The vast majority of the development agreement for the Hoylake Golf Resort (although there is still disputed information which will be resolved by a First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) case) was released by Wirral Council yesterday and published on the whatdotheyknow.com website.
The proposed road referred to in the draft Strategic Regeneration Framework referred to in the development agreement as Hoylake Bypass is defined as a “7.5 metre, two-way undivided main carriageway with a 1 metre wide service/buffer strip and a shared 2.5 metre wide gateway/cycleway (providing for a 11 metre minimum total highway width) which is to be constructed on the Site pursuant to the Highways Agreement the approximate route of which is shown marked in pink on plan 6 or along such other route as the Developer and the Council may agree (acting reasonably)”.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
ICO require Wirral Council to release 94 page draft agreement with Nicklaus Joint Venture Group Limited about Hoylake Golf Resort
ICO require Wirral Council to release 94 page draft agreement with Nicklaus Joint Venture Group Limited about Hoylake Golf Resort
ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) logo
Updated 27.2.18 with an amendment to paragraph 3 of the decision notice following First-tier Tribunal (information rights) case EA/2017/0191.
Edited 10.8.17 by JB to include text of decision notice below images of pages
ICO have required Wirral Council to disclose 94 pages of a draft development agreement between itself and the Nicklaus Joint Venture Group Limited in respect of the proposed golf course, hotel and residential property in Hoylake. This project is known as the Hoylake Golf Resort and the proposed development involves the sale of and leasing of Wirral Council owned land to the developer.
Wirral Council have 35 calendar days (from the 7th August 2017) to provide the information or alternatively they can appeal ICO’s decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) within 28 days.
ICO ruled that a further 29 pages of legal advice that Wirral Council received from Pinsent Masons about the Hoylake Golf Resort project did not need to be disclosed.
You can read the full 14 page decision notice (FER0672223) below.
FER0672223 Hoylake Golf Resort (Wirral Council) Page 1 of 14
Reference: FER0672223
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR)
Decision notice
Date:
7 August 2017
Public Authority:
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Address:
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Merseyside
CH44 8ED
Complainant:
John Brace
Address:
Jenmaleo
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
CH43 7PH
Decision (including any steps ordered)
The complainant has requested information relating to the Hoylake Golf Resort Project. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council withheld the information under the exceptions for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)).
The Commissioner’s decision is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold some of the requested information but failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
● Disclose pages 43-146 of the Private Document Pack.
The Tribunal requires Wirral Metropolitan Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation –
Disclose the Amended Annotated Development Agreement at pages 256 – 351 of the Closed Bundle prepared for the appeal hearing, save the passages annotated in green and any marginal green notes, which may be withheld. The Commissioner’s order at paragraph 2 of the Decision Notice stands.
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 pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Will Wirral Council receive £300,000 windfall for greenbelt Saughall Massie Fire Station site if planning application APP/17/00306 is approved?
Will Wirral Council receive £300,000 windfall for greenbelt Saughall Massie Fire Station site if planning application APP/17/00306 is approved?
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service) (left) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie in 2015 to discuss proposals for a new fire station
In a 20 page planning report on a revised planning application for a fire station in Saughall Massie, councillors on the Planning Committee have been recommended to approve the application.
A previous application for a fire station was refused by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee on a 7:6 vote last year. An appeal of this planning application refusal to the Planning Inspectorate was considered but abandoned.
Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meets next week on Thursday 22nd June 2017, starting at 6.00 pm to consider the revised planning application in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe. It is expected that a site visit will be requested at this meeting which if agreed will delay a final decision on the planning application to a later meeting of the Planning Committee (expected to be on the 20th July 2017).
As the planning report states, the petition of objection to the planning application has grown to 4,034 signatures and there have been 324 objections to the new application at the time the report was written.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”
What’s in a whistleblowing report about Wirral Council’s “dismal decade?”
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
On the 5th August 2016 a former Wirral Council employee Martin Morton made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for a copy of a report commissioned from Nick Warren on whistleblowing by former Wirral Council employees.
After Wirral Council had ignored his request for a month, Martin Morton requested an internal review on the 6th September 2016.
Wirral Council completed that internal review and communicated the results to Martin Morton on the 3rd October 2016 refusing to supply the report in its entirety.
The refusal was made by Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour on the basis that it would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36).
Martin Morton then appealed Surjit Tour’s decision to the regulator ICO (the Information Commissioner’s Office).
During the course of ICO’s investigation, Wirral Council apologised for how long it had taken to reply to Martin Morton‘s request, but added an additional reason for refusing some of the information giving personal information (section 40) as a further reason.
On the 27th April 2017 ICO issued a decision notice (FS50649341). The decision notice required some of the information requested to be released to Martin Morton within 35 calendar days as ICO disagreed with Wirral Council and felt there were parts of the report to which neither section 36 nor section 40 applied.
Wirral Council released that information yesterday which comprise paragraphs 1-8 of the report (although part of paragraph 4 is redacted) and paragraph 76. I’ve put in a line break between different pages and in the conversion from print to HTML there may be some minor formatting changes.
I include what has been released below yesterday as it is rather short. A series of XXXX represents the redacted bit. I’ve made two additions. The first is that I’ve linked the words “precise terms of reference” in paragraph 4 to the terms of reference as the report makes more sense when read together with the terms of reference. The second is that I’ve made it clearer that paragraphs 5-75 haven’t been released of the report.
Report
A. INTRODUCTION
This review arises from events which formed part of a dismal decade for Wirral Borough Council (“Wirral”) culminating in a remarkable joint statement from the Leader of the Council and the then Chief Executive (CE) which have accepted a number of failings and recognised the need to improve Wirral’s corporate governance, culture and workforce policies.
Part of the statement concerned the Highways and Engineering Services procurement exercise (“HESPE”). This work was put out to tender; there were bids from the private sector and an in house bid from the Wirral “DLO”. It is convenient to state here some important dates concerning HESPE.
Dec 2007
Announcement in the Official EU Journal.
13 March 2008
Qualifying bidders chosen
2 July 2008
Bidders invited to tender according to a Bill of Quantities.
4 Sept 2008 (later extended to 5 Sept 2008)
Tender return date.
16 Oct 2008
Contract formally awarded to COLAS.
The DLO bid was therefore unsuccessful. This meant that the DLO staff would transfer to COLAS from April 2009.
In November 2008 some employees of the DLO made a disclosure on the advice of their Trade Union to Wirral’s CE. I will refer to them collectively as “the Whistleblowers”. They had all worked for Wirral for many years. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I have been asked to review the treatment of the Whistleblowers. It is not necessary to recite precise terms of reference.
I have interviewed the Whistleblowers and other witnesses and have read a large number of documents provided by Wirral. I thank Wirral staff for the co-operation which I have received. I will not deal with all the evidence because I want to make my report as short and as readable as I can. If required, I can expand on or explore any individual issue.
I have of course used hindsight. That is in the very nature of a review. There is nothing wrong with this provided I do not use it to criticise people or actions unfairly.
B. WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE DONE FOR WIRRAL
It took Wirral about four months to respond to the Whistleblowers. They were dissatisfied and went to the Audit Commission. The Commission took the
unusual step of issuing a public report identifying serious weakness in Wirral’s arrangements for:-
(a) Declaration of Interests. (b) Internal Audit (c) Reporting to Elected Members (d) Dealing with Whistleblowers (e) Evaluating Tenders
As a result Wirral has altered and improved its procedures in these important areas of work. It seems clear that the weaknesses would not have been exposed, nor would the improvements have come about, if the Whistleblowers had not had the courage to speak out. I am not aware that Wirral has acknowledged publicly or privately the contribution which the Whistleblowers thus made to our community.
(Paragraphs 5-75 are redacted).
L. CONCLUSION
The Whistleblowers have not received sufficient credit for exposing poor practice within Wirral. The “informal” nature of the first investigation resulted
in them having to work under great stress for several months. While they were still Wirral employees, their names were disclosed to their new employer as being in some way untrustworthy. Their health and their jobs were adversely affected over an extended period.
Nicholas Warren 6th October 2015.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
Ged Fitzgerald arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation
Ged Fitzgerald arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation
Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015
Ged Fitzgerald (pictured above), Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council has been arrested on suspicion of both conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and witness intimidation.
He is also Chief Executive of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and was the Combined Authority Returning Officer (CARO) for the recent LCRCA Mayoral election.
Both bodies have public meetings this week (Liverpool City Council meets on Wednesday and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meets on Friday).
Those who are regular readers of this blog will know Ged Fitzgerald from two earlier stories this month when he blocked a request for copies of the nomination papers in the Mayoral election and along with Wirral Council’s Local Returning Officer Eric Robinson classed us as not a “bona fide” media organisation and therefore barred from the Count.
The arrest of Ged Fitzgerald was made as part of Operation Sheridan.
Operation Sheridan is a long-running Lancashire Constabulary corporate corruption investigation.
Matters relating to the Operation Sheridan investigation have been raised at two different Liverpool City Council public meetings.
Each time democratic debate on the issue has been curtailed.
Apologies for stopping comments on this blog post, but it is unknown at this point if Ged Fitzgerald has or will be charged.
Due to Ged Fitzgerald being a high-profile individual, it is believed that the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service will be working with the Lancashire Constabulary on this matter.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.
