Category: Wirral Council

Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”

Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”

Lyndale School Closure Consultation: Cllr Phil Gilchrist “this looks to be a set of moving goalposts”

                                        

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with Andy Day Memorial Cup by former Mayor Cllr Dave Mitchell
Cllr Phil Gilchrist (left) presented with the Andy Day Memorial Cup by former Mayor Cllr Dave Mitchell (right)

Councillor Phil Gilchrist (the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Wirral Council) has kindly provided this blog with his consultation response to the Lyndale School Closure Consultation. It is reproduced below. For the purpose of clarity when reading the acronyms SEN and DCSF have been expanded and this addition appears in brackets [] in bold italic text.

Ed – Updated (revision 4) 10:50 12/8/14 to replace absolute values in table 1 with relative values to fix display problem.
Ed – Updated (revision 5) 10:55 12/8/14 to replace absolute values in table 2 with relative values to fix display problem. Linked email address.

Feedback Form

 

Please let us know the main relationships you have with the school(s) by putting a tick in the appropriate box or boxes. You might be a parent and a member of staff, for example.

 

School

Parent

Member of Staff

Governor

Other Person
Elleray Park
Lyndale
Stanley
Foxfield
Meadowside
Other (Please Specify)

Cllr


I attended the consultative meeting held at Acre Lane on 10th April and the further meeting held on 16th June.

I have also visited The Lyndale School on 27th January on a private fact finding arrangement, and, on 9th May after a request from parents.

In addition I have visited the school and Stanley, Foxfield, Meadowside and Elleray Park with other councillors on 16th and 17th June.

I was also a signatory to the ‘Call In’ considered by the Council committee.

Short fact finding visits can only provide a brief picture of how a school works day by day. In making the recent visits I formed a strong impression of the way the children at The Lyndale might be ‘compared’ with children of the same ages at Elleray Park and Stanley.

In attempting this I also need to take account of the needs that I did not see – children who are not in the school, that day, because of their poor health.

It seems to me that a high proportion of children attending Lyndale have the most serious needs.

Lyndale may not be the best laid out building but is ‘home’ and provides the atmosphere and the facilities to stimulate the children.

The financial problems flow from the formula adopted by the Council.

Consultation on changing the funding formula began in 2010, under the last Government, when the DSCF [Department for Children, Schools and Families] looked at the formula (Chapter 4) for high cost pupils.

The formula the Council adopted in 2013 arose from discussions at the Schools Forum which chose the present banding system which has added to the pressures on Lyndale’s finances.

The parents need the utmost assurances that the care and education being provided must continue to that same high standard.

Without sight of ‘the answers’ provided to parents I am aware that reference is regularly made to what the SEN [Special Educational Needs] ‘test’ should ensure.

As I mentioned at the last meeting this looks to be a set of moving goalposts.

A ‘pale imitation’ is not good enough for the children.

Some years ago parents did seek the creation of an all through school, up to the age of 19. One of the ‘drivers’ was the issue of ‘transition’ at age 11.

Councillors who visited Foxfield and Meadowside were assured that there is a very thorough process for transition – with study of the children, visits to Lyndale by staff before children move, and visits by parents to those schools.

These visits showed the differences in the buildings ‘on offer’.

The new Stanley building was ‘sparse’ and assurances were given that any new additions could be designed with needs of ‘The Lyndale’ children in mind

However this appeared to be an addition as an ‘afterthought’.

The children at Elleray Park had different needs from the children at Lyndale.

Assurances have been given that schools can adapt their teaching styles and methods to the needs of children, that parents have choice and that there is good communication between professionals.

It is apparent that the parents at Lyndale place great emphasis on the way the staff the children ‘know’ interact with them Equally the staff are able to ‘read’ the developing signs and gestures that the children are able to return.

I have asked how the ‘Lyndale’ can be completely replicated elsewhere.

The answer has not, as yet, as far as I know, been given in a way that fully satisfies the parents,

However, if the Council insists on change then it should design a setting that has the atmosphere and facilities valued by parents, several classrooms with accessible changing, a communal hall where children can fully socialise and guaranteed access to hydrotherapy. .

Please tell us your name and address, postcode, and email address if you have one. We will not use your personal information for anything other than this consultation.

Name: Phil Gilchrist
Address: 2 Gordon Avenue Bromborough
Postcode: CH62 6AL
Telephone: 0151 334 1923
E-Mail:philgilchrist@wirral.gov.uk

Please note: In order to ensure that this process is fully open and transparent, other people will be able to read all the responses to this consultation.

Please return this form to:

Email: specialreview@wirral.gov.uk

Post: The Lyndale School Consultation

Children and Young People’s Department

Hamilton Building

Birkenhead

CH41 4FD

Please make sure your response is submitted by:

Wednesday 25th June 2014.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.


Lyndale School Consultation branded “white-wash” & 1 officer is singled out for criticism for lack of impartiality

Lyndale School Consultation branded “white-wash” & 1 officer is singled out for criticism for lack of impartiality

Lyndale School Consultation branded “white-wash” & 1 officer is singled out for criticism for lack of impartiality

                           

Phil Ward (Wirral Council's SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014
Phil Ward (Wirral Council’s SEN Lead) at a later meeting of Wirral Schools Forum 2nd July 2014

Lyndale School has of course made the news again, as the “high level notes” of the six consultation meetings have been published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The concept that these “high level notes” should actually be used as part of the decision-making process is an interesting one.

I was at one of the six consultation meetings so I looked at the “notes” for that one and compared it to my own notes, transcript of the first hour (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8) and an audio recording of what actually happened.

As Tom Harney (the Chair of governors at Lyndale School) himself said at that actual meeting in relation to another matter “it’s amazing the things that go on”. He was also one of the few speakers at that meeting to get applause. The comments made by Cllr Paul Hayes (a Conservative councillor who if I remember correctly was also present at that same meeting) about the consultation process as reported in their local paper were very critical of the way the consultation process and that meeting was handled.

As I’ve mentioned the Conservative and Lib Dem positions, I should mention that the only Labour councillor I recognised at the meeting (Cabinet Member for Childrens’ Services Cllr Tony Smith) arrived late. It is of course extremely difficult to describe what the Labour position is on Lyndale School other than being pro closure consultation, telling the public that they have an open mind and that no decision has been made yet. A decision is expected on the 4th September on the next stage. The point that Labour are keen to make is not for Labour to do things that would give the impression that they have made their mind up. This was again made at the July Council meeting by Councillor Tony Smith and Councillor Phil Davies.

So in the words of a Wirral Council officer Phil Ward what was the purpose of these notes about the meetings? Phil Ward said “They’re notes recording the high level points raised at the meetings and importantly we will be reporting them to Cabinet.”

I had a look through the notes for the one question I asked in the two-hour meeting (something is there but it bears little resemblance to what I asked). It wasn’t there in any form that resembles what I asked. Maybe it wasn’t classed as “high level” enough. Maybe I should instead have started by saying “This is a high level question I am asking so please put it in the notes”. Or maybe Wirral Council doesn’t like putting down tricky questions and answers and prefers to subtly rewrite the historical record to suit itself.

However this isn’t about me. This is about Lyndale School. Let’s have a look at the notes Wirral Council produced.

Here’s the first line of their notes “10th April 2014: 10am to 12pm”

Err no, seems Wirral Council can’t get the date and time of its own consultation right (which should worry you there right from the start if they can’t get the simple stuff right like the date and time!) It should read “16th June 2014: 5.30pm to 7.30pm”.

Turns out there were two different meetings at Acre Lane as part of the consultation. There were notes from both meetings. Apologies.

Moving on, it seems the “points” column according to the table used are not what the people had to say at the consultation. No the “points” column is reserved solely for points made by officers and the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.

The more difficult questions raised, the important concerns of parents about what’s going to happen, what appears in the points column? Nothing… almost as if Wirral Council is ashamed as to what was said to these questions to be known in public.

Even some of the answers that do make it are misleading. At least one of the officers is in fact tying themselves in knots and going into policy areas that strictly speaking in my opinion they shouldn’t. To the best of my knowledge all the officers at that meeting are in politically restricted posts. One of these legal restrictions from what I remember is that they are not allowed to “speak to the public at large or to a section of the public with the apparent intention of affecting public support for a political party”.

Now I will make this clear, I’m not referring to Julia Hassall, David Armstrong or Andrew Roberts. These people are senior professionals and although I’m sure people like me make doing their jobs more difficult, I will state now my personal opinion that all three have been extremely professional in my past dealings with them.

This is despite me doing what in any other sphere of life outside the political arena would be classed as behaviour that would lead to people falling out with each other. I have written things (robust criticism would be putting it very mildly) that disagree with their professional opinions and have pointed out what I perceive as flaws in arguments they have used. They know I do not however do this out of malice or anything personal.

That’s just the nature of politics as one of the rules is “don’t take things personally”. Other people’s opinion of them may be wildly different but like myself they are doing a job in a highly political environment, so criticism goes with the territory. They are public figures (as are politicians) and are rewarded with a high salary partly to reflect the problems that having to deal with the likes of the press can cause.

Now you can point out at this point the press is supposed to be impartial. I try to be even-handed (and believe me that’s very difficult at times) and to quote Cllr Jerry Williams recently “There’s no side to the gentleman, he does a very good job”. An editorial decision (and I’m pretty sure the Wirral Globe takes a similar policy stance too) was made a long time ago that we’re against the closure of Lyndale School, but obviously in the reporting of this matter to do it justice we have to report both sides of this issue.

There are people of course that are for the closure of Lyndale School. You are entitled to your opinion too (it just happens to be one that this publication disagrees with but that is the nature of politics)! However one of the extremely important roles of the press in society is to stand up for the viewpoints of people who can’t advocate for themselves. The children of Lyndale School are in that position.

The person to whom my criticism is about at that meeting is the Wirral Council officer Phil Ward. Now I’m not saying he said things downright stupid and overt like “vote Labour in May” I’m not. However throughout the whole meeting he appeared to champion a particular policy position/stance on this matter.

There is admittedly a fine line between explaining decisions that have already been made and talking about decisions that have yet to be made by politicians in the future. The former is entirely legitimate for officers to do. Taking policy positions (especially on a party political matter such as how education budgets are spent) is something that officers have to be very careful of.

Now officers can say in relation to future decisions “based on my professional advice or opinion I advise you to do X (or X, Y and Z are options I’d prefer you to do X). However the decision is up to you.” That is one thing, however they should not advocate support when speaking to the public during a consultation for a particular political decision that has yet to be decided or even worse give the impression that a decision has already been made when it hasn’t yet (even if they think they can guess how it will be made). If they go down this route, their impartiality will be called and can be called into question (and his was during the meeting).

No officer at Wirral Council I know of before in a politically restricted post has done what was done at that consultation meeting by Phil Ward in the way he did it. Believe me, during meetings politicians have put officers under extreme pressure to take sides. Most officers with some common sense (and there are a lot of them at Wirral Council) will politely decline to answer such questions. This is what should happen.

This was however what the audience at Acre Lane found so amazing. A consultation is supposed to be about listening to their views (and yes Wirral Council has a long way to go on getting better at involving the public in their decision-making). However chairing this meeting was an officer who was the equivalent of waving a red flag to a bull. Had he come to the meeting with the genuine attitude of “We’re here today to hear your views, the purpose of the consultation is to do that, we appreciate you being here and we’ll listen carefully to what you have to say.” then I think the audience would’ve applauded him. However the impression the audience got was that he was lecturing them and completely impervious to any other viewpoints.

Sadly this particular officer did somewhat get stuck in “broadcast” mode. However, this attitude leads to the audience getting the following impression and I quote from the notes “No one has fully answered any question. You are just white-washing it. You have already made your decision”.

The Wirral public are not stupid, nor are they children. They are able to read people’s body language and how they say something. How something is said and the person’s body language when saying it are a large part of its meaning. Sadly Phil Ward didn’t seem politically savvy enough that night to develop a positive relationship with the audience. Nor did he seem to appreciate the way power shifts. The senior officers are better attuned to these kind of things.

There was for example in that room that night, Emma Rigby from the Wirral Globe, myself and Leonora. For those who recognise us, they’d know that that amount of people from the press means you have to be very careful what you say. I hope to carry on in the next few days with publishing a transcript of the long meeting itself. In the meantime the below links should take you to what has been published so far.

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Tom Harney “it’s amazing the things that go on” (part 8)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about Stanley, Elleray, Foxfield & the educational psychologist (Part 4)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2)
Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Audio of entire consultation meeting

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Despite Tory objections, Labour adjourn meeting to revisit 2 matters (leisure centre concessions and Forest Schools)

Despite Tory objections, Labour adjourn meeting to revisit 2 matters (leisure centre concessions and Forest Schools)

Despite Tory objections, Labour adjourn meeting to revisit 2 matters (leisure centre concessions and Forest Schools)

                                    

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of the entire Coordinating Committee meeting of the 7th August 2014 can be viewed above

Yesterday Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee met to consider two call-ins of Cabinet decisions. In a short ten minute meeting, Councillor Moira McLaughlin (the Chair) explained that the meeting had been called to consider call-ins about the cancellation of the “Forest Schools” funding and changes to the concessions that current and former Armed Forces personnel receive at the Council’s leisure centres.

It was agreed that despite the Chair’s initial view that both call ins should be considered in the same evening that they will be heard over two different evenings instead. Due to a constitutional requirement, the Coordinating Committee had to meet to consider these decisions within 15 days, however was unable to proceed any further as officers were not available (presumably as they are on holiday).

Therefore (as previously reported on this blog even before the decision was formally made) the call-in about Forest Schools will be heard starting at 6pm on the 18th September 2014 and the call-in about leisure centres will be heard starting at 6pm on the 23rd September 2014.

Councillor Chris Blakeley (Conservative spokesperson) suggested a different date as he was not happy with the choice of date for one of the reconvened meetings. However Labour councillors used their majority on the committee to vote through their preferred choice of date. The Chair Cllr Moira McLaughlin gave a detailed explanation as to why the dates had been chosen and why she disagreed with Councillor Chris Blakeley’s motion that a different date should be used.

Due to the call-ins the Cabinet decisions will not be implemented until a decision has been reached by the Coordinating Committee. Therefore the existing concessions at the Council’s leisure centres for current and former Armed Forces personnel will continue and so will the funding for the Forest Schools program in order to not prejudge the outcome of the Coordinating Committee decisions in September.

Similar reasons to do with availability and holidays were given behind the recent adjournment of the Audit and Risk Management Committee’s BIG/ISUS investigations.

Councillor Chris Blakeley (Conservative spokesperson) did raise the point that the meeting was being adjourned to suit Wirral Council officers, therefore why couldn’t it be rearranged to suit councillors (referring to three Conservative councillors)? However the Labour councillors on the Coordinating Committee disagreed with this approach.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

                          

“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

-The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

The above quote is very suitable for another tale of bureaucracy gone wrong involving Wirral Council.

The below exchange shows a tale of Wirral Council that is sadly familiar, blaming the disabled, making them pay more, making sure officer’s plans can get approved by preventing those pesky members of the public objecting! In the “changed” Wirral Council I hope my intervention will lead to change. We shall see. I suppose in this case they just have the bad luck that these proposals affect this blogger’s wife (which in the interests of openness and transparency/ethics I’m declaring at the start of this piece). As Wirral Council seem to use an extremely small font size for their public notices, you can click on the image below for a more high-resolution version.

Proposed traffic regulation order public notice (Birkenhead Market Service Road) 9th July 2014
Public notice of proposed traffic regulation order (9th July 2014) Wirral Globe Birkenhead Market Service Road

CRM 825834 – PROPOSED WAITING & LOADING RESTRICTIONS – BIRKENHEAD MARKET SERVICE ROAD, BIRKENHEAD
John Brace 8 August 2014 10:35
Reply-To: john.brace@gmail.com
To: “Amos, Carl A.”
Cc: “Smith, Mark” , Surjit Tour , “Cllr Stuart Whittingham – Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation)” , Malcolm Flanagan , Cllr Alan Brighouse , Cllr Mike Sullivan , Cllr Steve Williams , “Cllr Ann McLachlan – Bidston & St. James ward councillor” , David Rees
Dear Carl Amos (Team Leader (Network Management)),

CC: Mark Smith
CC: David Rees
CC: Surjit Tour
CC: Cllr Stuart Whittingham (Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport)
CC: Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for
Governance/Commissioning/Improvement) & ward councillor for Bidston &
St. James ward
CC: Malcolm Flanagan
CC: Cllr Alan Brighouse
CC: Cllr Michael Sullivan
CC: Cllr Steve Williams

RE: Proposed Traffic Regulation Order (your reference KO) at Birkenhead Market Service Road/Car Parking Review

Dear Carl Amos (and others),

Thank you for your email of 4th August 2014 (your CRM reference 825834) in reference to a proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road, Birkenhead.

I appreciate the apology you give in paragraph two. The public notice (which stated was published by Surjit Tour) for this proposed traffic regulation order was published in the Wirral Globe on Wednesday 9th July 2014 and stated “A copy of the Order, map and a statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing to make the Order, may be seen at all reasonable hours at The One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Seacombe, CH44 8ED”.

My wife and I attended the Seacombe One Stop Shop on the afternoon of the 9th July. The staff at the One Stop Shop informed us that they had not been given a copy of the Order, map and statement of the Council’s reasons. Therefore we were unable to view them at this point and make any objections to the proposed TRO. What was the point of publishing the notice in the paper directing people to the One Stop Shop to view this when they did not have it?

Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2489 states in Regulation 7(3) “The order making authority shall comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of deposited documents available for public inspection” and Schedule 2 states in relation to the documents that they are to “be made available for inspection at the principal offices of the authority during normal office hours”.

This clearly didn’t happen. It is of course unknown how many (if any) other people would have made an objection as they couldn’t inspect or view the documents relating to this proposed TRO. I would therefore suggest that if you wish to proceed with the next stages of this TRO that you re advertise it in the press, this time making sure that you supply copies of the documents for public inspection to the One Stop Shop prior to having the notice published! Otherwise, it casts legal uncertainty as to the legality of any TRO that results as the regulations regarding consultation weren’t followed.

My comments on the proposed TRO are below (which it would be useful to feed into councillors doing the car parking review therefore I would appreciate it if someone would forward this to them):

I’ve been asked by my wife to respond on her behalf (but I am also commenting in my own capacity) to the proposed traffic regulation order as she is one of the people that will be affected by it if it goes ahead.

I will deal with the points raised first in your email. Parking is already prohibited for blue badge users along most of the Birkenhead Market Service Road as the majority of it is currently either loading bays or is double yellow lines with kerb blips (where those with blue badges can’t park).

Therefore parking in a way that’s obstructing loading bays is already something that a driver doing so could receive a ticket for. The proposed TRO won’t change the parking restrictions in the area around the loading bays so without greater enforcement any existing problem of obstructive parking is likely to continue even if the TRO is agreed.

In relation to displaced Blue Badge users. You refer to free car parking in the Grange and the Pyramids multi storey car park for blue badge users. However free parking in these car parks is only on a Sunday (for all users). Monday to Saturday there is a charge of £2 to park in either the Grange or Pyramids car parks which applies to all users (irrespective of whether they have a Blue Badge or not). Therefore it is misleading to refer to the Grange and Pyramids as “free disabled parking facilities” without mentioning that these are only free on a Sunday. Any concerns raised by the Pyramids/Grange Shopping Centre have to be viewed in light of a commercial interest in increasing patronage of their car parks by reducing parking for blue badge users on the Birkenhead Market Service Road.

There are 14 blue badge parking spaces in the Europa Square car park and 6 in Oliver Street (according to your website). I have no idea exactly how many disabled parking bays are available on Conway Street, but from memory it is not many.

The issue however is not the number of alternative free spaces (referred to in your email) but the fact that at the times when the shops are open it is often impossible for blue badge users to find one of the alternative parking spaces you refer to as available. My wife requires extra space around the space she parks in in order to safely get in and out of her vehicle. She uses a walking stick and has mobility problems due to a disability she has had from birth.

It is clear looking at the numbers of disabled spaces in the car parks in Birkenhead (compared to the overall numbers) and the numbers of blue badges issued by Wirral Council that there is under provision of spaces for blue badge users. I don’t believe that the proposed TRO will achieve its stated aim of road safety and Wirral Council has to be very careful (from the way your reasons are phrased) as it appears you are trying to make disabled people scapegoats.

There are a whole range of legal duties Wirral Council has, such as the public sector equality duty and due to what I’ve written above the impacts that this proposed TRO would have on blue badge users has not been fully thought through. For example those with mobility problems would be forced to park further away from where they’re shopping. This might not be a problem for the able bodied, but for those for whom the extra distance will cause additional pain and suffering is morally (and probably also legally) wrong.

I realise Wirral Council has had a chequered history with regards to how it has treated minorities (including the disabled) in the recent past. I hope the culture however has changed and I will receive a positive response to this letter and assurances that actions will be taken to prevent this happening in the future. Due to the serious corporate governance failings it highlights I am also publishing this letter. Please class it as a complaint/objection to the proposed TRO/to be fed into the car parking review.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

On 4 August 2014 13:30, Amos, Carl A. wrote:
> Dear Mr Brace,
>
> Thank you for your enquiry dated 30 July 2014 requesting information about
> the proposed waiting and loading restrictions along Birkenhead Market
> Service Road, Birkenhead.
>
> I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you experienced in viewing a copy of
> these proposals. Please find enclosed a copy of the consultation plan
> showing the extents of the scheme.
>
> The reason for this order is to prohibit parking along sections of
> Birkenhead Market Service Road and to allow loading and unloading for
> vehicles within the designated bays following concerns raised by the
> Pyramids Shopping Centre and Birkenhead Market Hall management teams. The
> effect of this order is to improve access for vehicles servicing the Grange
> Precinct and Market Hall and prevent obstructive parking.
>
> Vehicles except buses and for loading purposes are currently prohibited from
> travelling through Birkenhead Bus Station which provides access to
> Birkenhead Market Service Road. The proposed waiting and loading
> restrictions will prohibit blue badge holders from parking within the
> Service Road, however there are alternative free disabled parking facilities
> available in the following car parks; Europa Square, Oliver Street, The
> Grange and The Pyramids multi storey car parks. On street disabled parking
> bays are also available along Conway Street.
>
> Letters have been delivered to those businesses who may be affected by the
> restrictions and the proposals were also advertised within the local press.
>
> Apologies for the difficulties you experienced in viewing the proposed TRO,
> should you wish to register any comments can I please ask that you submit
> them to me by Friday 8 August so we can finalise the evaluation of
> consultation feedback and progress with the next stages.
>
> In the meantime, should you have any further queries please do not hesitate
> to contact me.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Carl Amos
> Team Leader (Network Management)
> Regeneration & Environment Directorate
> Wirral Council
> Tel No: 0151 606 2370
> carlamos@wirral.gov.uk
> Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk
> Please save paper and print out only what is necessary
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Smith, Mark
> Sent: 31 July 2014 07:38
> To: John Brace
> Subject: Re: proposed TRO behind Birkenhead Market
>
> Hello John
>
> Thanks for your email – I’ll ask our Traffic team to get the requested
> information to you as a matter of urgency.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, “John Brace” wrote:
> Hi,
> I’m not sure if your responsibilities still cover traffic matters, but I had
> an enquiry about the proposed TRO published in the local press about
> parking changes behind Birkenhead Market. The notice said the
> proposed TRO could be viewed at the Seacombe One Stop but when Leonora and
> I visited they stated they hadn’t been sent a copy.
> As the date for responses is I think August 1st could you if possible email
> a copy of the TRO to myself so any comments or objections can be made
> before August 1st?
> Thanks,
> John
> John Brace
> Jenmaleo
> 134 Boundary Road
> Bidston
> CH43 7PH
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
>
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.clearswift.com
>
> **********************************************************************

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people

How did councillors think Wirral Council should spend £75,000 in Wallasey on road safety, cycling and walking?

How did councillors think Wirral Council should spend £75,000 in Wallasey on road safety, cycling and walking?

How did councillors think Wirral Council should spend £75,000 in Wallasey on road safety, cycling and walking?

                        

Following on from yesterday’s story about a legal change meaning Wirral Council can’t prevent filming at its public meetings any more, the first meeting affected by this was a Working Group of the Wallasey Constituency Committee.

You can watch this entire meeting from beginning to end if you wish, but let’s start at the beginning.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

First here’s a list of who from the Working Group was present:

Conservative councillors
Councillor Bruce Berry
Councillor Chris Blakeley
Councillor Paul Hayes
Councillor Leah Fraser

Community representatives
Ken Harrison
Tony Jones
Brian Higgins

Labour councillors
Councillor Rob Gregson
Councillor Chris Jones
Councillor Adrian Jones
Councillor Matt Daniel
Councillor Anita Leech
Councillor Bernie Mooney
Councillor Janette Williamson

The first item was appointing a Chair (just for this meeting). Unusually nobody from Wirral Council’s legal services was present to advise the Committee, so the committee services officer Andrew Mossop asked for nominations for Chair.

Cllr Janette Williamson proposed Cllr Rob Gregson. Cllr Williamson’s proposal was seconded by Cllr Chris Jones.

Six out of seven Labour councillors voted for Cllr Rob Gregson as Chair.
Four out of four Conservative councillors voted against Cllr Rob Gregson being Chair.

So Cllr Rob Gregson was elected Chair by a vote of 6:4. Who was the Labour “rebel” who didn’t vote for Cllr Rob Gregson as Chair? Well the answer to that was he didn’t vote for himself.

Cllr Rob Gregson said “thank you very much” and wandered over to where the Chair sits and continued his list of thanks which was thankfully shorter than most Oscar acceptance speeches.

He thanked people for attending, he thanked myself and my wife, the councillors & community representatives. Having thanked literally everyone in the room, he then went on to apologies.

Andrew Mossop read out a list of apologies. It was a long list of councillors that couldn’t make it Cllr Pat Hackett (Labour), Cllr Treena Johnson (Labour), Cllr Lesley Rennie (Conservative) and Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative).

Councillor Anita Leech apologised for the absence of Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour). Another Labour councillor apologised for the absence of Cllr Chris Spriggs (Labour). The Council’s website also lists apologies from Keith Raybould (one of the community representatives).

The Chair got his glasses out of his shirt pocket to read what was the next item on the agenda. He asked for declarations of interest? Nobody made any declarations of interest.

The first main agenda item was Integrated Transport Block Capital Programme Funding (2014/15). In case that agenda item title means absolutely nothing to you, it was about how the committee would decide to spend £38,875 on “improving road safety” and £38,875 on promoting active travel & health. The jargon “active travel” if you’re unfamiliar with the term it refers to walking and cycling.

The Chair asked Wirral Council’s road safety manager David Rees to introduce his report. He explained that his report and how officers decided on road safety schemes based on casualty figures. Mr Rees referred to what the money could be spent on, such as vehicle activated signs which had previously been funded by the Area Forums. Another way the money could be spent was on dropped crossings which assisted pedestrians with mobility issues, blind people, those in wheelchairs and mums with prams. The list of schemes already approved by Cabinet under central funding was referred to. He asked for areas that the Committee wished officers to look into and they would find out how much it was likely to cost.

Councillor Leah Fraser spoke first and asked a question and asked what on the list had been dealt with already which was replied to by David Rees. The next councillor to be heard was the mellifluous tones of Councillor Adrian Jones. After a short answer to his question Cllr Adrian Jones explained that he was in a position to understand his own ward (which is Seacombe) but that they had to decide what was best for Wallasey. He explained that each councillor would make a bundle of requests for their own ward which would go to officers, who’d then make recommendations. He said he assumed that David Rees must be frustrated by the process.

David Rees in his answer referred to Department for Transport regulations. Mr Rees said that even with suggestions where there weren’t recorded accidents, there may be broader benefits that officers could see for particular schemes.

Councillor Chris Jones asked about potholes and asked whether some could be done using the extra pothole funding that Wirral Council had received? David Rees explained that he had limited knowledge of the highway maintenance side and that they were keen to sort out the potholes while the weather was good. He said he could ask Caroline Laing to circulate a list to the Committee as to which ones they were looking at sorting out.

Councillor Chris Blakeley said, “OK thanks Chairman, .. I’m aware we’re being filmed tonight” and glanced in the direction of the camera. He said “we all know our own wards” and “at the risk of sounding like a stuck needle” that in the days of the Area Forums, where there were two wards involved that they used to split the money down the middle. He suggested that the money should be split six ways (as there are six wards in Wallasey), so that each ward would get just under £13,000.

The Chair replied to Councillor Chris Blakeley and admitted he was a little confused, but he said the danger was that the more articulate councillors being able to able to describe a minor dint in the road as apocalyptic which would mean such things would be favoured over areas that needed to be looked at.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.