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).
The FOI request this relates to was made through the excellent whatdotheyknow.com website on the 29th March 2013. It’s for minutes of the meetings of 26 different panels, statutory committees, advisory committees and working parties that councillors are appointed to by Wirral Council.
In September 2014, the Information Commissioner’s Office issued 9 page decision notice FS50509081. In a nutshell that decision notice stated that by the 13th October 2014 Wirral Council had to:
b) advise whether it held the minutes of these meetings or not.
Wirral Council did not respond to the decision notice by the 13th October 2014. Instead it took a further three weeks than was allowed and Wirral Council responded on the 4th November 2014. Minutes of seven meetings were supplied (some minutes were supplied with some information blacked out). In response to other parts of the request it provided links to its website.
This left nine disputed parts of the request which were in relation to the bodies below (I’ll use the original numbering). JCC stands for Joint Consultative Committee and Members means councillors. I provide under each one what it’s remit was:
4 (School Appeals Panel)
To consider, as part of a statutory review process, appeals against decisions by the Local Authority (or the Governors of voluntary or aided schools) concerning the allocation of places in primary and secondary schools, and decisions by governing bodies concerning the exclusion of pupils.
The School Appeals Panel is drawn from a “pool” of lay members or members with experience in education. However, Councillors are ineligible to serve on Appeals Panels for schools under local authority control.
5 (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE))
SACRE is responsible for advising the local authority on matters concerning the teaching of religious education and collective acts of worship; it decides on applications for determination of cases in which requirements for Christian collective worship are not to apply; and may require the local authority to review its agreed syllabus.
8 (Adoption / Fostering Panels)
As part of a wider membership, to determine applications for the adoption and for the fostering of children.
10 (Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board)
To consider appeals from applicants who consider they have been unfairly treated or unfairly excluded from the waiting list, having exhausted the Steering Group appeals procedure.
11 (Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel)
To hear requests to discharge service users subject to guardianship upon the application of a professional responsible for their care.
15 (Headteachers and Teachers JCC)
To meet with headteachers’ and teachers’ representatives to discuss educational issues.
18 (Members’ Training Steering Group)
To advise on the preparation of the annual programme of training for Council members and on individual applications to attend courses.
19 (Members’ Equipment Steering Group)
To review IT equipment provision for members.
26 (Safeguarding Reference Group)
Established by Cabinet on 15 April 2010 for the purpose of ensuring that the most senior community leaders of the Council are enabled to carry out their responsibilities of safeguarding children and adults in Wirral.
Minutes of a Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board meeting (part 10 of the request) Wirral Council merely stated “Officers are investigating if this Board has ever met/if there are any minutes available and we will answer this part of your enquiry as soon as possible.”
So I requested an internal review of the application of these exemptions on the 12th November 2014. On the 30th April 2015 Wirral Council responded to the internal review request. I’ll point out here that internal reviews are supposed to be completed within 40 days, but Wirral Council took 5 months.
Wirral Council also pointed out that since the Council’s housing stock was transferred out of Wirral Council’s control in 2009, that the Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board (part 10 of the request) hadn’t met.
In relation to part 21 (Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee) Wirral Council stated “There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”
However Wirral Council still regarded the rest of the internal review request to be vexatious.
This decision notice found in relation to part 4 (School Appeals Panel) and part 11 (Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel) that Wirral Council does not hold information related to this part of the request.
This finding on the school appeals panels I find odd since the school appeals panel meets at Wallasey Town Hall. In response to a previous FOI request Wirral Council stated that it pays the taxi expenses for school appeals panel members and Wirral Council employees from the Legal & Member Services section of Wirral Council take the minutes of these meetings. Apparently Wirral Council states that there were School Appeal Panel meetings in 2012 but as they only keep the decision notices for 2 years that now it’s 2015 that Wirral Council don’t have them any more.
ICO also found that Wirral Council didn’t hold meetings of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee and believed Wirral Council when it stated “There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”
This is disputed by both Cllr Chris Carubia and Cllr Pat Williams as you can see by their response to a tweet below:
However, ICO stated that Wirral Council breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regards to part 5 (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE)) of the request and part 10 (Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board) because “it did not disclose information or provide a response in relation to these parts within 20 working days”.
ICO also stated in its decision notice that Wirral Council had incorrectly applied section 14(1) (vexatious or repeated requests) to parts 15 (Headteachers and Teachers JCC), 18 (Members’ Training Steering Group), 19 (Members’ Equipment Steering Group) and 26 (Safeguarding Reference Group) of the request, because “these elements of the request are not vexatious”.
ICO did decide that Wirral Council had correctly applied section 14(1) to part 8 (Adoption/Fostering Panels) of the request because it deemed it to be vexatious (but is clarified in the decision notice as being a “disproportionate burden”). Wirral Council supplied the minutes of one adoption panel meeting and one fostering panel meeting to the Information Commissioners Office which came to a total of 95 pages. Wirral Council estimated it would take 23.5 hours of staff time (just over 15 minutes a page) to make the necessary redactions.
However the minutes of the Headteachers and Teachers JCC meeting, Members’ Training Steering Group meeting, Members’ Equipment Steering Group meeting and Safeguarding Reference Group came to less than 15 double-sided pages (30 sides of A4).
The decision notice also states “The complainant will not receive a response to some parts of his request until more than two years after he submitted it.”
Either Wirral Council or myself could appeal this ICO decision notice to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) within the next 28 days.
Here are some quotes from the decision notice (committee in the first quote refers to Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee).
“The Council, however, confirmed to the Commissioner on 20 July 2015 that, having undertaken a thorough search, it does not hold any Committee minutes from 2013 or earlier.
ICO believed Wirral Council so I suppose these published minutes of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee published on Wirral Council’s website from the 13th April 2007, 23rd November 2006, 13th July 2005 and even as far back as 6th April 2001 are just figments of my imagination. Perhaps I’m not “on message” enough!
Here’s another quote:
“The Council’s information manager had calculated that it took 70 hours and £1,750 to provide its response to the complainant dated 4 November. It argued that the amount of time the information management team had to spend on locating, retrieving and reading information falling within the scope of the request had a detrimental impact on the team.”
On the 4th November 2014 Wirral Council provided 22 A4 pages of information. The rest it either said it didn’t hold, was already on its website or that an exemption applied. That’s £79.54 per a page (or over 3 hours per an A4 page) of released information! How can it have had a “detrimental impact on the team” when Wirral Council took the 35 days the decision notice allowed plus an extra 22 days!
and another
“The Council says this work would cause a disproportionate burden because the request does not appear to have an inherent purpose or value.”
So knowing what and how councillors make important decisions on the public’s behalf doesn’t have an “inherent purpose or value”?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Personally I thought nothing further would happen on this story until the September meeting of Wirral Council’s Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. However, since writing that story Wirral Council have issued a press release that’s titled either “Resort parking plans quashed” (when it’s linked to from their homepage) or “Wirral Council leader says no to plans to charge for parking in New Brighton” from the press release.
There is a very interesting quote in the press release from Councillor Phil Davies that states “Cllr Pat Hackett, our Cabinet Member for the Economy, has been meeting with traders and business leaders in New Brighton to discuss the proposals, and they made a powerful case for not proceeding. When we looked at the plan and the possible impact on parking and tourism across the whole of the resort, I made the decision to stop the proposal”.
On the 22nd December 2014, I wrote on this blog When Wirral Council introduces car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, will 3 hours free parking end for a further 423 New Brighton spaces? (later updating it this year by including the public notice). I published the three pages of Wirral Council’s lease for the Marine Point development at New Brighton that detailed if Wirral Council introduced car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park, charges could be introduced at the supermarket car park and the “health and fitness” car park (originally Bubbles was going to be a gym but they couldn’t find a company that wanted to run it as a gym). This was plenty of time before the 2015/16 budget for Wirral Council was agreed on the 24th February 2015 for councillors to change their mind.
An article by Liam Murphy in the Liverpool Echo states “But Promenade Estates, who manage part of the successfully regenerated resort, say if the charges are imposed they would have little choice but to follow suit. This would mean parking charges on the car parks serving Morrisons, The Light Cinema, Bubbles play centre and other businesses.”
So it wasn’t just a “possible impact” but a “probable impact”. On the 9th December 2014, Councillor Phil Davies proposed and voted for this resolution at a Cabinet meeting, that was seconded and agreed by all councillors including Cllr Pat Hackett:
“We also feel that it is appropriate to introduce a modest charge for parking at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton up to 6 p.m.”
“67.We also feel it is appropriate that a modest charge for parking up to 6 pm. at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton should be introduced.”
So Councillor Phil Davies U-turned on his own policy! However it begs the following question, if the reason for stopping the proposal is the impact on parking across the resort (as stated in the quote from Cllr Phil Davies), then why wasn’t he told about the impact on parking elsewhere in Marine Point by his own officers before Cabinet made the decision? As you can see below from the first page of the lease that has the clauses about parking, Wirral Council is the landlord for the Marine Point development.
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd cover page
“I confirm that the Authority no longer retains DHA Communications and the use of their services ceased as of March 31st 2015. The Authority recognises that some parts of its relationship with DHA Communications was not fully formalised in some time periods. The Authority has reviewed its practices in relation to this type of contract and has now put in additional measures and monitoring in place to ensure that an accurate audit trail is retained.”
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day?
Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day?
This year I went to the offices of Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority (previously called Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) where I inspected various invoices and contracts that relate to the 2014/15 financial year.
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority deal with the rubbish collected by each council on Merseyside, provide thirteen Household Waste Recycling Centres (the ones on the Wirral are the Bidston Household Waste Recycling Centre in Wallasey Bridge Road, Clatterbridge Household Waste Recycling Centre in Mount Road and West Kirby Household Waste Recycling Centre in Greenbank Road) and are also responsible for closed landfill sites such as the one at Bidston Moss.
Their 2014/15 budget was £68.6 million which comes from a levy on each on the Merseyside councils which each have to pay based on a tonnage basis. Councillor Irene Williams (Labour) and Councillor Steve Williams (Conservative) represent Wirral Council on the Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority.
In 2005 after a tender exercise MRWA (then called Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority) appointed Daniel Harris Associates for “the provision of public relations and communications services for Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority”. DH Communications Limited (also known as Daniel Harris Associates or DHA) won the tender exercise with a bid of £650 per a day (see letter below).
Letter to Daniel Harris Associates from Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority confirming they have won tender for PR contract 13th December 2005
The tender that DHA won was for a three-year contract from 1st November 2005 to the 1st November 2008. DHA were paid £25,200 a year for 3 and a half days work each month. However at some point in 2009 Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority realised that “The contract with DHA was not reviewed in line with its prescribed timetable resulting in the continuation of the contract beyond the specified term.” (see pages below).
Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 1 of 2Decision to extend DHA contract in 2009 by Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority page 2 of 2
Carl Beer is Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority’s Chief Executive. The contract was retrospectively extended from the 1st November 2008 to 1st November 2009 and an extra 12 months was added which extended the contract to 2010.
In 2014 there were a number of emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority in relation to how DHA would be charging Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority in future.
Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority were at this stage paying DHA a £1,625 monthly retainer. However DHA wrote in an email that they felt “the authority has not always maximised the value of the fee it pays to us: i.e. it has made minimal call on our services”. They set out a number of options:
Option One
DHA estimated that over the last two to three years that the average cost of the work Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority had asked them to do was £990 + VAT a month (whilst they were being paid a £1,625 monthly retainer). Option one would keep the monthly retainer but reduce it to £990 + VAT instead.
Option Two
DHA would charge Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority on a project basis at £600 + VAT a day.
Option Three
DHA would charge Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority a monthly retainer of £600 + VAT a month, but if they needed more work from DHA then they would be charged £600 a day.
Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority decided to go for option 2 (from April 2015). The emails that go into the detail of these negotiations are below.
Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 1 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 2 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 3 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 4 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority Page 5 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 6 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 7 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 8 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 9 of 10Emails between DHA and Merseyside Recyling and Waste Authority Page 10 of 10
Below are a number of the invoices submitted to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority during the 2014/15 financial year.
DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 1DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 2DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 3DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 4DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 5DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 6DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 7DHA Communications Ltd invoice to Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority invoice 8
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?
Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 2 of 3Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 3 of 3
Above are three photos of Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton taken on the 29th June 2015. Over the busier summer holidays this car park will be full.
Future Council Wirral logo
As part of the Future Council consultation last year Wirral Council consulted the public on £2.5 million of budget cuts. In the end only £2.4 million of cuts were agreed because of savings that resulted from the extended Biffa contract.
Last year as part of that budget consultation, there was a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on the 4th November 2014 where councillors discussed the budget option for charging for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park.
You can watch that discussion in the Youtube video below which should start at the point about the Fort Perch Rock car park.
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.
At that meeting Cllr Jerry Williams (Wirral Council’s Heritage Champion and a Labour councillor) tried to move a recommendation that the budget option of charging at Fort Perch Rock car park be removed from the budget options. However the solicitor advising the Committee said that it couldn’t be removed, so instead it was watered down to a recommendation to Cabinet that the budget option wasn’t adopted. The recommendation was seconded by Cllr Robert Gregson (also a Labour councillor representing New Brighton ward). This is what the recommendation stated:
“The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee recommend to Cabinet that the budget option to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock Car Park, New Brighton is not adopted.”
Cllr Irene Williams (Labour), Cllr John Salter (Labour), Cllr Anita Leech (Labour), Cllr Matt Daniel (Labour), Cllr Robert Gregson (Labour), Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour), Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour), Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative), Cllr John Hale (Conservative), Cllr Jerry Ellis (Conservative), Cllr Andrew Hodson (Conservative) and Cllr David Elderton (Conservative) voted in favour of the recommendation.
Two councillors voted against that recommendation (Cllr Chris Carubia (Lib Dem) and Cllr Mike Sullivan (Chair, Labour)).
On the 9th December 2014 Cabinet (which is ten Labour councillors including one for New Brighton Cllr Pat Hackett) met. They didn’t agree with the recommendation from the Policy and Performance Committee and instead voted to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton. The minutes of that meeting state “We also feel that it is appropriate to introduce a modest charge for parking at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton up to 6 p.m.” .
This Cabinet budget proposal then formed the Cabinet’s proposal for Labour’s budget to the 2015/16 budget meeting of all councillors held on the 24th February 2015.
All the Labour councillors on the 24th February 2015 present at that meeting (including those who had three months earlier voted for a recommendation to Cabinet not to start charging for parking at Fort Perch Rock) voted for the Labour budget apart from Cllr Steve Foulkes (who was Mayor and Mayor’s traditionally abstain from votes on party political matters). You can see which way each councillor voted on the Labour’s budget here.
Earlier this year Wirral Council had a formal consultation on introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park. You can see the public notice (which has more detail as to how much they could charge for parking) for that consultation below. That consultation ended on the 3rd July 2015.
So what happens next? In September there will be a public meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel to consider objections people have made to introducing car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park.
The Chair of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel is Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative). Cllr Mike Sullivan (Labour) and Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) are the rest of the panel. This panel meets during the day and if any of the three councillors can’t make it to the meeting they can send a deputy in their place.
When the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meets in September, it will make a recommendation on whether to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park to the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee meet in public on the 15th September 2015 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall. The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee can alter any recommendation they receive from the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.
The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee then make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation Cllr Stuart Whittingham who then makes a formal decision on the matter which is published on Wirral Council’s website.
Such a large petition also grants the petition organiser for five minutes to explain their petition at a meeting of all councillors, which then triggers a debate of a maximum of fifteen minutes. However as the next meeting of Council is on the 12th October 2015 (probably after all this will be decided) this is a moot point.
