cllr Paul Doughty (Vice-Chair), Labour
Cllr Janette Williamson, Labour
Cllr Michael Sullivan, Labour
Cllr Denise Roberts, Labour * note deputy for either Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Christina Muspratt or Cllr Jerry Williams
Cllr Harry Smith, Labour * note deputy for either Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Christina Muspratt or Cllr Jerry Williams
Cllr James Crabtree, Labour * note deputy for either Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Christina Muspratt or Cllr Jerry Williams
Cllr Ron Abbey, Labour * note deputy for either Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Christina Muspratt or Cllr Jerry Williams

Conservative
Cllr Wendy Clements, Conservative
Cllr Tom Anderson, Conservative
Cllr Steve Williams, Conservative
Cllr Bruce Berry, Conservative * note deputy for either Cllr Chris Blakeley or Cllr Mike Hornby
Cllr Leah Fraser, Conservative * note deputy for either Cllr Chris Blakeley or Cllr Mike Hornby

Lib Dem
Cllr Phil Gilchrist, Liberal Democrat spokesperson

So to summarise, that is eight people on the committee and seven deputies substituting for people who are on the committee but chose to send a deputy in their place for reasons best known to themselves.

Ultimately the decision taken at the end of a long meeting (there were a series of votes at the end on whether to uphold the decision or refer it back to Cabinet to reconsider based on concerns councillors had) was to uphold the Cabinet decision of the 4th September 2014. This was taken on a majority of 9 votes to 6. Each of the alternative recommendations failed on a vote of 6 to 9. The alternative recommendations which were lost were proposed by by Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Lib Dem spokesperson) and Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative councillor).

Labour councillors (9) voted to uphold the Labour Cabinet decision. The joint votes (6) of the Conservative councillors (5) and Liberal Democrat spokesperson (1) voted against Labour’s recommendation.

Although six councillors were in favour of not implementing the Cabinet decision of 4th September and referring it back to Cabinet with their concerns, they were outvoted by the nine Labour councillors who voted against.

This means the Director of Childrens Services, Julia Hassall can now go ahead to the next stage of closing the Lyndale School which is a short consultation (lasting about a month). Even if Wirral Council were taken to court over this matter, Surjit Tour made it quite clear in a formal letter to me that they would not pause the process and would just carry on doing this, regardless of many outstanding legal concerns. In the interests of transparency at this point, I refer to the exchange of letters between myself (mainly the one of 8th September 2014) and Surjit Tour in this matter about the possibility of legal action through the courts.

He is of course entitled to his opinion on this matter, so am I. He has to work within the policy and budget framework of Wirral Council and is in a politically restricted post, I have to consider other concerns such as financial, legal, political and commercial (it’s complicated basically).

Following this consultation Wirral Council’s Cabinet will make a further decision at some future point on closure of the Lyndale School. As it was such a long meeting and negotiations over potential access to Wirral Council’s wi-fi network for live broadcast of meetings as they happen have stalled, only part of the footage of the five-hour meeting at the time of writing has been uploaded. You can watch video of part of the meeting below.

On a more personal note and this is just my opinion, I would like to point out (briefly) that politics comprises objective and subjective tests that can be applied when determining decisions.

Nobody expects politicians to be experts as they are there to represent the public interest. In certain areas such as law and other areas they have to rely on the internal advice of Wirral Council officers. That is why officers giving advice are in politically restricted posts and can’t really be seen to be taking sides in a party political matter.

Although it would be unlawful to drop Lyndale School’s budget by more than 1.5% under the minimum funding guarantee regulations this year (2014-15) compared to its 2013-14 budget, the government is currently consulting on draft regulations which would remove this current protection under the minimum funding guarantee for SEN places in 2015-16. However there is a current consultation on regulations which cover 2015-16 and the draft regulations put to Parliament may differ from those being consulted on.

In fact you only have to look at how the regulations on filming meetings of Wirral Council changed after the consultation and lobbying by people such as myself to show that that is a distinct possibility.

However how much Lyndale School receive this year for the education of children there and in future years is down to a complicated combination of the Wirral Schools Forum, Cabinet, Council and other factors beyond anybody’s reasonable control. A schools formula is arrived at locally by a combination of the Wirral Schools Forum, Cabinet and Council. This schools formula determines how much each individual school gets each year (and is changed each year).

In essence though, this shouldn’t really be about money. The law allows Wirral Council to close a school, however naturally they have to plan for what happens next to the existing pupils. Some will transfer to secondary school well before the planned closure date of January 2016. This should really be about the children of Lyndale School.

I will recite a little personal history here. My primary school was changed (when I was 10), not because of closure but because my parents had moved three miles away and transport to and from school was taking my mother longer than it was when I only lived a mile away.

Therefore my perception of what happens to a primary aged child when you do this to them, is somewhat clouded by that. Twenty-four years later, I still resent that decision, as I do not feel my interests were properly considered especially considering the fact I would’ve left that primary school within the next twelve months to go to secondary school and that we had moved house many years previous.

I can understand though that it resulted in a reduced carbon footprint as I could walk to the school I was transferred to. It ended up with me being admitted to hospital for a week though and knowing how much that costs makes it a false economy.

The children of Lyndale School are more fragile than I was at aged ten. Wirral Council identify themselves in a Equality Impact Assessment that the disruption will have an effect on the children.

However a letter from their legal department takes the contrary view that any potential risks can be mitigated against. Personally I have no confidence in Wirral Council that the potential risks have been mitigated at this stage, as my feeling is that such detailed planning won’t actually happen until a decision to close (or not close) the Lyndale School has been finally made at some future point. At this stage officers may consider behind the scenes that spending officer time and resources on planning for something that might not happen would not be value for money. However all scenarios should be explored if Wirral Council insists on going down this route.

Considering the high costs already expended by Wirral Council on their plan to close Lyndale School, one wonders if that seemingly large and endless budget allocation had instead been used for keeping the Lyndale School open, whether it would’ve been a better use of public funds. Each time they hold a public meeting it costs thousands of pounds and there have been many of these so far. Such is the price of democracy I suppose which has deliberately made closing a school a long and drawn out process so that a “spanner can be put in the works” to stop it at any one of many stages.

Some people are surprised it has not been stopped before now. However looking at the wider aspects of the way society treats disabled people, prejudice and other matters I am not wholly unsurprised by this course of events.

Below is a playlist from when the meeting started. When the video was shown due to an outstanding unresolved copyright claim regarding one of the two pieces of music used in it by Sony Music Entertainment, the video has sadly had to be edited out of the footage of the meeting. However it can be viewed elsewhere online.

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.

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

Isn’t it time Wirral Council got their sums right on Lyndale School?

I’ve rewritten this blog post a few times as it is connected to tonight’s Coordinating Committee meeting about Lyndale School and the earlier Cabinet decision on the 4th September 2014.

The funding formula the government will use for allocating schools funding in 2015-16 hasn’t been decided yet and is now out to consultation.

It seems Wirral Council officers have for nearly a year been predicting what form the regulations will take. If changes are made to the regulations as a result of the current consultation it is also possible that this will change how much funding Wirral Council will receive in 2015-16 for Lyndale School.

Certainly it seems entirely premature at this stage to go through a consultation on closure when there is uncertainty at this point as to the funding regime.

However, where does this leave Lyndale School? Looking through the proposed regulations for school funding in 2015-16 a few things did occur to me.

There is a set amount, a lump sum that each primary school receives irrespective of its size of places or pupil numbers. This six-figure sum will be lost to Wirral Council if Lyndale School closes and would ultimately result in less money being spent on children.

One of Wirral Council’s arguments for closing Lyndale School, is that the £33,470 Lyndale would receive in inclusion funding in 2015-16 would be shared between the other ten special schools who would each receive an extra £3,347 each.

Actually that’s wrong. This is because £33,470 is a full year allocation and if Lyndale was closed, it would be done part way through the year (January 2016 is about three-quarters through the 2015-16 financial year). So Lyndale School would get about £25,102 for inclusion funding in that year, which would leave £8,368. This would then be shared between the ten special schools (if Lyndale closed) who would each receive a further £836.80 each, not £3,347.

This was an error in the Cabinet report to its meeting of 4th September 2014, repeated in Surjit Tour’s letter of 30th September 2014 and repeated in the papers for tonight’s meeting. The effect of which is to exaggerate the financial case for closing Lyndale School. To my recollection the error wasn’t highlighted during the Cabinet meeting on the 4th September 2014. However I’m sure there are possibly many other errors in Wirral Council’s education department’s arithmetic, with regards to Lyndale School funding, which I haven’t spotted yet (who in a twist of irony actually also have a duty to teach children mathematics).

I wonder if anyone will mention it tonight or has scrutiny died a horrible death at Wirral Council?

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

5 questions answered about the Lyndale School closure plans

The Wirral Globe has just arrived through my door and in it is a letter from a Keith Crowden of Upton titled “Any Answers?” although in the online version its “Any answers on Lyndale?” .

Keith Crowden of Upton asks:

1) How many pupils go to the school and how many teachers and other staff are there at present?

Wirral Council state that there are now 21 pupils on the roll at Lyndale School (as of yesterday 30th September 2014). However it is noted that a number of these will reach secondary school age next year and will not be directly affected by the proposed closure in January 2016.

Reference: section 8.1 of this letter from Surjit Tour published yesterday.

According to the Lyndale School website there are 19 teaching assistants and 3 teachers at the school. However this information might be out of date. It is possible there are other staff too that are not listed on its website. However only The Lyndale School could answer the actual current number about how many teachers and other staff are now employed on this particular day as this number fluctuates. My own guess is that the total number of staff is somewhere between twenty-two and thirty-five (I am assuming you are referring in your question to paid staff and not volunteers).

2) How many different schools are likely to be used for the transfer of the children if the school is closed and would the attention they receive now be diminished in another environment?

Stanley School and Elleray Park have already been named as alternative schools so at least two, however some parents have said they will not send their children to either of those schools if Lyndale School closes. So the number of different schools if it was closed that the children at Lyndale School would go to is likely to be a number between three and six. In theory it could be as high as twelve, but that’s highly unlikely.

In answer to the second part of your question, if the school was closed and the pupils were transferred to either Elleray Park or Stanley School, then Wirral Council plans to spend less money on a per pupil basis than Lyndale currently receives. Currently Lyndale School receives on average ~£33,000 per pupil, this would drop to between ~£17,000 per a pupil to ~£26,000 per a pupil depending on which one of five new bands that particular former Lyndale School pupil is assessed in based partly on their EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan).

However if Lyndale School shut and the former Lyndale pupil/s was transferred to an independent special school, the amount received per a pupil would be uncapped. If the former Lyndale School pupil went to a special school outside of Wirral (bear in mind Lyndale School is in Eastham very close to the edge of Wirral so it is a possibility parent/s would choose placements outside of Wirral) the amount would also be uncapped based on the current policy.

This is because Wirral Council’s current policy is to not have a cap on funding for independent special or out of borough special placements, but they intend to introduce a cap for special pupils in schools on the Wirral Borough from next year assuming they get agreement to this from the various decision-making bodies.

This reduction in funding will probably lead both to less staff time available per a child and/or a reduction in other costs that the school has. That is the view of the parents, some councillors, staff and other people replying to the consultation. However Wirral Council takes a different view on this point.

I do not think it is realistic to state that education would remain the same as they receive at Lyndale School although Wirral Council would disagree with me on that point.

3) Would all children find places nearer or further away from home as at present and would transport be provided for them to go and come back from school each day?

The first part of that answer is impossible to answer until a final decision over closure is made and a parental choice is made about alternative schools. However I remember one parent stating that they moved house so that they could be nearer to Lyndale School, therefore in some cases the places would be further away from their home.

SEN Transport can be provided for pupils to go and come back from school, however some parents choose to take their children to school themselves. If your question is would SEN Transport be provided at the new schools as a choice, then the answer if yes if it was requested. However SEN Transport is not compulsory and results in a cost to Wirral Council.

4) What would happen to the present teachers and other staff if the school was closed?

They would lose their jobs, that is to say they would be made redundant as the school had closed. It would then be down to the individual members of staff to apply for jobs elsewhere if they so wished to do so at that stage.

It is to be noted that Wirral Council made an error in the consultation document in relation to what would happen to the staff if the Lyndale School closed.

Despite how the unimplemented Cabinet resolution of 4th September 2014 is phrased, no jobs are guaranteed. Any decision over employing former Lyndale staff elsewhere would be up to that school’s governing body, the usual legal processes such as filling out application forms, criminal record background checks, interviews etc and the former Lyndale staff would be in a competitive process with other applicants for any new jobs created at other schools.

Due to the funding reduction, even if all the former Lyndale School staff applied for jobs at the places where the former Lyndale School pupils had been moved to, the funding reductions would mean that there would be a reduction in posts compared to current staffing levels at Lyndale School.

5) Would the real saving come from the sale of the Lyndale premises and site?

The land and buildings are valued at £2.7 million in February 2013 by Wirral Council. However it could not be sold unless:

(a) it was declared surplus to requirements (a decision that would have to be made by Wirral Council)
(b) a buyer was found
(c) there are other decisions that would have to be made by bodies outside Wirral Council in relation to the land and buildings before a sale could proceed as it is a school. It is unknown whether such bodies would agree to it or not. For example multiple approvals would be needed from the government in relation to the land and buildings before any changes such as a sale or change of use were made.
(d) in order to change its use planning permission would be required (a decision that would have to be made by Wirral Council)

It is to be noted at this stage that the Land Registry entry for Lyndale School refers to a conveyance agreement (if memory serves correct 1952) between Cheshire County Council, a limited company and an individual. I note that prior to the creation of Wirral Council in 1974, this piece of land was in the Cheshire County Council area. Although Cheshire County Council was abolished in 2009, in 2009 its functions were transferred to Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East.

I do not currently have access to a copy of this document, which is lodged with Land Registry, Birkenhead. Due to public service cutbacks I have to wait for an appointment with Land Registry in order to view and request a copy of it although either Chester West and Chester or Cheshire East should have a copy when the Cheshire County Council records were transferred.

I have given as full an answer as I can to the above questions, considering that some of the detail is either not known to me, would take too long to collate or would result in me having to make enquiries of others.

There will be a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee on 2nd October 2014 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall to discuss the recent Cabinet decision and decide what to do next.

At the moment implementation of the decision has been put on hold pending the outcome of that meeting.

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

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

I had an interesting meeting with Leonora and two Wirral Council officers in Birkenhead about the proposed changes to parking at the back of Birkenhead Market as a result of a traffic regulation order that’s being consulted on. I will start by pointing out that my wife Leonora regularly parks in the Birkenhead Market Service Road and has a Blue Badge. I did ask for my concerns to be fed into the car parking review which is now happening as a task and finish group chaired by Councillor Paul Doughty.

One of my issues was to do with the fact that if they went ahead with this traffic regulation order it would prevent users with a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. We started our survey of parking outside the One Stop Shop in Conway Street. The short 15 minute bays there were permanently in use. Each time someone moved another car came in within a few minutes. Interestingly G4S was also parked in the short stay bay there and had gone in to the One Stop Shop (G4S were the company the people were protesting about outside the Mayor of Liverpool’s house as reported in the Liverpool Echo recently).

We crossed the busy road and went past the Birkenhead Bus Station.

The blue badge bays in the car park next to Birkenhead Bus Station were (no surprise there) all in use. We then walked around the first half of the Birkenhead Market Service Roas talking on the way. The officers said that the Pyramids/Birkenhead Market were paying the costs of the traffic regulation order because of problems they had with antisocial parking blocking deliveries.

There were a number of cars and a van parked on that stretch of the Service Road but no loading or unloading was observed during the time we were there (late afternoon). What is interesting though is that the Pyramids (one of two bodies we were told would be paying for the traffic regulation order) currently charge people for parking in their multi-storey car park (apart from on a Sunday).

Leonora raised the issues she had about being (if the Traffic Regulation Order came into force at some future date) that she would be forced to park elsewhere. One of the market stall holders (who runs the flower stall) came over when he heard us talking. He was confused by what the Traffic Regulation Order was about as guess what no consultation had happened with the individual stall holders! He asked if it would it affect his customers picking up flowers? The Wirral Council officers assured him that it wouldn’t and explained it was aimed at blue badge users parking on the Birkenhead Market Service Road.

Technically if they’re only picking up prepaid flowers they were right, however if his customers were parking (rather than loading/unloading) with a blue badge it will affect them.

Wirral Council officers admitted to me that they had not consulted the individual market stall holders. Consultation problems seem to be a recurring theme with Wirral Council recently. Officers felt that consulting with the company that runs the market was enough as they so them as a representative body (even though there seemed to have been no clear communication or consultation with individualmstall holders).

What I did surprise them with though was a paper copy of Birkenhead Market Lease & sublease (which in a rather twisted irony in all this is with Wirral Council) which I received last Friday as part of the 2013/14 audit.

What’s interesting (and the detail of this was seemingly unknown to those Wirral Council officers who started asking me where I’d got the lease and sublease from the answer being Wirral Council itself) is that there is then a sublease with the market stall holders. Here are some quotes from it (which mention the Grange too):

“1.1 Right to use half width of access road

The full and free right for the owners and occupiers of the adjoining property known as the Grange Shopping Centre (“the Adjoining Land”) (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) at all times to pass and repass over and along that part of the access road situate on the Premises and shown coloured brown on the Plan with or without vehicles for the purpose of gaining access to or egress from the Adjoining Land but so that such right shall extend only to moving traffic whether pedestrian or vehicular PROVIDED that such right shall be exercised in one direction only such direction to be from the point marked X on the Plan to the point marked Y thereon or such other direction as shall be agreed from time to time between the Council the Tenant and the owner of the Adjoining Land and SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (5) of the Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer dated 1^st October 1992 and made between The Council (1) and Legal & General Assurance Society Limited (2) (“the Transfer”)

1.2 Rights over Market Loading Bays

The full and free right for the owners or occupiers of the Adjoining Land (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) to use at all times those parts of the Premises shown hatched red on the Plan for the purpose of parking motor vehicles loading or off-loading or waiting to load or off-load goods into and from the Adjoining Land or any part thereof and for no other purpose whatsoever PROVIDED that (save as mentioned in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer)(except in case of emergency) no motor vehicle shall be so parked for a period in excess of one hour at any one time nor in a manner as shall obstruct traffic on the said access road coloured brown and green on the Plan SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer”

I presume as it mentions the side run by the Pyramid/Grange that there is something similar in their lease too. In other words what’s the point of a Traffic Regulation Order as Wirral Council is currently because of the contract they signed with the tenants (at least on the market side) supposed to be managing effectively the traffic in the Birkenhead Market Service Road through this clause in the contract already?

The fact that the two officers involved with the Traffic Regulation Order didn’t know about the clauses in the Birkenhead Market sublease until I brought it up is worrying in itself as surely the Asset Management side of Wirral Council has a copy of the lease and subleases for day to day management?

One of the two officers rather amusingly asked me “Do you know the budgetary pressures the Council is under?” (or words to that effect). I have a rather short reply to that as the press I was and tried not to smile too much at the question.

The point is, if someone is parked where they shouldn’t be and caused a nuisance or blocked that road it’s a police/traffic warden issue to deal with.

Much of the road can’t be currently parked in by blue badge holders as it’s even loading bays or double yellows with kerb blips.

The issue to do with traffic flow is also a civil matter too to do with how you enforce the lease. The fact the traffic side at Wirral Council doesn’t know what the asset side at Wirral Council is doing (and seemingly don’t talk to each other) is perhaps a rather worrying sign of a “silo mentality”.

The fact that the costs of the Traffic Regulation Order are being paid for by a company that will benefit from people paying an extra £2 at the expense of the disabled who will be prevented from parking for free here is again another worrying example of Wirral Council seemingly being on the side of commercial interests.

Officers did suggest as a compromise that if we dropped our objections to the proposed traffic regulation order that they would monitor the parking situation in a year’s time. This was not accepted. I also asked for these issues to be fed into the current car parking review and promised to email the relevant sections of the Birkenhead Market lease to them.

Sadly this is another tale where there has been lack of consultation with the individual market stallholders on an issue that will affect their trade. Wirral Council seem to take the “Beware of the Leopard” mentality of saying that they don’t have to consult with them and the plans were available and that it’s not their fault if people didn’t go and look at them.

Anyway the consultation on this proposed Traffic Regulation Order runs to Friday 26th September. If there are any unresolved objections after that it goes to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. The Highways and Traffic Representation Panel can then make recommendations to their parent committee.

However that’s just democracy for you. It seems however that Wirral Council once again are rubbing disabled people up the wrong way and who’s Wirral Council supposed to represent anyway, the people or “commercial interests”?

According to Wirral Council officers today (who aren’t going to just drop the plans because of these objections) the commercial interests of the people paying for the Traffic Regulation Order seem to (at the moment) carry more weight than the concerns of the people this will affect. Leonora did have a few things to say about the culture at Wirral Council, but I gather producing the lease & sublease (which came as a total surprise to them), shows there are existing contract obligations which as that covers most of the people using this road duplicates the purpose behind the Traffic Regulation Order.

Are they really going to go to the costs of possibly renegotiating the subleases with all market stall holders over this? Why do I ask that? Yes market traders have a specific badge on their car, but some of them will have Blue Badges and will park in the service road, which if the new Traffic Regulation Order comes into effect will mean they’d get (if a traffic warden was around) a ticket as market stall holders are limited to an hour maximum. Why can’t Wirral Council just deal with this as another other landlord/tenant issue? Words do fail me on this one really, but I could go on for a further thousand words on the thorny issue of parking and Wirral Council and still just be scratching the surface.

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

Expense claim forms for Councillor Brian Kenny (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014

Writing this, I had better declare that many years ago in Liverpool Councillor Brian Kenny gave us both a gift of a red plastic post box in I think in 2010 (it’s only a few inches high) as part of the lobbying that the Communication Workers Union were doing at the time of people like myself and Leonora. Although this falls into the trivial category, journalism ethics means I’d better state that at the start as I don’t want people thinking I’m being too kind or not objective enough to former Councillor Brian Kenny because of something he gave us four years ago. I will point out that gift was completely unconnected to my work as a journalist. However this is probably more openness and accountability than you will get from most politicians (who were recently told at a Planning Committee meeting about Tranmere Rovers that they only had to declare gifts received in the last twelve months)!

When I picked up the expenses claim forms to scan in for former Councillor Brian Kenny, at first I thought I must have picked up a batch which was for more than one councillor as compared to other councillors there seemed a lot of it. I know he was the Cabinet Member for the Environment, but his expenses claim forms go on and on and on and on and on like the waves crashing against the shore on the Wirral coastline.

As probably readers of this blog are already aware, former Councillor Brian Kenny lost his seat in Birkenhead and Tranmere in the May 2014 elections to the Green Party’s Councillor Pat Cleary.

I have only seen Brian Kenny twice since the elections. Once was at the meeting where Councillor Steve Foulkes became Mayor of Wirral in June, the other time was when I was at the Birkenhead County Court offices when I was requesting copies of court records on Wirral Council’s possession order (granted in February 2014 effective from February 2015) for Fernbank Farm. Before I start getting diverted into interesting anecdotes about a former councillor I had better show you first the expenses forms.