Why did Wirral Council’s planning department send out a decision letter about 3 marquees at Thornton Manor with no planning conditions?
Why did Wirral Council’s planning department send out a decision letter about 3 marquees at Thornton Manor with no planning conditions?
Published to very little fanfare yesterday, was a supplementary agenda containing a 12 page report to Wirral Council’s Planning Committee that meets on the 20th July 2017 starting at 6.00 pm in the Civic Hall at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED.
It’s about the ongoing saga that are the marquees at Thornton Manor. In April 2010 Wirral Council received a planning application for the erection of three marquees within the Thornton Manor estate (referred to as The Dell, The Walled Garden and The Lake). These locations are in the greenbelt.
A Planning Committee held on the 21st July 2010 agreed to a site visit that was then held. There were petitions both against and in favour of the planning application being approved.
On the 7th September 2010, the Planning Committee met and approved it (on a 7:5 vote) subject to 10 planning conditions, a section 106 agreement and a referral to the Government Office of the North West.
The planning conditions ranged from no fireworks between January and July, the permission being only for five years from the date of the decision notice, the erection of a noise barrier and seven other conditions (that are detailed in the report).
Wirral Council then negotiated a section 106 agreement with the applicant and in May 2011 a draft decision notice (detailing all the conditions) was included with the draft section 106 agreement for signing by the applicant. This was published on Wirral Council’s website.
A further draft decision notice (listing all the conditions) was sent out in September 2011.
The final section 106 agreement was signed and sealed on the 11th November 2011.
At this point, a letter should’ve been sent to the applicant stating that the application was approved and listing the conditions (but wasn’t).
A letter was sent on the 20th December 2011 to the applicant stating that the planning application was approved (but listing no conditions whatsoever)!
This letter went out in the name of Kevin Adderley* (who at the time was the senior manager in charge of that section of Wirral Council). Just because it went out in Kevin Adderley’s name doesn’t mean he’d have had sight of it, just that he was paid for political accountability to politicians for what happened.
*Early retirement for Kevin Adderley was agreed in 2015 by a majority vote of councillors at a cost of £296,229.
This decision notice letter was received by the applicant on the 21st December 2011.
Then Wirral Council sought legal advice and were told that the grant of permission was the letter (without conditions) sent on the 20th December 2011.
Wirral Council cannot enforce the original conditions (agreed by the Planning Committee) as they weren’t in the decision notice letter and only what was in the section 106 agreement.
Another update to the Planning Committee will be given in August 2017 about Wirral Council’s view on whether the section 106 agreement is being complied with.
In the report Wirral Council state, “It has been impossible to identify whether this incident was a system error, human error or a combination of both.”
In other words the report author doesn’t really know why it happened! In future Wirral Council does promise that a senior manager or Team Leader will read all decision notices before they are posted to the applicant!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What are the details of the recommendation to Wirral councillors about a senior management restructure at Wirral Council (1 redundancy, 5 promotions, 4 posts created and 4 vacant posts deleted)?
What are the details of the recommendation to Wirral councillors about a senior management restructure at Wirral Council (1 redundancy, 5 promotions, 4 posts created and 4 vacant posts deleted)?
Councillors on Wirral Council’s Employment and Appointments Committee will decide on changes to Wirral Council’s senior management next week on Monday 25th July 2016. If approved by councillors the restructure will take effect from November 2016.
This senior management restructure had been put on hold until Eric Robinson’s appointment by councillors as Chief Executive of Wirral Council in February 2015.
There is a recommendation that one senior manager (the Head of Housing and Community Safety Ian Platt) be made redundant, offered early retirement and his post is deleted. However the recommendation from officers is that his name and the financial details of how much this will cost are kept out of the public domain before the public meeting and that councillors decide on whether to release the information about Ian Platt after the meeting has been held.
The following senior managers are recommended to receive a promotion:
Tom Sault (who has been acting up to the s.151 officer role will be permanently appointed to it)
Surjit Tour (who has been Monitoring Officer since shortly after Bill Norman was suspended in 2012 will now receive extra pay for being Monitoring Officer too in addition to his other job)
Mark Smith (promoted from Head of Environment and Regulation to Strategic Commissioner for Environment)
Alan Evans (promoted from Investment and Business Manager to Strategic Commissioner for Growth)
Sue Talbot (promoted from Schools Commissioning Manager to Lead Commissioner for Schools)
Vacant posts deleted (4)
Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment (formerly Kevin Adderley)
Director of Resources (formerly Vivienne Quayle)
Head of Neighbourhoods and Engagement (formerly Emma Degg)
Head of Business Processes (formerly Malcolm Flanagan)
Posts deleted because postholder being promoted (3)
Investment and Business Manager (current postholder Alan Evans)
Schools Commissioner Manager (current postholder Sue Talbot)
Senior Manager (current postholder unknown)
Posts created (if approved by councillors) 4
Transformation Director (grade HS2 (£68,011 to £75,567)) Assistant Director: Commissioning Support (grade HS2 (£68,011 to £75,567)) Assistant Director: Community Services* (grade HS2 (£68,011 to £75,567)) Assistant Director: Adult and Disability Services* (grade HS2 (£68,011 to £75,567))
*Note new posts marked with * are recommended to be recruited internally from existing Wirral Council employees.
Penna will be advising Wirral Council’s Employment and Appointments Committee &Wirral Council officers on appointments to these four posts at a cost of £thousands per each post. If the creation of the new posts is agreed by councillors, councillors will also decide who the successful applicants are.
The councillors on Wirral Council’s Employment and Appointments Committee (although the councillors below can send a deputy in their place if they can’t make a particular meeting) are:
Cllr Adrian Jones (Chair) (Labour)
Cllr Phil Davies (Vice-Chair) (Labour)
Cllr George Davies (Labour)
Cllr Ann McLachlan (Labour)
Cllr Moira McLaughlin (Labour)
Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative)
Cllr Lesley Rennie (Conservative)
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Liberal Democrat)
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 the 370 page whistleblowing report on Wirral Council’s grants to businesses?
What’s in the 370 page whistleblowing report on Wirral Council’s grants to businesses?
The BIG/ISUS whistleblowing issues have been already covered in extensive detail by this blog over the past few years. However the latest twist in this story was yesterday’s release of a 370 page 2012 internal audit report into the matter following ICO decision notice FS50559883.
Wirral Council have finally released an internal audit report dated 13th January 2012 that went to Bill Norman (then Monitoring Officer/Director of Law, HR and Asset Management at Wirral Council). Those with long memories will remember that Bill Norman was suspended later that year over the Colas matter, then in September 2012 councillors agreed he should receive £146k plus £5k legal expenses to leave.
Back to the BIG/ISUS matters and let’s just quickly recap the blog posts I’ve written on the many aspects of this matter as they provide some background. I’m sure there are one or two I may have left out (I remember I republished some of my earlier blog posts which contained the agreements for BIG/ISUS in the lead up to the special meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee last October).
Million pound contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for ISUS scheme was never signed (22/8/13) This blog post was about the contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for the ISUS (Intensive Start Up Scheme) not having been signed. At the special meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee in October 2014 former Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment Kevin Adderley did claim that a signed version had eventually been found and brought it to that meeting.
BIG/ISUS Reports: Wirral Council and Merseyside Police in “Alice in Wonderland” (4/10/13) Wirral Council and Merseyside Police respond to FOI requests for the reports for Grant Thornton’s (Wirral Council’s auditor) report into the ISUS matters. Wirral Council state they can’t release it because they’ve referred the matter to Merseyside Police, a Detective Chief Inspector for Merseyside Police states that "This matter is currently in the hands of Wirral Borough Council" and suggests that I make a FOI request to Wirral Council.
Or as I sum it up "Wirral Council won’t say anything because it’s in the hands of Merseyside Police, but Merseyside Police say it’s "currently in the hands of Wirral Borough Council".
So that’s a brief summary of developments so far? So what does the new information reveal? It’s a report by an auditor at Wirral Council which details the allegations the two whistleblowers made, the investigations into those allegations and the auditor’s opinion as to whether the whistleblowers were correct or not.
The executive summary runs from pages 9-16 and details the allegations made by the two whistleblowers and whether what was inspected during the investigation substantiated or refuted these claims. Pages 17-20 go through each of the allegations in detail as well as whether each allegation is correct or not and the implications that follow. Pages 21-45 are the main report which at the end contain 14 recommendations. Had some of these recommendations been implemented in 2012, some of the unanswered questions surrounding this matter would have been dealt with much earlier, such as the transfer of assets from Lockwood to Harbac.
At the special meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee in October 2014, councillors, officers and those speaking at the public meeting were warned not to refer to names of companies, yet the release of this 2012 audit report only removes the names of Wirral Council employees (and former employees). These matters are now out in the open (which should’ve happened before the Audit and Risk Management Committee met last year). Had this 2012 internal audit report been made available to councillors before that meeting the discussion may have been very different.
However it only came to light because of a FOI (Freedom of Information) request made by one of the whistleblowers and even then only after the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened with a decision notice. Certainly the whistleblowers must both feel vindicated by the conclusions reached in this detailed 2012 internal audit report.
The Liberal Democrat Group of councillors on Wirral Council plus the Green Party Councillor Pat Cleary have tabled the following Notice of Motion for the next Council meeting on the 12th October 2015 on the subject of FOI requests. It reads as follows:
OPEN GOVERNMENT ?
This Council recognises that the Information Commissioner’s Office, as the independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest and to promote openness by public bodies, upheld 13 complaints against Wirral Council in the past year.
Of the 18 notices issued between 29 September 2014 and 24 August 2015, the majority (72%) of complaints were upheld.
Council believes that this is a matter for concern, requiring an explanation to its Members.
Council requests that lessons should be learned and applied from these decisions and questions whether Officers have been excessively cautious or defensive in their interpretation of the legislation.
Council, therefore, requests that the legislation is approached with greater regard to the ‘public interest test’ so that the risk of further reputational damage to Wirral can be reduced.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
However that minor quibble aside, what does this decision mean? Firstly the current traffic regulation order consultation process is “discontinued”. This means the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel will now not meet in September to make a recommendation on it.
The decision also states “that the approved proposal to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, New Brighton not be implemented”.
Interestingly the decision also states in the reasons for the decision (paragraph 2.5 refers to the report that accompanies the decision) “As described at paragraph 2.5 above, factors which were not known by Cabinet at the time of the approval of the budget proposal have become known during the Traffic Regulation Order consultation process.”
“2.3 As part of the 2015/16 Budget Proposal, Cabinet and Council also agreed to review car parking charges across the Borough to help support business needs.
2.4 In order to implement the parking charge at Fort Perch Rock, the Council has been undertaking consultation as part of the required Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process. Whilst it is not considered that there are any objections or other representations received which would prevent the TRO proposal being implemented, there are objections relating to traffic regulation which would require consideration of the outcomes of the consultation regarding the TRO by the Highways and Transportation Representations Panel.
2.5 However, it has recently come to light that the legal agreement which was signed between the Council and Neptune Development as part of the Marine Point Development included a clause which stated that should the Council introduce on street car parking charges in New Brighton and/or charges for the Fort Perch Rock Car Park, then the other car parks which formed part of the Marine Point Development could also not unreasonably be prevented from introducing car parking charges.
2.6 The wider introduction of car parking charges to New Brighton could potentially have an impact on visitors and businesses in the area. Given the outcome and budget decision regarding reducing car parking charges throughout Wirral in order to support businesses, this could potentially have a conflicting impact.
2.7 It is therefore proposed that the work to undertake a TRO be halted and that the proposal to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, New Brighton, not be implemented.”
The legal agreement referred to above means the lease. Maybe it’s only recently come to light to the author of the report, but I published the three pages of the lease on December 22nd 2014 so it’s hardly recently come to light has it? However as Wirral Council is the landlord for this lease isn’t this a prime example of “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing” or to put it another way silo working.
So how are the books now going to balance? Well the report states that for this year “income for off-street parking is forecast to be greater than budgeted.” and “The overall budget saving of £35,000 will be included in the planned budget for 2016/17, from further efficiencies which will be identified during the current year.”
The decision to not charge at the Fort Perch Rock car park will take effect from the 8th August 2015 (assuming that the decision isn’t called in which is highly unlikely).