Liverpool City Region Combined Authority decides to freeze Mersey Tunnels cash tolls for 2016/17 at 2015/16 levels, reduce Fast Tag tolls in 2016/17, not charge tolls on Christmas Day 2016 and no tolls for emergency vehicles
Councillors on the Merseytravel Committee met on Thursday afternoon to decide on a recommendation on Mersey Tunnel tolls for 2016/17. Their recommendation was accepted at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority that met the following day on Friday morning.
You can view video of the Merseytravel Committee meeting on Youtube below (starting at agenda item 6 (Mersey Tunnel tolls).
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.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The decision made was that cash tolls would be kept the same for 2016/17 as they were in 2015/16. The cash toll levels decided for 2016/17 are shown below.
Vehicle Class
2016/17 Cash toll
1
£1.70
2
£3.40
3
£5.10
4
£6.80
The price for Fast Tag tolls was reduced for 2016/17. Below is a table of 2016/17 Fast Tag tolls compared to 2015/16.
Vehicle Class
2016/17 Fast Tag toll
2015/16 Fast Tag toll
1
£1.20
£1.40
2
£2.40
£2.80
3
£3.60
£4.20
4
£4.80
£5.60
There were also other changes agreed for 2016/17. Tunnel tolls will be waived for all classes of traffic between 10 pm on Christmas Eve (24th December 2016) to 6 am on Boxing Day (26th December 2016). All designated emergency vehicles will no longer have to pay tolls in 2016/17.
These were the votes on the Mersey Tunnel tolls decision at the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting.
FOR THE PROPOSAL (4)
Mayor Joe Anderson (Liverpool City Council) FOR
Cllr Phil Davies (Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council) FOR
Cllr Andy Moorhead (Knowsley Council) FOR
Cllr John Fairclough (Sefton Council) deputy for Cllr Ian Maher (Sefton Council) FOR
ABSTENTION (1)
Cllr Rob Polhill (Halton) ABSTAIN
Reacting to the decision, John McGoldrick representing the Mersey Tunnels Users Association stated that “the [Liverpool City Region Combined] Authority would still be making a massive profit from the Tunnels and that most users of the Tunnels would not be seeing the reductions in tolls promised last year.”;
During the meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Cllr Phil Davies (pictured below) said,
Cllr Phil Davies speaking about Mersey Tunnel tolls for 2016 17 at the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting on the 5th February 2016
“Yeah, I’d just like to say a few things about this. I welcome the recommendations of Merseytravel yesterday and the recommendations in this report.
Errm, I think I just need to record the fact that I’ve been involved in the errm the Task Group that’s been looking at this so, this issue errm, but I clearly wanted to, to hear what the outcome of the meeting is today was and I do endorse the approach.
I mean from each err, errm, we did make a commitment in the devolution deal that we gain control of the finances of the Mersey, Mersey Tunnels, errm and certainly you know, wearing my Wirral hat, I think this is definitely a big move forward, errm.
You know, the id.., the fact that the errm the cash toll has been frozen for a further year is great news but even more importantly the Fast Tag, which is effectively a local discount, is being reduced by 20p. So that would mean that errm, there’ll be a 50%, 50p discount per a journey, using the Fast Tag which if you’re travelling, if you’re travelling each day, it could be a saving of £5 a week.
So I think this is err, you know if I can use the expression, I think this is the kind of devolution dividend deal if you like, the deal that was signed with government, I think it will help local people who use the Fast Tag and local businesses. Errm and I really think this is a good demonstration of the value we’re getting already from the devolution deal but finally Chair I’d like to say I’m hoping in future err years we can go even further.
I think we need to do err more work, err more, I know there are more discussions errm err going on with government about us gaining even greater control over the finances of the Tunnels. Certainly from a personal point of view, I’d like to see us continue to drive down the costs of the err tunnel tolls for residents particularly local users, but I do welcome the recommendations in the report. Thanks Chair.”
Just for clarity, the discount for Fast Tag users (compared to cash tolls) for 2016/17 is not 50% as stated by Cllr Phil Davies. It’s (to the nearest percent) 29% for class 1, 29% for class 2, 29% for class 3 and 29% for class 4.
I think it is better to provide a chronology at this stage as to how this part of the request went (references are to this part of the request).
29th March 2013 FOI request made. 29th April 2013 Internal review requested due to lack of reply. 30th April 2013 Internal review sent by Wirral Council. Request refused on cost grounds (section 12), but offer made to send minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group. 30th April 2013 Clarification over meaning of request sent/internal review as response on 30th April 2013 was first response. 30th July 2013 Internal review changes reason from cost grounds (section 12) to vexatious or repeated request (section 14). 14th August 2013 Decision appealed to Information Commissioner’s Office. 19th June 2014 Wirral Council amends reason for refusal from vexatious or repeated request (section 14) to cost grounds (section 12). 8th September 2014 ICO issue decision notice FS50509081. Decision notice overturns cost grounds (section 12) reason, finds Wirral Council failed to provide advice and assistance (section 16) and hasn’t responded to request within 20 days (section 10(1)). Wirral Council given 35 days to provide information or different reason. 4th November 2014 FOI request for minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group refused on section 40 (personal data) grounds. 12th November 2014 Internal review of 4th November 2014 decision requested. 30th April 2015 After ICO intervention Wirral Council replies. Wirral Council refuses internal review on section 14 (vexatious or repeated request) grounds. Unknown date Decision appealed to ICO. 29th July 2015 ICO issued second decision notice (FS50569254). Decision notice overturns section 14 (vexatious or repeated request) reason for all of request except adoption/fostering panel part. Finds Wirral Council have breached section 10 (again). 3rd September 2015 Wirral Council respond to decision notice FS50569254. Minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group now refused on section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40 (personal data). 7th September 2015 Decision appealed to Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). 11th January 2016 Wirral Council supply minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group held on 19th April 2011.
Wouldn’t it have just been easier (as they made the offer to send the minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group in April 2013) to supply these minutes then? How much officer time was wasted in refusing six pages of minutes on a committee that 7 councillors sat on and at least 5 senior managers (although one wasn’t present for the meeting).
Three of the 7 councillors present are no longer councillors and at least three of the senior managers have either gone into early retirement or left Wirral Council.
There are 4 parts in the six pages of minutes where names have been blacked out. Did it really take 2 years, 9 months and nearly a fortnight to do this?
What was the point in spending over 2 years and 9 months refusing this request? The minutes they’ve supplied refer to a further meeting on the 20th July 2011 so although this is welcome, they may not be the right ones! I requested the minutes of the meeting immediately before my request on the 29th March 2013. Is the implication that the incoming minority Labour administration in 2011 scrapped the Safeguarding Reference Group (which was re-established on the 15th December 2014)? I’m not sure!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
The Conway Building and the Hamilton Building are both owned by Wirral Council. Manx Education Foundation who had been behind the plans had a minority shareholding in the International Centre for Technology Ltd. However the International Centre for Technology Ltd have since bought out Manx Education Foundation’s shareholding which means the plan for a creative industry training college in Birkenhead will now not happen.
ICT Ltd are instead concentrating on developing a property on the Isle of Man called the Nunnery that they bought from the Tynwald (Isle of Man government) for £5 million that they hope to open later this year.
5 different versions of one political cover up but which one will you choose?
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
Wirral Leaks has awarded me Director of the Year in their 500th post. Although to be clear that’s really for this Youtube channel rather than this blog.
To be honest I shouldn’t really say the award is to myself as it isn’t entirely my work. I need to thank my long-suffering helper, my wife Leonora who supplies me with batteries when politicians waffle on for a long time.
Unlike Wirral Leaks who have just reached a mere 500 posts, this will be the 1,509th post on this blog. However unlike Wirral Leaks I’m not going to indulge any further in blowing my own trumpet, I might not go in for fancy graphics like they do, I just plod on. So on with the story.
This is a story with a number of options to it. Remember those books in the Choose Your Own Adventure series, which gave you options and depending on the option you turned to a different page? Well this is your chance. You have an option of five different versions depending on your choice. Just click on the relevant link (or read all five if you like).
Hi. Congratulations on winning the 2015 General Election. However now you’re in charge you’ve got to accept responsibility. Once of your MPs, a Mr. James Wharton MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Minister for Local Growth and the Northern Powerhouse) has decided to cover up a FOI request involving Labour-run Wirral Council. No I didn’t make the request, someone else did.
Not only have ICO found (decision notice FS50594521) that DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) broke the law in responding to this request, but Mr. James Wharton MP refused to release an audit report about business grants at Wirral Council because it would cause "prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs".
Unlike one of his predecessors The Rt Hon Sir Eric Pickles MP (who was never short of a few things to say about local government), he’s chosen to cover things up instead. Really, what were you (and Mr. Wharton) thinking?
Hi. Congratulations on keeping control of Wirral Council in 2015. One of the more embarrassing episodes that’s been rumbling on for a while has been the BIG/ISUS issues, but this next bit will make you laugh. Someone made a FOI request to DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) for the Government Internal Audit Agency report about Wirral Council.
And guess what, the Conservative Minister, Mr. James Wharton MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Minister for Local Growth and the Northern Powerhouse (or Northern Poorhouse as some of the witty people in your party have renamed it)) decided to keep it a secret!
Yes doesn’t it make you laugh when the Conservatives are helping you?
Hi. Didn’t know there were many of you left to be honest. Former Cllr Stuart Kelly sniffed a scandal over the whole BIG/ISUS issue at Wirral Council when he was a councillor. However Graham Burgess and Kevin Adderley denied there was anything wrong.
Probably the Europeans will ask for their money back so central government will ask Wirral Council for money back. Either way it’ll be embarrassing, but not for you!
Yes, we all know you want to get out of Europe. This is another scandal involving European money, that was mismanaged. Seriously though you have no councillors on Wirral Council and despite 3.8 million votes only one MP. Life’s not fair eh? But look on the bright side the British National Party have been struck off the register of UK political parties! Plus if the Conservatives stick to their word there’ll be an IN/OUT (but no shake it all about) referendum on Europe.
You are the vast majority of people. Wirral Council mismanaged a business grants program involving European money. The Europeans are asking national government for it back. National government are asking Wirral Council for it back. Oh and everyone’s trying to cover it all up as it’s embarrassing.
I’d love to tell you all the details, but they’re in a report the government minister is desperately trying to keep a lid on. Covers ups never work or do they?
However first a recap of the story so far (Wirral councillors and officers can breathe a sigh of relief as this story is about Cheshire West and Chester Council).
Cheshire West and Chester Council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds with a company to put barriers up at its car parks (albeit it this was a decision made by a previous administration). Councillors were at the time assured by officers that the issue of Blue Badge holders/disabled drivers would be thought through. The operation of these car parks however wasn’t outsourced and remains controlled by Cheshire West and Chester Council.
As far as I can tell from the 30th November 2015 last year barriers were introduced at a number of their car parks. Cheshire West and Chester insisted that Blue Badge users (but only those issued by Cheshire West and Chester) could apply for a special microchip to go in and out of the car parks controlled by a barrier. However even Cheshire West and Chester residents with a Blue Badge have to wait a month for a microchip.
Just before Christmas my wife (who is a Blue Badge user) visited one of these car parks to get that traditional Cheshire welcome of (and I paraphrase), "this is a local car park for local blue badge users, now go away".
Yesterday I received a reply back from the Labour Leader of Cheshire West and Chester Cllr Samantha Dixon. I’m sure the Labour Party is aware what I do for a living, which perhaps explains why as a non-Cheshire West and Chester resident I received a reply. The car park (one of many in Chester) in question is also in the ward that the Leader of Chester West and Chester Council represents.
It’s a matter of public interest, so in the interests of hearing both sides I am publishing her reply here (and my response). As I was writing this blog post, I received a copy of the traffic regulation order and public notice too, so those are included at the end.
Dear Mr Brace
I refer to your e-mail of 21st December to the Rt. Honourable Frank Field MP and copied to a number of Cheshire West Councillors. As your e-mail is about parking in Chester city centre, I am able to provide a response to the Blue Badge parking issues you raise.
You are correct that there is a national Blue Badge scheme, details of which are set out in the Department for Transport booklet entitled "The Blue Badge scheme: rights and responsibilities in England." Under the scheme, Blue Badge holders can park close to their destination, either as a passenger or driver, but the scheme is intended for on-street parking only (please refer to pages 6 and 17 of the booklet). Where a time restriction applies, a parking clock must also be displayed as the concession is limited to a maximum stay of three hours.
Many councils, but not all, also allow Blue Badge holders to park in their car parks for three hours free of charge, but in Cheshire West, four hours free parking is available in the Council’s pay and display car parks. In some council areas, charges apply to Blue Badge holders from the point of arrival in local authority car parks. Spaces for Blue Badge holders must be provided in all car parks whether or not charges apply.
This Council is in the process of converting a number of its car parks in Chester city centre from pay and display to ‘pay on foot’ or ‘pay on exit’ systems in order to be able to manage the car parks more efficiently and to increase the flexibility of payment methods. Where ‘pay on foot’ systems are introduced, it is normally the case that free parking for Blue Badge holders is removed altogether. The Council has, however, introduced a system for borough residents who are Blue Badge holders to apply for a microchip sticker which allows four hours free parking in most car parks affected by the changes, effectively making them permit holders for the car parks in question.
Badge holders who reside outside the borough are able to continue to park for four hours free of charge in Frodsham Street and Hamilton Place car parks, both of which are located in the heart of the city and are for the exclusive use of Blue Badge holders during the day (8am to 6pm). Of these, Frodsham Street (postcode: CH1 3JJ) is the larger car park, providing 80 spaces. I can understand that the directions from Lower Watergate Street seemed quite complicated when communicated via the intercom, but I can reassure you that access to Frodsham Street car park is straightforward. There is also plentiful on-street parking for Blue Badge holders throughout the city centre.
The Council published a notice in local newspapers detailing all the impending changes on 11th June 2015 and the information also appears on the Council‘s website. The signage in the car parks is being replaced as each site is converted and no longer refers to free Blue Badge parking. In light of your comments, we will, however, review the information on the signage to see if it can be improved.
I note your comments about the ticket barriers at Chester Station. We are advised the station is managed by Arriva Trains Wales and that if you send details of your request to the company at: customer.relations@arrivatrainswales.co.uk, they will be pleased to look into it.
I am sorry that you experienced inconvenience on your recent visit and I hope this information is helpful for the future.
Yours sincerely
Sam
Councillor Samantha Dixon Leader of the Council
Councillor for Chester City Ward (Labour) Cheshire West and Chester Council
Thank you for that comprehensive reply to my original message.
I have read your reply to my wife and she has agreed that I should send this response on her behalf. I have also made a Freedom of Information request for the traffic regulation order that relates to the Lower Watergate Street car park. As you will no doubt be aware there are regulations that apply to the traffic regulation orders that apply to this sort of off street parking and at least one of these makes explicit reference to blue badge users.
Thank you for your suggestion to contact Arriva Trains Wales about Chester train station, I already have, but am still awaiting a reply.
I also realise that the decision to go out to tender for the changes to the car park system in Chester was made by a previous administration before the Labour administration took over in May. A company then supplied the barriers/intercom system whereas the operation of this parking system is controlled by Chester West and Chester Council employees.
As you (or if not you your CWAC officers) will no doubt be aware Chester West and Chester Council employees have the ability to check the validity of any blue badge (whether issued in Chester West and Chester or not).
I fear that anything I write beyond this will become somewhat technical and may only make sense to CWAC’s Monitoring Officer/ whichever solicitor at CWAC deals with traffic matters or traffic officers at CWAC. I therefore apologise in advance if I getting technical.
Firstly you haven’t outright stated if the traffic regulation orders relating to the car park in question and the other car parks that this applies to have been changed. It is possible that the notice in the paper you refer to was part of the public consultation on such changes. If so, this hasn’t made clear.
However in order for changes to be approved traffic regulation orders still need to be lawful and comply with the regulations (even for off street parking).
You have stated that accommodation has been made for Chester West and Chester residents with a blue badge to exit and enter the car parks to which the changes have been made.
However the legislation makes no distinction between blue badge users based on the public body that issued the blue badge, so either:
a) the traffic regulation order at Lower Watergate Street still refers to blue badge users and you are preventing non-CWAC issued blue badge users from parking there (when CWAC has the ability to check all blue badges) and/or
b) you are discriminating against some disabled drivers (who do not have a CWAC issued blue badge) whilst allowing CWAC issued blue badge users to park there
You refer to other nearby car parks that Blue Badge users (where the Blue Badge is not issued by CWAC) can use. I presume you regard this as a "reasonable adjustment".
However the issue is the provision of a service by Chester West and Chester Council at the Lower Watergate Street car park.
Essentially the provision of car parking at other nearby car parks is not entirely relevant (although I realise a number of other car parks have been switched to the same barrier system).
I realise you point out that Blue Badge users not issued by CWAC can park on single and double yellow lines elsewhere in Chester. However I’m sure you and I both know how gridlocked traffic can be in Chester city centre (especially on race days). From a traffic management perspective are you seriously suggesting that blue badge users (not issued by CWAC) should park in such a way that will effectively bring traffic to a crawl?
However the problem is that traffic in this off-street car park is covered by a traffic regulation order.
Therefore the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 applies to whichever traffic regulation order covers this car park.
Regulation 6 of those regulations states:
Exemption in favour of vehicles displaying disabled person’s badges
6.—(1) The following provisions of these Regulations have effect for requiring local authorities to include, in orders to which these Regulations apply, exemptions in favour of a vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge.
(2) Any exemption from a provision which these Regulations require to be included in an order may be limited to vehicles of the same class as those to which the provision applies.
So therefore my point is you can’t treat blue badge users issued by CWAC differently to other blue badge users in CWAC car parks. The point about booklets and everything else is therefore irrelevant.
I am therefore copying in the Monitoring Officer at CWAC Vanessa Whiting in this response and requesting that she (as is her legal duty) follow the procedure in s.5A of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to both:
a) write a report which will be sent to all councillors at CWAC and
b) try and remedy this situation
As I sadly have had a lot of professional contact with various local authority monitoring officers, I hope I will be pleasantly surprised and Vanessa Whiting will remedy a situation that shouldn’t have happened in the first place and that this matter will not require further measures.
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
And in another interesting development, whilst writing this blog post, Chester West and Chester have responded to the FOI request (considered under the Environmental Information Regulations) for a copy of the traffic regulation order and have also supplied the public notice advertising the changes.
