Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road

Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road

Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road

                                              

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

Below is our objection to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road. If you wish to also object the closing date is Friday 26th September 2014. A copy of the plan of which parts of the Birkenhead Market Service Road will be affected by the proposed Traffic Regulation Order can be downloaded from here. These plans are provided under the “fair use” provisions for news reporting in s.30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 c.48 and have already been provided to the public but are copyrighted by Ordnance Survey.

Surjit Tour,
Wallasey Town Hall
Brighton Street,
Seacombe
CH44 8ED

134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral
CH43 7PH

Dear Surjit Tour,

Your reference: KO (proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road)

Below are our objections (from both John and Leonora Brace) to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road which is being consulted on (the consultation closes on 26th September 2014).

The public notice for the proposed traffic regulation order was first published in the Wirral Globe on the 9th July 2014 with a closing date for objections of the 1st August 2014. However as a copy of the proposed order, Council’s statement of reasons and map had not been made available to the One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Seacombe when we visited on the afternoon of the 9th July 2014, it was agreed that in order for the Council to comply with the Regulation 7(3) of SI 1996/2489 that a further public notice would appear in the local press (with the necessary documents being sent to Council offices for inspection by the public during the consultation period).

This notice was published in the Wirral Globe on the 3rd September 2014. A meeting was held on site to discuss the proposed traffic regulation order on the afternoon of 17th September 2014 at which Leonora Brace, John Brace and two Wirral Council officers were present. This meeting gave an opportunity for both sides to discuss the outstanding objections we had to the readvertised traffic regulation order and to observe levels of parking in the area of the Birkenhead Market Service Road at that time.

The reasons behind the proposed traffic regulation order were explained to us by officers. The effect of the traffic regulation order (if agreed) would be to prevent parking by Blue Badge holders, as all of Birkenhead Market Service Road that was not a loading bay would have a “No waiting and no loading at any time” restriction (known as double yellow lines with kerb blips which prevents parking by Blue Badge users).

If agreed, it would displace those drivers with a Blue Badge that can park there for up to three hours to elsewhere in the area of Birkenhead Market. Although Blue Badge users can park in Council car parks without any restriction on length of stay, at the time of the site visit the nearest Blue Badge spaces in the Council car park next to Birkenhead Bus Station were all in use.

The Pyramids multi-storey car park was referred to by officers both by email and during the site visit as a potential solution to the displaced parking that would result, however it was confirmed to me by a member of the Pyramids staff that although parking there is free on a Sunday, that during Monday to Saturday a charge is made for parking. We were both told that the Pyramids Shopping Centre is one of the two bodies that are funding this traffic regulation order (the other being the organisation that runs the Birkenhead Market Hall).

During the site visit, one of the stall holders at Birkenhead Market expressed concern over the potential effect on his customers. It was clear there was confusion about the proposed traffic regulation order and there had been no consultation with each stall holder at Birkenhead Market to explain the proposed changes.

Individual stall holders have a sublease which allow them to park for up to an hour in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. Their rights are detailed in the sublease between Birkenhead Market Limited and Birkenhead Market Services Limited (which is defined in the lease as an overriding lease) and the obligations towards stallholders are specified in section 1.1 (Right to use half width of access road) and 1.2 (Rights over Market Loading Bays). There is also a lease between Wirral Council and Birkenhead Market Limited dated 31st July 2003.

Some stall holders are also in receipt of a Blue Badge, therefore can now park in some stretches of the Birkenhead Market Service Road for up to three hours. However if the proposed traffic regulation order is agreed, these disabled stall holders will be restricted to only the hour they are now granted under the sublease.

During the period of consultation on this traffic regulation order, a car parking review was undertaken by councillors which reported back to councillors on the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on Monday 22nd September 2014. One of the recommendations to a future Cabinet meeting agreed at that meeting was “Cabinet approves the following ‘Objectives’ and ‘Principles’ which should provide a guiding framework for any future Car Parking strategy.” which included the following objective relevant to this objection:

“To provide sufficient numbers of disabled parking spaces in good proximity to shops and services.”

Whereas we realise that this recommendation is yet to be agreed by a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet, the traffic regulation order as proposed would prevent parking for Blue Badge holders in the Birkenhead Market Service Road (whether customers, market stall holders or others) and displace these drivers elsewhere. As observed on the site visit, the nearest disabled parking spaces in the car park by Birkenhead Bus Station were all in use, which would force drivers with mobility problems further away from where they shop or work. The lack of spaces nearby could displace these drivers to the Pyramids car park where on a Monday to Saturday they would be charged for parking.

It is understood that a minority of careless drivers who do park in an obstructive way in the Birkenhead Market Service Road and that this can cause problems for commercial traffic wishing to load and unload. However there are existing powers to traffic wardens and the police to deal with such matters and the existing Blue Badge holders parking responsibly shouldn’t be penalised for the actions of other drivers and forced to park elsewhere!

The public notice about this traffic regulation order published in the press on Wednesday 9th July 2014 details five proposed sections on Birkenhead Market Service Road of over thirty metres of “No Waiting” and four restrictions on stretches on the Birkenhead Market Service Road of over 30 metres in “parking bays” with an exemption in the parking bays for goods vehicles.

Regulation 9 of SI 1996/2489 states that if the proposed traffic regulation order prohibits loading and unloading by vehicles of any class for a total distance of more than thirty metres out of fifty metres on one side of any length of road and an objection is made, then a public inquiry has to be held before making such an order.

If Wirral Council agrees with us that a public inquiry should be held on this matter, then the regulations require a further public notice published in the local press at least three weeks before the inquiry is held.

Our last points are that Wirral Council has duties under various pieces of legislation (Equality Act 2010 c.15, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 c.13 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 c.50) not to discriminate against the protected minority of disabled people in the way it carries out its procedures and policies. The traffic regulation order, if agreed, would prevent disabled shoppers in receipt of a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. It would also restrict disabled market stallholders in receipt of a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road from the current three hours they have to the one hour that they are granted under the sublease. It appears that this latter group of people has not been directly consulted in this matter.

For these reasons, whereas we both understand the commercial reasons why the Pyramids and Birkenhead Market Hall want Wirral Council to grant a traffic regulation order to help deal with obstructive parking on the Birkenhead Market Service Road, we formally object to the proposed traffic regulation order and look forward to hearing from you in the near future about how you wish to proceed in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

John and Leonora Brace
===================================================================================================================
Previous articles on this matter:

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

14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

14 councillor Scrutiny Panel created by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

                                                   

Knowsley Council filming the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 19th September 2014
Knowsley Council filming the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 19th September 2014

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.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting of 19th September 2014 (Part 1) agenda items 1-8

At the time of writing Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee will be meeting tonight (22nd September 2014 starting at 6pm in Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall) and as well as the emotive issue of car parking (you can read the report of officers and report of the seven councillors who looked into it on Wirral Council’s website, item ten is a verbal update on scrutiny of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

I was present at the meeting on Friday morning of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority which both myself and Knowsley Council filmed. For a bit of background Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council’s population is half the size of Wirral and all of its 63 councillors since 2012 are from the Labour Party.

Thanks in part to a retweet by the Liverpool Local Enterprise Partnership of a tweet on Knowsley Council’s Twitter account (with ~7,000 followers) and Councillor Phil Davies mentioning it during the meeting itself, Knowsley’s video footage of the meeting uploaded at about 4pm that day has had 129 views. This compares to a total of 21 views of our footage (which is in two parts of the same meeting but unlike Knowsley’s in higher quality HD).

Going briefly into the history of filming at Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meetings, I made a request to film the first meeting held on April 1st 2014 (the request was refused by Knowsley’s Chief Executive Sheena Ramsey as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority constitution puts this decision in the hand of an officer, specifically the Chief Executive of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council). After that meeting, the Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson then went and briefed the Liverpool Echo about how upset he was at not being picked at Chair instead of Wirral Council’s Leader Cllr Phil Davies.

Possibly as a result of this, the next meeting (when they had to pick a Chair again as it was the Annual General Meeting), on the 13th June 2014 the meeting was broadcast live on the internet in HD by Knowsley Council as a Google Hangout. In the interest of transparency at this point I will point out at this point that I receive a small amount from Google in advertising on Youtube videos I’ve filmed. Once again my request to film this meeting was again refused (somewhat strangely considering that Knowsley Council filmed the meeting and broadcast it live).

On August 6th 2014, as regulars readers of this blog will know, the law changed on the issue. A week later a report of Knowsley Council’s Chief Executive proposed a policy on filming which was agreed to by their Leader Ron Round. This decision was made by their Leader as a delegated decision. However the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is a separate body to Knowsley Council.

Obviously they couldn’t stop me filming the meeting last Friday. However a Knowsley Council officer before the meeting referred to the part (still in Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s constitution) that allows their Chief Executive to refuse requests to film. However if they actually did so now it would be unlawful and therefore the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority constitution should be changed to prevent confusion. I did suggest a change, but the response back from the officer concerned was that they won’t recommend to politicians a change the Liverpool City Region Authority’s constitution which is partly why a Scrutiny Panel for the Combined Authority is needed as a check and balance! The Knowsley Council officer I talked to before the meeting did tell me that a policy on filming (although never formally agreed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) had been agreed “that morning” and surprise, surprise is the same as Knowsley Council’s policy on the matter.

Even Liverpool City Council have amended their constitution and agreed a new policy on filming of their public meetings last week at a meeting of all their councillors on the 17th September, following a meeting of their Constitutional Issues Committee on the 8th September which was attended and filmed by myself.

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.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting of 19th September 2014 (Part 2) agenda items 8-16 (Scrutiny Panel item starts at 1m 55s in this clip)

However back to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, there has been criticism of it by some councillors as it is a “one party state” as it comprises the Leaders of the councils on Merseyside (plus the Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership) and all the Leaders of the councils on Merseyside are all from the Labour Party.

What was agreed on Friday morning by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (the report can be read here was creating a scrutiny panel and appointments of councillors to this scrutiny panel have already been made by the Merseyside councils. The first meeting of the Scrutiny Panel is planned for the 19th October, although there will be a training session before that for councillors on it on the 26th September. I presume it will run along similar lines to the Merseytravel Committee (which is since April part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority).

There will be fourteen councillors on the Scrutiny Panel for the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. Two are nominated from each council on Merseyside, with two extra places to represent opposition parties (one of these two opposition places being Councillor John Hale from Wirral Council to represent the Conservatives and the other, Councillor Haydn Preece from Sefton to represent the Liberal Democrats). The two Labour representatives from Wirral Council are Councillor Anita Leech (Labour) and Councillor Mike Sullivan (Labour).

I’m sure councillors will hear something similar in the verbal update given at tonight’s meeting about scrutiny of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

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

Expense claim forms for Councillor David Elderton (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014

Expense claim forms for Councillor David Elderton (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014

Expense claim forms for Councillor David Elderton (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014

                                                   

Our thrilling alphabetical series on councillors’ mileage expense claims to Wirral Council’s Human Resources department continues with Councillor David Elderton. Councillor David Elderton is a Conservative councillor for West Kirby and Thurstaston ward. We were supplied with ten pages relating to him and thankfully he seems to be submitting them on a monthly basis and actually filling them in!

It contains interesting details in it such as details of a briefing about Wirral Council’s Hoylake Golf Resort with that popular person at Wirral Council [officer name redacted]. In fact there are many redactions, which is probably why HR took about a month to do this.

I’ll point out it’s not Councillor David Elderton redacting this, it’s Wirral Council officers. The issue of a briefing for councillors in that area about the Hoylake Golf Resort was discussed at a meeting of Council so it’s nice to see it happened, albeit with Wirral Council’s usual air of secrecy about the whole matter. When are Wirral Council going to be open and transparent with the public about this matter instead of shrouding it in the veil of commercial interests and secrecy?

A lot of the rest of the pages are to do with Councillor David Elderton’s work on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee, its associated site visits and other committees that he is on. As he provides departure and arrival times it shows how long things take when a councillor lives at the other end of the Borough from Wallasey Town Hall. It’s a shame the redactions of it don’t help with understanding more about the work councillors do behind the scenes away from the gaze of the cameras and public.

Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10
Cllr David Elderton expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10

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

Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres

Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres

Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres

                                                    

Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts

Now for what I promised earlier with a story about children’s centres. Basically Cabinet is going to have to decide tonight whether or not to proceed to a six-week consultation on recommendations for the early years service and children’s centres.

The proposals which may/may not go out to consultation is to try to save £2 million. Staff at risk of losing their jobs (if a decision to go to consultation tonight) will also be consulted.

Admittedly the report has the odd type, for example at 6.1 it refers to the 2104 budget which should read the 2014 budget as Wirral Council officers don’t tend to consider the budgetary implications in ninety years time of their decisions! 😀

The proposals that may/may not go out to consultation would involve the closure of at least eight children’s centres with four being downgraded to satellite/outreach. The outright closure of some could result in a grant clawback of the money Wirral Council got to build them.

Of course if the Labour Cabinet does decide to go down this path of consultation on closure, eventually a decision will have to be made.

I’m sure at that stage or even before (if consultation is agreed tonight) the Conservatives will be reminding Labour of the election leaflets they’ve put out in recent years that told the people of Wirral that the children’s centres are not safe in Tory hands so please vote Labour. 😀

Oh dear, and what will the local newspapers make of it all?

The report on that item and revised appendix can be found by following these links.

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

Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million

Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million

Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million

                                                      

Biffa Waste Service Limited November 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1036840.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited November 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1036840.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited December 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited December 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited January 2014 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Biffa Waste Service Limited January 2014 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28

Above are three of the recent monthly invoices to Wirral Council from Biffa Waste Services Limited for November 2013 (£1,036,840.28), December 2013 (£1,032,201.28) and January 2014 (£1,032,201.28).

I did not request the invoices for other months during that financial year (2013/14), but I would assume that the other nine are for similar amounts of around a million pounds. So why am I writing about this and what does Biffa Waste Services Limited actually do for it’s ~£12 million it receives each year from the taxpayer?

Well as shown on the invoices it’s for collecting the bins, cleaning the streets and extra amounts for working on a Bank Holiday. I’ll be looking more closely at the current contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited (which runs to 2017) tomorrow morning (if all goes well).

However there is some political news on the Biffa front, in fact Wirral Council seems to be bolstering itself for a bit of bad press coverage judging by the Cabinet papers for tonight’s Cabinet meeting (only tonight if you happen to reading this on the 11th September 2014).

If you’re interested in reading the papers yourself on Wirral Council’s website, it’s the Streetscene Environment Services Contract Extension item which is item 4 on Cabinet’s agenda.

I remember Mark Smith (a Wirral Council officer who is Head of Environment and Regulation) getting a grilling by the Chair (Rt Hon Frank Field MP) at a recent Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting about what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to see as a lack of openness and transparency in the area of how Wirral Council manages the Biffa contract.

In the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s view (from my memory of the meeting) he wanted (rather reasonably some might say) to know exactly what the public were getting for the ~£12 million a year that the taxpayer pays Biffa Waste Services Limited through Wirral Council. Sadly there was no one present at the meeting to answer for Biffa Waste Services Limited and Mark Smith seemed to struggle a little to give the kind of answers that Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to want to hear. However moving on from the frustrations of Birkenhead’s MP/Chair of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee to more local politics (although isn’t all politics local)?

Rather helpfully Appendix 5 to the Streetscene Environment Services Contract Extension item contains the following two entries on the risk register (copied below):

Risk No Description of risk Risk category Risk Owner Gross likelihood Score Gross impact score Total Gross Score Net Likelihood Score Net Impact Score Total Net Score Proposed Controls Responsibility Target date RAG Status
1 District Audit scrutiny on decision process likely Legal / Regulatory Tara Dumas 3 4 12 3 2 6 Member decision based on thorough analysis of risks. Best value comparison work to be undertaken – Local benchmarking plus APSE/Audit commission comparison Update on market position sought from previous consultants contracted to review Biffa contract. Process to be reviewed by internal audit TD
TD
TD
MGa
07/07/14
completed
07/07/14
07/07/14
G
C
G
G
2 Negative political and
media attention
Political/societal PR team – Kathryn Green 5 3 15 3 2 6 Proactive approach by PR with press releases Confirm offer not linked to service/workforce changes LF Post decision 31/5/2014 G
C

In other words, Wirral Council know (before any decision is formally made tonight to enter into negotiations) that it will cause all kinds of trouble. They’ve already decided (it seems) on a public relations line of telling the press it won’t lead to job losses/workforce changes and giving them the “gift” of a press release in the hope that most of the media will just print the press release more or less verbatim and not ask too many awkward questions about the matter.

They even know their external auditor (Grant Thornton) will be asking them a whole bunch of questions to do with it too but surprisingly there are even bigger risks than the media and Wirral Council’s auditors to tackle, although read the risk register at appendix 5 and hopefully you’ll see what I mean.

So how can I sum up what is proposed to be decided tonight quickly? The current contract will Biffa Waste Services Limited will end on March 2017.

The impression I get from reading between the lines of the Cabinet papers, (a lot of the detail has been kept deliberately secret by officers who are recommending to politicians to keep it secret too on grounds of commercial confidentiality) is that Biffa Waste Services Limited seemed to be somewhat concerned that if their multi-million pound 11 year contract ends on March 2017, that they would have to bid in a competitive tender against other companies and organisations for the new contract.

There’s then uncertainty (from Biffa’s perspective) over whether they would end up being the successful bidder or not. It’s called “competition” and is generally required for such large multi-million pound contracts because of all kinds of laws I won’t go into at this point and competition is therefore required for a whole bunch of good reasons.

So someone as Biffa Waste Services Limited has read through the contract they have with Wirral Council and found a caveat. There was a part in the contract that could extend it a further ten years (current prices of ~£12 million a year but yearly increases and variation are usually built-in). This contract covers “all household waste and recycling collections, street cleansing and fly tip removal, waste collection from schools and council offices and wheeled bin deliveries.”

All Biffa had to do to get a further ten years (at ~£12 million a year) was make a formal offer to Wirral Council (which they did) and have this agreed to by Wirral Council (which hasn’t happened yet with the earliest date expected being October 2014).

Due to the size of the amounts involved it has to be a decision made by politicians, specifically Wirral Council’s Cabinet and the councillor with responsibility for this area is the new(ish) Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability Councillor Bernie Mooney (who replaced Brian Kenny earlier this year when he lost an election in May to the Green Party councillor Pat Cleary).

However what’s in the currently exempt appendices?

Well appendix 1 covers the “value and suggested terms of the formal offer from Biffa in return for the Council extending the contract to 2027. In summary the proposal offers the Council a one-off saving split between 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 followed by a continued annual reduction in the core contract price throughout the remainder of the extended contract period to the equivalent value. Officers asked Biffa to clarify the benefits to Biffa if the contract extension was agreed.”

I’m not allowed to link to appendix 1 (as it’s currently a big secret and you’d get an “access denied” type message from Wirral Council’s website if I did), but as the language used by a Wirral Council officer is rather opaque, it has to boil down to how I imagine a summary of what Biffa offered Wirral Council … “give us a further ten years and we will give you very good price if you pick us. Our price is very reasonable, many savings to be had, very good price, you buy from us again we treat you well. We are very good supplier and will take your bins to tip and keep streets clean for another 10 years for a very reasonable price.”

Wirral Council officers asked Biffa to clarify what Biffa would get out of extending the contract a further ten years.

Biffa responded to this on the 10th February 2014. Again I’m not allowed to show you Biffa’s response either on the instructions of Wirral Council officers!

The summary of this response is again in rather opaque language “Biffa indicated that the savings they could offer arose from avoiding future procurement and mobilisation costs, the ability to re-finance their operations and a reduction in overheads due to the stable nature of the contract. The discount is not linked to any service changes.”

In other words Biffa are saying “grant us a monopoly, save us the cost of having to retender for the contract in 2017, Wirral Council will save money from having to retender the contract” (which is a bit of a debatable point really anyway considering the extra costs this will cause doing it this way) “and Biffa will be able to borrow money cheaper because we’ll have a longer contract.” To be honest I don’t agree entirely with Biffa’s point about overheads being significantly lower to justify this.

Another letter from Biffa (exempt appendix 3) is also currently being kept secret by Wirral Council officers (pending a decision by politicians). This letter is about an offer to redesign the fleet of bin lorries from 2017 to collect things such as food waste (to meet Wirral Council’s recycling targets).

However Biffa make it clear that this is absolutely Biffa’s final offer (well unless Wirral Council’s Cabinet say no to negotiations or no to the offer in October 2014 and Biffa have to bid for the new contract starting in 2017)!

Wirral Council officers seem very keen to have the Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree to Biffa’s plan. “80p cheaper per a Wirral person than Liverpool” they state in the report, but strangely 15p more per a person than in Sefton!

Of course Wirral Council’s Cabinet could just choose to reject Biffa’s proposal and decide to bring the service in-house from 2017.

The recent street cleansing cuts to the contract, have been the source of both political and media attention in the recent past. However, what’s the officer’s recommendation?

Oh and before I get to that, Wirral Council asked Eunomia (are they consultants?) in 2012 to look at the Biffa contract, the consultants in fact suggested the contract should be retendered! Eunomia also suggested that if Wirral Council did agree to extend the contract by a further ten years than there should be changes to “contract clauses relating to indexation, labour cost inflation and future efficiency gains” which would be extremely sensible to do considering the current contract is linked to RPI (and let’s face it inflation is quite high)! However the Eunomia assessment is now two years out of date and things have changed somewhat since then.

As Wirral Council officers freely admit in 5.3.4 of this report, they don’t really know if this will save any money at all versus retendering the contract, it all just seems to be educated guesswork and unknown quantities.

The estimated savings have been listed, but surprisingly (and isn’t this usually the case?) not the increased costs (such as an increased audit bill from Grant Thornton for extra work).

It’s the report gets to “legal implications” that things start to get interesting!

Here’s a quote from 10.2 “The Legal colleagues have highlighted that it is necessary to limit the amount of material changes to the contract in order to minimise the risk of the Council being challenged on the legalities of the extension.”

In other words, do it right otherwise one of Biffa’s competitors, or in fact anyone could sue Wirral Council over how it was done.

Then entering into catch 22 territory the legal advice continues:

“Due consideration has been given to establishing whether the Biffa proposal offers Value for Money (Sections 4 and 5 refers) as required under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. However, it is important to note that the only decisive way to determine whether a more advantageous contract could be secured by the Council would be through retendering the contract.”

In other words, Wirral Council don’t know whether this saves them money without retendering the contract in 2017, but if they agree to Biffa’s proposal they won’t be retendering the contract in 2017 so they’ll never really know or be able to prove “value for money” to their external auditors Grant Thornton.

However let’s see, what do officers want? They want politicians to agree to them to enter into negotiations with Biffa, more specifically the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment (currently Kevin Adderley) and then report back to Cabinet no later than October 2014.

Personally (and this is just an opinion) I think politicians on the Cabinet will probably agree to enter into negotiations with Biffa tonight (even though Labour’s tendency in the past has been to bring back services in-house), if only just to keep their options open in October 2014. Quite what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s views on this latest development in the Biffa saga are at the time of writing unknown.

Coming up next today: What Wirral Council’s Cabinet is planning to do about Children’s Centres.

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

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other