Cabinet agrees new 5 year plan for Wirral and makes pledges on increasing tourism jobs and house building
Cabinet agrees new 5 year plan for Wirral and makes pledges on increasing tourism jobs and house building
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.
Councillor George Davies pledged to build and improve 7,000 houses by 2020 as part of Cabinet’s new 5 year plan
Wirral Council’s Cabinet have agreed a new five year plan. No longer called the Corporate Plan, the new name for it is Wirral Council Plan: A 2020 Vision.
In introducing the new plan Cllr Phil Davies commented, “but I now think we are broadly akin to a normal council but I think the challenge now is for us to move to become an outstanding council”.
On the plan’s targets he said “this is not just warm words, this is specific targets and commitments that we can measure ourselves against” and “we need to recognise that the Tory government is in power for another five years, I wish that were different but that’s the reality, but we can’t use that as an excuse to do nothing. I think we’ve got a duty to our constituents, our residents to use the resources we’ve got to deliver these priorities”.
So what are the priorities in the new 2020 Vision? They are:
Ensure every child has the best possible start in life;
Equip all our residents with the skills to enable them to secure quality jobs;
Create economic opportunities by attracting enterprise and investment;
Treat everybody with respect and dignity in older age;
Strive to close the gap in health inequalities and
Look after our environment for future generations to enjoy.
Following Cllr Phil Davies’ introduction, each Cabinet Member gave examples from their own Cabinet portfolio of what would improve.
Cllr George Davies (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Housing and Engagement) said, “everybody no matter who they are deserves a good quality home that’s warm, secure and fit for all residents”. He went on to promise more care homes and supported living accommodation which he described as “vital” for an ageing population. Cllr George Davies pledged that by 2020 they would “build and improve 7,000 houses”.
Cabinet Member for the Economy Pat Hackett referred to £250 million of private sector investment over the next five years and highlighted a number of projects including Wirral Waters and a new golf resort at Hoylake.
Cllr Adrian Jones (Support Services) remarked, “We’ve emerged from a terrible period similar to the Dark Ages and in only three years we’ve changed it from perhaps what was widely perceived as a basket case to a Council (a large part of the credit goes not to politicians but to officers who are sitting here at the back of the room) because they’ve driven it from being the Council that’s absolutely the lowest ever Council of the year to a shining example to be looked on in other parts of the country to be learned from and emulated.”
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health (Cllr Chris Jones) described the plan as “fantastic” and welcomed the announcement by Cllr George Davies to build more care homes and supported accommodation.
Other Cabinet Members also welcomed the plan in their areas of transport, education and the environment.
As Councillor Chris Meaden (Cabinet Member for Leisure Sport and Culture) wasn’t present, Cllr Phil Davies highlighted their aspirations to increase the tourism sector on the Wirral and commented on the economic benefit to the Wirral of both the Open Golf tournament in 2014 and the more recent Three Queens event.
Cabinet agreed to recommend the new plan to a meeting of all Wirral Council councillors who will meet on Monday 13th July.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Councillors on Merseytravel agree to increase upper age limit for MyTicket bus ticket from 15 years to 18 (including those aged 18)
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.
Merseytravel Committee meeting of the 25th June 2015 (item 11 Making Transport Affordable for Young People)
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.
Merseytravel Committee meeting of the 25th June 2015 (item 11 Making Transport Affordable for Young People)
Merseytravel Committee meeting 25th June 2015 item 11 Making Transport Affordable for Young People Foreground Merseytravel officer Middle Row L to R Cllr Jerry Williams, Cllr Steve Foulkes, Cllr Malcolm Sharp, Cllr Terry Shields
Councillors on Merseytravel agree to increase upper age limit for MyTicket bus ticket from 15 years to 18 (including those aged 18)
In a late item on the agenda of Merseytravel’s meeting of the 25th June 2015, was an item titled Making Transport Affordable for Young People and the report for this item is on Merseytravel’s website.
The report recommended an increase in the upper age limit eligible for a MyTicket. The upper age limit of who can purchase a MyTicket is at the time of writing 15 years, but councillors decided to increase this to 18 years (which includes people who are 18 years old) effective from the 19th July 2015. MyTicket is a £2 day ticket for bus journeys launched last year by Merseytravel and MyTickets can be bought on buses from bus drivers.
This follows campaigning by the Liverpool Youth Parliament calling for more affordable bus fares for young people.
Councillors from both the ruling Labour Group on Merseytravel and an opposition councillor welcomed the change to the MyTicket upper age limit.
Commenting on the recommendation, Councillor Les Rowlands (Conservative, Wirral Council) said, "I very, very welcome the report. It’s nice to see Merseytravel leading the way for affordable travel for teenagers. I think it’s one of the biggest problems teenagers face actually getting transport around so this goes a long way towards helping that. So that is absolutely superb. "
Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Labour, Liverpool City Council) said, "I think it’s absolutely amazing what the officers have managed to achieve. You know with us there shoving you all the way, I know we’ve been a pain, but quite rightly. I think the people we need to really thank though is every kid that’s stopped us in the street and said to me ‘Do you know what Mary? It’s not fair! I can’t afford to do! I can’t get to school. I can’t do this, do something about it’ and do you know we actually have but don’t forget to thank them along the way. It was them that helped us get here. Well done."
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour, Wirral Council) also welcomed the move and said, "Let’s be careful how we talk about it. Some people are saying eighteen, up to eighteen. It’s up to a person’s nineteenth birthday. So let’s not undersell the product in any way, shape or form. Up to their nineteenth birthday MyTicket will apply, I think we need to you know blow the trumpet loud and clear."
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton
Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)
There are four agenda items on the agenda of next week’s Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority public meeting that relate to the decision about the future of West Kirby Fire Station and Upton Fire Station.
First (item 3) is a petition asking for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority to “Stop the building of the Fire Station in Saughall Massie and the destruction of precious green belt land”. At the time of writing this petition on the change.org website has 321 signatures. The comments of the signatories can be read here.
According to section 11.3 of the constitution for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority:
“The presentation of a petition shall be limited to not more than 5 minutes and shall be confined to reading out or summarising the subject of the petition indicating the number and description of the signatories, and making such further supporting remarks relevant to the petition as the person presenting it shall think fit.”
Section 11.4 to 11.7 of the constitution deal with the procedure for deputations:
“11.4 Any person likely to be affected by a matter in relation to which the Authority has functions, (other than employees in relation to matters of conditions of service) may ask that a deputation should be received by a meeting of the Authority. Such a request shall be made to the Proper Officer at least seven working days before the meeting to which it relates. The person making the request shall indicate the matter to which the request relates, the number (which shall not be more than five names and addresses of the persons who will form the deputation, and the member or members of the deputation who will speak for them).
11.5 On being called by the Person Presiding, the person or persons speaking for the deputation may make, during a period not exceeding five minutes, such remarks as she/he or they think fit, providing that the remarks shall relate to the matter indicated.
11.6 The Members of the Authority may, during a further period not exceeding five minutes for each deputation, ask questions of the members of the deputation. Such questions shall be asked and
answered without discussion.
11.7 Petitions shall be presented, and deputations received in the order in which notice of them is received by the Proper Officer, without making any distinction between petitions and deputations.”
This agenda item comprises of a report detailing the Chief Fire Officer’s recommendations to councillors (the following is quoted from the report and is the Chief Fire Officer’s recommendation (Wirral MBC stands for Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and fire appliance means fire engine):
“a. approve the merger of Upton and West Kirby fire stations at a new station on Saughall Massie Road, subject to agreement from Wirral MBC to transfer ownership of the land to the Authority and the granting of planning permission;
b. approve the relocation of the West Kirby fire appliance to Upton to be crewed wholetime retained as an interim measure prior to the construction of the new station
c. amend the capital programme to incorporate the Saughall Massie fire station scheme; and
d. give delegated authority to the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) to continue discussions with partners, including Merseyside Police and North West Ambulance Service, with a view to sharing the new building.”
There are of course other options that are in theory available to councillors (but I’ll make it clear these are options which the Chief Fire Officer doesn’t recommend). These other options include the outright closure of West Kirby Fire Station and the relocation of the West Kirby fire engine to Upton Fire Station.
Due to the sheer volume of responses to this consultation, whatever I write below is going to leave something out. However I will do my best to summarise some of the responses to the consultation.
The people of Saughall Massie are opposed to a fire station being built at the proposed site (currently owned by Wirral Council) on Saughall Massie Road. There are a variety of reasons given ranging from traffic, green belt issues, noise/disturbance and concerns that building on the Saughall Massie Road site is inadvisable due to regular flooding.
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid Opinion Research Services £19,195.00 (a spin out company of Swansea University) to do a report for the consultation. Their 49 page report details the results of a range of polling techniques including focus groups, a forum and a postal residents survey.
The deliberative forum for Saughall Massie found opposition to a new fire station there. Most of the group they asked from Upton were also opposed to the use of a greenbelt site at Saughall Massie, but at the same time supported a new fire station in the Saughall Massie area. The West Kirby group & the all Wirral forum were in favour of the Saughall Massie site being used for a new fire station. However ORS does state “deliberative forums cannot be certified as statistically representative samples of public opinion”.
A postal questionnaire was also sent out by ORS to 10,000 households (5,000 to the West Kirby Fire Station area and 5,000 to the Upton Fire Station area). Out of the 1,351 postal questionnaires that were returned a majority in both Upton (51%) and West Kirby (70%) areas went for option one (merging Upton and West Kirby fire stations by building a new fire station in Saughall Massie).
However these findings come with caveats as ORS also state:
“However, consultation is not a numbers game, in which the majority view necessarily prevails (like in a referendum), so the Fire Authority will wish to consider carefully all the arguments, evidence and considerations relevant to this case before taking its decision based upon its assessment of the public good.”
“As a resident of West Kirby and a mother of three young children I object to the proposals to close West Kirby fire station.
This is a ridiculous and dangerous proposal and directly increases the risk of death, from a house fire, to my family.”
“Also please provide a credible reason as to why, in a democratic and fair society, the residents of Saughall Massie’s overwhelming feelings of resistance to this proposed fire station are being overridden by the local Labour Council when equal or lesser feelings of resistance by those in Greasby were considered in full and their request to reject the proposed building of this facility (on a brown field site) was granted.”
“I live next to Saughall Massie Road and during the morning and evening “rush hours” it’s very heavily congested to a far greater extent than other local roads at these times. ”
“I object to the proposed fire station in Saughall Massie because:-
lives could be lost as Saughall Massie Road is already congested. Between 8am and 9.30am Mon-Fri – severe congestion
no open space for dogs & horses to run free
our properties will de-value
damage to wildlife habitats”
“Re Fire Station Saughall Massie Road
I would like to register my disapproval at the above. Building on Greenbelt land is out of order.”
“I would hope that you agree that Monday night’s fiasco did not satisfy the criteria as a meaningful consultation exercise. Having said that, you must be aware that the overwhelming views of the residents, both inside and on the pavement outside, was that this development does not take place at all within our precious ‘Green Belt’.”
“Proposal for a fire station, Saughall Massie, Wirral
I am writing to express my concerns over the proposal to build a fire station on the greenbelt land at Saughall Massie. I live directly opposite the suggested site and am disappointed to learn of this proposal which I personally use at least twice a day to both exercise my dog and meet up with other local residents. There is also a great deal of wildlife and the beautiful Jenny’s Wood. There are water voles, bats, owls to name a few and I am sure that many of these beautiful creatures will be affected by this build if it goes ahead.
I wish to register that I am totally opposed to the build and wish my feelings to be noted.”
The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority will make a decision on the future of the fire stations at Upton and West Kirby at a public meeting starting at 1.00pm on Tuesday 30th June 2015 in the Liverpool Suite, ground floor, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters, Bridle Road, Bootle, L30 4YD. The agenda and reports for that meeting can be found on their website.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)
Upton Fire Station was valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million (with a Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation of £590,000) with West Kirby Fire Station insurance purposes value was £1.085 million (with a Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation of £685,000).
The valuation also revealed that Upton Fire Station has an estimated economic lifespan of ten years and West Kirby Fire Station of fifteen years. In a letter accompanying the response to the Freedom of Information Act request Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stated “Please note the attached Valuations are not market values but Depreciated replacement cost (DRC) valuations, only obtained for insurance purposes, we do not hold information about market values. The valuations have been provided in accordance with the RICS valuation – Professional Standards 2014 (“the Red Book”)”.
Despite Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stating “we do not hold information about market values” of Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station a report to councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in January 2015 stated “The costs of any new build station are referenced in Appendix F, together with an estimate of the potential income from the sale of the buildings and land at Upton and West Kirby.”
Councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have passed resolutions in October 2014 and January 2015 to keep the estimated capital costs of building a new fire station (along with estimates of what they would receive from a sale of Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station) out of the public domain.
A report on the recent consultation will be published tomorrow. Councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority will meet next week and decide what happens next.
Out of the eighteen councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, the four councillors representing Wirral Council are Councillor Lesley Rennie, Councillor Denise Roberts, Councillor Jean Stapleton and Councillor Steve Niblock.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 19
As you can see above, Wirral Council has removed the names and addresses of the individual donors who donated £100 and £250 to Frank Field’s election campaign.
I have e-mailed Wirral Council requesting the names of the donors who donated £100 and £250, which shouldn’t have been blacked out when I inspected the return.
There’s also something declared in the election expenses for Frank Field’s campaign that from a technical legal perspective shouldn’t have been included as election expenses. To stand as a General Election candidate you require a £500 deposit which is refunded if you get 5% of the vote.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 13Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 33
“(2)No election expenses are to be regarded as incurred by virtue of subsection (1) above or section 90C below in respect of any matter specified in Part 2 of Schedule 4A.”
Part 2 (General Exclusions) of Schedule 4A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states:
7 The payment of any deposit required by rule 9 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
Rules 9 of Schedule 1 relates to the £500 deposit for parliamentary elections and is below for reference.
Deposit
9(1) A person shall not be validly nominated unless the sum of £500 is deposited by him or on his behalf with the returning officer at the place and during the time for delivery of nomination papers.
(2) The deposit may be made either—
(a) by the deposit of any legal tender, or
(b) by means of a banker’s draft, or
(c) with the returning officer’s consent, in any other manner (including by means of a debit or credit card or the electronic transfer of funds) .
but the returning officer may refuse to accept a deposit sought to be made by means of a banker’s draft if he does not know that the drawer carries on business as a banker in the United Kingdom.
(3) Where the deposit is made on behalf of the candidate, the person making the deposit shall at the time he makes it give his name and address to the returning officer (unless they have previously been given to him under section 67 of this Act or rule 6(4) above).
However moving on from trivial matters, to the more serious issue of how you split expenses incurred jointly between two campaigns.
Below are the declarations of Phil Davies and his election agent Jean Stapleton about Phil Davies’ election expenses return in Birkenhead and Tranmere stating that to the “best of my knowledge and belief it is a complete and accurate return as required by law”.
Jean Stapleton election expenses declaration Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015Phil Davies election expenses declaration Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015
There are maximum expenditure limits for local election candidates, which are set at £740 + 6 pence per an elector. As there were 9,525 electors in Birkenhead and Tranmere this means the maximum expenditure limit comes to £740 + (£0.06 times 9,525) = £1,311.50 . You can see this amount used for Phil Davies’ election expenses return below.
Election expenses return Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015 Phil Davies
Spending over these limits is classed as an illegal practice, see section 76 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and if the candidate and/or agent “knew or ought reasonably to have known that the expenses would be incurred in excess of that maximum amount” then a court can find them guilty of an illegal practice and they could be barred from standing in the by-election that would result.
The total spent by Phil Davies’ campaign as declared on the election expenses return was £1,266.17 as you can see from this page below.
Election expenses total spending Birkenhead and Tranmere Phil Davies 2015
Electoral Commission guidance (see the bottom of page 81 here states on the issue of splitting expenses:
The honest assessment principle
5.19 In all cases you should make an honest assessment, based on the facts, of the proportion of expenditure that can fairly be attributed to your candidate spending.
5.20 This is important, because when you sign the declaration for your election expenses return, you are confirming that the return is complete and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief.
As part of the campaigns of Frank Field and Phil Davies a joint leaflet was put out and the total costs of £1,511 were split between the two campaigns.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 23
As you can see below £377.75 of the joint leaflet was attributed to Frank Field’s campaign.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 22
The invoice submitted as part of Phil Davies’ election expenses return show that the remaining (£1500 – £377.75) = £1133.55 was split five ways equally between the campaigns for Bidston & James, Birkenhead & Tranmere, Claughton, Prenton and Rock Ferry.
Phil Davies election expenses invoice joint leaflet
The portion of this leaflet attributed to Phil Davies’ campaign was £226.65.
However different amounts of leaflets were printed for each area (as you can see on the invoice). 7,263 for Bidston & St. James, 8,055 for Birkenhead and Tranmere, 6,787 for Claughton, 6,974 for Rock Ferry and 6,090 for Prenton.
This total comes to 35,169 leaflets. The proportion for Birkenhead and Tranmere was 8,055. 8,055 divided by 35,169 = 22.9%. 22.9% of £1133.55 = £259.58 (£32.93 higher than the number used when it is instead just split five ways instead).
This wasn’t the only joint leaflet between Frank Field’s and Phil Davies’ campaign though. There was also the “Vote Twice” leaflet. As you can see below, £243 of this was attributed to Frank Field’s campaign.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 22
Here’s the invoice for the vote twice leaflet submitted with Phil Davies’ election expenses return.
Phil Davies Birkenhead and Tranmere election expenses vote twice invoice
This is where I can’t even understand how the split used has been arrived at.
£972 – the proportion paid for by Frank Field’s campaign (£243) = £729
Handwritten on the invoice is “BIRKENHEAD & TRANMERE SHARE = £139.80 ONLY DELIVERED 3600 leaflets = £71.90”
If £729 was split five ways it would come out as £145.80 per a ward.
If £729 is split by numbers of leaflets delivered in Birkenhead and Tranmere it would be £729 * (3600/7000) = £374.91.
If the amount for the proportion of leaflets for Bidston/Rock Ferry/Birkenhead (4000) is calculated as 4000/7000 * £729 = £416.57. Then as it’s for three wards it’s divided by three, £416.57/3 = £138.86 (which is near enough to one of the figures used of £139.80).
However this figure (£139.80 would be for 1333 leaflets (4000 divided by 3)). For some bizarre reason 3600/7000 has been used to arrive at a proportion of £138.86 as £71.90. Doing it this way appears to be incorrect (to me anyway as logically if 3600 leaflets were delivered instead of 1333 it should lead to an increased not decreased amount).
If 3600 leaflets were delivered in Birkenhead and Tranmere then the figure should have been (£972 – Frank Field’s share (£243)) * (3600/7000) = £374.91 (£303.10 higher then declared).
The net effect of using of both these calculations under the “honest assessment principle” of sharing costs between these joint leaflets is to increase the expenditure on this campaign by £32.93 + £303.10 = £336.03.
This would make the total expenditure £336.03 + £1,266.17 = £1602.20 (massively above the maximum expenditure limit of £1,311.50).
So who’s got their figures wrong, myself or Phil Davies and his agent?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
