What were the most read stories on this blog for each month in 2016?
What were the most read stories on this blog for each month in 2016?
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) features in one of the stories
As we’re approaching the end of the year, I thought it would be useful to look back and see the posts that were most read on this blog each month from January 2016 to November 2016, along with some comments of my own.
The recently elected Cllr Kelly called in the Cabinet decision to consult on changes to the bin collections. So did the Conservatives, however Labour made sure that the consultation went ahead.
And then it became November’s most read story too.
So the themes of stories most read for 2016 were Hoylake Golf Resort, a pay off to a former senior manager, gagging, elections, secret public meetings, bins, Lyndale School, a planning application refused for a Tesco supermarket and election expenses.
Who knows what will happen in 2017?
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 a councillor refer to NHS Plan for cuts as a “PR disaster”?
Why did a councillor refer to NHS Plan for cuts as a “PR disaster”?
Before I write about what happened at Monday’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Phil Davies shut down any debate and ruled that he wasn’t allowing the public to speak at an earlier public meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board (which he chairs) on the Sustainability and Transformation Plan.
Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall side door 28th November 2016 38 Degrees Wirral West over NHS Sustainability and Transformation PlanProtest outside Wallasey Town Hall 28th November 2016 Green Party over NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan
Prior to the People and Overview Scrutiny Committee starting there were two protests at ways in to Wallasey Town Hall (photos above). Apologies for the poor quality of the photos!
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.
I’ll try to sum up what this means in a nutshell. If you look beyond the fancy words, glossy brochures in essence it’s a plan for NHS cuts (that is if the plan is implemented people will lose their job).
In addition to that with such a radical reorganisation of how NHS services are delivered locally proposed, services to the general public are also likely to be altered too.
Before a decision is made there will have to be a formal consultation with the public.
I’ve been asked to decipher what decision the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee made on the STP Plan.
However councillors do have a scrutiny role over matters such as this. To give an example, the move of some of the functions of Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology to a new hospital in Liverpool from 2019 was rubber stamped by a scrutiny committee made up of councillors from the affected areas. The impact on thousands of Wirral patients and the consultation was reported previously on this blog.
This is what was agreed by councillors (although some voted against) at the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee (followed by my analysis of what it means).
The People Overview and Scrutiny Committee thank Phil Meaken for attending the meeting and presenting the key points of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan.
The Committee is concerned that elected Members [councillors] have had no opportunity to feed into the development of the STP, nor have they been given the opportunity to see the plan before it was published on the 23rd of November.
The Committee is also concerned by any lack of meaningful consultation with the public of Wirral prior to the publication of the Plan.
As a result of the failure by authors of the Plan to engage with local authorities in Cheshire and Merseyside Committee is concerned at the high level of anxiety and speculation of the implications for the future delivery of health services on the Wirral which the Plan has generated.
The Committee further notes that though there is very little detail included, many of the proposals would represent a significant variation in service delivery and would therefore need to be presented for scrutiny to this Committee and possibly a pan-Merseyside and Cheshire Committee before any proposals could be implemented.
The Committee does not believe that Wirral Council can agree to the STP without absolute clarity on the proposal and a meaningful process of consultation, that engages with elected Members [councillors] and local residents.
My analysis is briefly this, consultation on the Plan was going to happen and if the result of the Plan is to change how local services are delivered, the pan-Merseyside and Cheshire Committee would happen too any way. For whatever reason politicians are agreeing to steps that would happen in any event.
Obviously there is a lot of concern as to what the impact will be for staff and patients of the NHS.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Decision on controversial planning application APP/16/00985 (Saughall Massie Fire Station) delayed as councillors call for change of venue, site visit, special meeting & more transparency
Decision on controversial planning application APP/16/00985 (Saughall Massie Fire Station) delayed as councillors call for change of venue, site visit, special meeting & more transparency
Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting held on the 10th November 2016 was standing room only because of the planning application about a fire station at Saughall Massie (APP/16/00985)
Updated on 30th November 2016 and the 11th December 2016 by JB: The site visit is scheduled for 11 am on the 13th December 2016. Contrary to what was said at the Planning Committee meeting reported below, the Planning Committee will then meet in the Civic Hall (1st floor) at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED on the 15th December 2016 starting at 6.00 p.m. in order to decide on this planning application.
Last night’s Planning Committee at Wirral Council was another event in the long running political saga that is the attempts to start a new fire station at Saughall Massie and close Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station.
Committee Rooms 1 and 2 which were the venue for the Planning Committee at Wallasey Town Hall were both full (standing room only as you can see from the picture above) and Committee Room 3 in another part of the building was being used as an overflow.
Dan Stephens QFSM (Chief Fire Officer for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service/Chief Executive for the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) was looking very smartly dressed in what I will describe as his ceremonial uniform. He was there with what I will describe as an entourage of people from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service including Ria Groves (Trainee Solicitor) and Colin Schofield (PFI Project Manager (part of his job is to manage the Saughall Massie Fire Station project)). Dan Stephens QFSM and his entourage stood near the door.
Also present were the three local councillors for Moreton West and Saughall Massie ward (Cllr Chris Blakeley, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Bruce Berry). They have opposed this planning application along with groups such as the Saughall Massie Village Conservation Area Society and the Wirral Society.
The vocal and public disagreements about this political issue between Cllr Chris Blakeley and Dan Stephens QFSM are mainly already on the public record, well documented and have been reported on by myself before and others, so I’m not going to rehash in detail the rather long history of the matter here.
I will briefly state however that Wirral Council withdrew its offer of land for this at Greasby which is what led to Saughall Massie being proposed. The effect of that is it has given some people hope that people power can overturn the previous cross-party political consensus behind it.
Also I had better point out that there was a rather long running First-tier Tribunal case in which I was the Appellant about the financial breakdown of expenditure for the new fire station first at Greasby, then Saughall Massie.
Present at the Planning Committee was Alan Rundle who had exchanged letters with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority about a proposed judicial review before the Greasby plans were abandoned for very similar issues to those that the First-tier Tribunal (in case EA/162016/160054) covered.
However in summary, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have estimated £300,000* to pay Wirral Council for the land and an estimated £550,000 from the sale of the fire stations at Upton and West Kirby. To build a new fire station will cost an estimated £3.7 million (I’m not including the figure for the land in that), with £1.5 million offset by a government grant. The complete capital cost breakdown was not made public prior to the two twelve-week consultations (first on Greasby, then on Saughall Massie) that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service ran on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s behalf.
* estimates were made for sale and purchase prices in 2015
For those who were turned away from the Planning Committee meeting (which was also what happened at some of the consultation meetings) video I took of last night’s Planning Committee meeting is below. However as the Saughall Massie Fire Station planning application has attracted a certain degree of public interest I include a transcript of what was said at the meeting on the matter below too.
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.
The discussion starts at agenda item 3 (site visits) which starts at the 4m:26s point in the video above.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, are there any requests for site visits? Steve?
CLLR STEVE FOULKES: Errm Chair, sorry with your indulgence and err errm with some trepidation, errm I’d like to move site visits on two sites errm.
The least err controversial one I think might be item 13 which is err Pipistrelle Rise which is well-known to Planning Committee and has one with a varied planning history, it’s a very unusual site given it’s site levels. So I’d therefore request that we have a site visit before we make any decision on that matter.
[5:00]
The next one is errm item 9, which is the err fire station, as you referred to Chair. I think it’s fairly obvious to any elected Member the level of concern and the public interest in this debate and I think it would be better for all elected Members who are making that decision to be forewarned, forearmed with an actual site visit and the layout of the area.
Secondly I think it will be plenty of time for us to get arrange as they said in Jaws, “I think we need a bigger boat!” Err, I think we need a bigger room, if we can arrange that in time for the next err meeting it would make it better for the public to engage with us.
I don’t expect people to be in a standing position for any length of time, I find it errm, it is of a matter of great public interest that we do have a site visit. I’m hoping errm, if we have brought you out on a winter’s night for to no avail, but it’s not unusual that applications of this type to have a site visit, so I will move a site visit on that matter.
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Chair?
[6:00]
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, can I take you first?
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Chair, I endorse what Councillor Foulkes has said, but particularly in terms of where we have the meeting next time to discuss the fire application, can I suggest that we try and find a venue in Moreton/Saughall Massie to allow as many people as possible in that area to attend?
*LOUD CHEERING AND APPLAUSE*
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Can I explain why Chair just for a moment? Clearly the number of people here tonight would be you know they’ve come along to take part in the democratic process to see how they make a decision.
There will be other people in that area, who haven’t been able to get here.
To drag everybody, these people again late December, can I propose we try and find a venue nearer to the site to consider this application, as an exceptional application?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): I think you know the only thing that I would say you know and I totally agree with what you’re saying there and if we can do that we should but in terms of we need to have the right systems in place, wherever it’s going to be.
We need to have the visual and the sound system, if we could find a venue
[7:00]
that will support that, then I’m happy for it to be there.
CLLR IAN LEWIS: OK, thank you very much.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): We may actually need to consider whether it’s a one item agenda,
CLLR IAN LEWIS: Yes, ok.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): as well so we will look into that. So we’ll see if we can find a venue, that is suitable and if we can then we will move it to that area.
CLLR IAN LEWIS: OK, thanks Chair.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): David?
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: Yeah thanks Chair, just to endorse I totally support it, the move to
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: We can’t hear you!
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: controversial development, which will give a full opportunity for people to see
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): David, David, sorry David could you start again?
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: Apologies for that, errm I totally endorse the move by Councillor Foulkes to have the site visit for number nine. It is essential that we get the widest possible publicity and transparency in making sure we end up with the right decision. So I do endorse that.
My quick reason for speaking at this time of course is to ask for a site visit on item twelve, which is Stone Hive, Darmonds Green, West Kirby. That is it looks a simple site in
[8:00]
terms of the application agenda we’ve got but it’s far more complex than it would appear on paper. So no doubt we will benefit from having a site visit for that particular development before we make a decision to approve or refuse it. Thank you Chair.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, are there any others? OK, if I could just read those three out that have been requested and get Committee’s approval?
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Excuse me, can I ask a question?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Sorry no you can’t ask.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: It’s just about site visits.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): If I don’t cover it, then I’m sure we’ll get someone to cover the answer for you, but I may very well cover it in a moment for you.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Can I just mention the site visit, …
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): I’m sorry, I’m sorry, if, I’m sorry can I, can you just listen to what I’m about to say and then if it’s not covered then we’ll get somebody to cover it for you.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: OK.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Agenda item 9 which is land adjacent to Saughall Massie Road, errm agenda item 12, which is Stone Hive, Darmonds Green, West Kirby and agenda item
[9:00]
13 Pipistrelle Rise, Noctorum. Are the Committee happy to have all those as site visits?
COUNCILLORS: Absolutely.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): can I suggest that we have a site visit on Tuesday 13th of December? And we’ll meet at the Town Hall at 10 am?
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: What time?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): There’s, we will be meeting at 10am and then going to the various sites, so there will be a different time allocated for each of these sites. It’s normally twenty minutes to half an hour for each site, depending on how long we’ve got to travel, but it will be publicised and the agents will be advised of exactly what time that will be.
And the ward councillors will be also be advised.
CLLR CHRIS BLAKELEY: Chair, can I just raise a point to raise what’s been raised by Councillor Lewis, if you’re going to use a one item agenda for the fire station at a err location nearer to the site, in Saughall Massie, will the site visit
[10:00]
still be on the 13th? And will the meeting then, when will the meeting be?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Err, well we don’t know all of that detail at the moment so, Councillor Blakeley because we don’t know whether we’ll be moving the venue, whether it will be a one item agenda, so as soon as we are aware of that we will make it known.
CLLR CHRIS BLAKELEY: Thank you Chair.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): OK, thank you. As the lady was asking the question, has your question been covered?
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Can I, I think if we do have a meeting whether here or Saughall Massie, we’ll be doing comparisons with the Upton fire station and I don’t know about West Kirby, but certainly it refers to Upton so maybe we should consider visiting both of those, if you’re able to ..?
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): We can only consider the one application, which is before us I’m afraid.
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: OK.
CLLR ANITA LEECH (CHAIR): Thank you for your comment. Anybody who would like to leave now, please feel free to do so because we will not be discussing those items this evening and thank you for your attendance.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
£761.50 of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s costs application rejected in Saughall Massie fire station information request case by First-tier Tribunal
£761.50 of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s costs application rejected in Saughall Massie Fire Station information request case by First-tier Tribunal
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0033)
Well, I finally got the costs decision from the First-tier Tribunal today in which I was the Appellant.
This continues from an earlier blog post about the hearing which ended with the Tribunal, MFRA, ICO and myself agreeing that I should receive the information.
Merseyside’s Fire and Rescue Authority’s costs application of £1,212 has been rejected by the Tribunal. Although the decision also refers confusingly to a total amount of their costs application of £1192.23.
Two out of the three Tribunal Members (although it doesn’t specify which two) don’t think I acted unreasonably in the period 4th August 2016 to 22nd August 2016. This means £224.66 of MFRA’s costs application is rejected by a majority decision of the Tribunal of 2:1.
Of the remaining £967.57, a further £467.57 is rejected.
This leaves £500.
Basically the argument about the £500 is this.
In late August 2016 following a request from the Tribunal, I stated to MFRA that if they were to provide me with the 4 A4 pages requested, I would be happy for the case to be ended by consent order.
MFRA chose not to end the case this way (although I did receive the 4 A4 pages from ICO on the 14th October 2016). I was sent an altered version of the 4 pages from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority about 48 hours before the hearing.
Therefore because MFRA had legal costs from 22nd August 2016 to 23rd September 2016 this is what the application is about.
However in the decision the Panel admit that they agreed to MFRA’s costs application at the hearing before they had actually read the bundle for the hearing.
Indeed the fact they hadn’t read the bundle for the hearing before making decisions on costs is recorded in the reasons for the decision itself. Is it reasonable to expect the judiciary to read the papers before reaching a decision?
In fact the wording of the decision implies the panel members were put to great inconvenience by having to read the bundle and travel to the hearing itself!
There are legal arguments I could make as to why this £500 costs award shouldn’t have been made in the first place, but I will not reveal those until the matter is settled.
I feel pretty confident that the £500 will be overturned on appeal and I intend to appeal it within the time limit for doing so. Certainly the majority (£761.50) of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s costs application has already been rejected.
I notice that somebody has put the wrong case number on the decision which shows the Tribunal’s ongoing flair for accuracy!
It’s managed to achieve that now with a costs order for £500, although estimates of the legal costs for First-tier Tribunal cases are usually at around £10,000 for the public body involved.
The bit in the decision about a decision being made on the papers, I don’t remember being made at the hearing (although I will check my notes). In my view a hearing might have avoided some of the misunderstandings that have obviously arisen.
I’ve asked the Tribunal to reissue the costs decision with the correct case number (EA⁄2016⁄0054 rather than EA⁄2016⁄0117).
Does anyone wish me to include a copy of the decision in this blog post?
There are matters that came out during the Tribunal which I will publish on this blog that as they relate to the expenditure of a total of £8.4 million of public money I’m staggered that the Tribunal would write in its decision, that the First-tier Tribunal case “has involved costs to the public quite disproportionate to its significance or the matters in issue.”
Clearly the significance of the issue (in my eyes) is that MFRA told untruths to the public during its consultation to get the answers it wanted and refused to tell the public it had put aside £300,000 to pay Wirral Council for the land at first Greasby, then Saughall Massie.
Those untruths in the consultation have now formed part of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s planning application.
21 Conservative councillors request public meeting to discuss halting Girtrell Court closure plans
21 Conservative councillors request public meeting to discuss halting Girtrell Court closure plans
Bernard Halley (left) talking about Girtrell Court at the Wirral West Constituency Committee 11th February 2016 L to R (foreground) Bernard Halley, David L to R (background) Graham Hodkinson, Cllr Matthew Patrick
21 Conservative councillors have requested a special meeting of Wirral Council councillors to discuss the future of Girtrell Court. Based on promises that the replacement service would be “equal to, or better than” Girtrell Court, the councillors point out that the twenty bed service at Girtrell Court is being replaced by a ten bed unit.
Therefore they do not believe that replacing a twenty bed service with a ten bed service is “equal to, or better than” Girtrell Court and call upon the Council to reverse its decision to close Girtrell Court.
The public meeting to discuss the future of Girtrell Court is expected to take place on the evening of the 14th November 2016 in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED. It will start at either 6.15 pm or when the previous meeting to discuss the future of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority finishes.
Updated 16/11/2016 You can watch what happened at that Extraordinary meeting of Wirral Council held on the 14th November 2016 to discuss Girtrell Court below.
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.
Extraordinary Meeting, Council (Wirral Council) Girtrell Court 14th November 2016 Part 1 of 2
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.
