Category: Regeneration and Environment

Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings

Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings

Wirral Council launches Future Council consultation on 17 budget options for £2.5 million savings

                                                       

Future Council Wirral logo
Future Council Wirral logo

Ed – Update 14:55 9/9/14 to fix 6 incorrect links to the budget options that was helpfully pointed out by a reader.

Yes, it’s another annual consultation on savings from Wirral Council that began yesterday and runs from yesterday to the 31st October 2014. What’s this one on? This is on £2.5 million of cuts that Wirral Council need to make in 2015/16.

Although the documentation refers to £4 million of budget options this seems rounded to the nearest million (the options total £3.75 million). Out of these options about £2.5 million will be chosen (two-thirds by total value).

Here are the documents and links:

Final Full Consultation Pack (this is a 21 page document which covers all options).

The options are then in various “themes” and are below by theme (I’ve also included the amount in pounds next to each option for financial year 2015/16 if that option is chosen).

This means some of the larger savings options are almost certain to go ahead which are those involving community libraries, the all age disability service, youth and play, preventative maintenance (highways and parks), Council Tax Over 70s discount and Girtrell Court.

These six options total £2.566 million of the £2.5 million savings required.

The other eleven options seem less likely to meet with public approval as they will be opposed by (in some cases) large sections of Wirral’s society. Some of them have already been rejected in earlier years following consultation such as charging for car parks at the country parks, school crossing patrols etc.

With the options below I’ve briefly included a sentence or two explaining what it’s about.

Customer Contact

Reduce library opening hours to four hours (10am to 2pm) with these libraries opened either two or three days a week. This option does not seem to apply to the four central libraries or combined libraries/One Stop Shops whose opening hours remain the same.

Delivering Differently Theme

Close four satellite youth centres & end funding Play Scheme.

Managing Demand

Remove 41 school crossing patrols.

Income and Efficiency

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

If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?

If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?

If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?

                        

At the time of writing, there is an election underway. Once the results are know, twenty-three people will become councillors and asked to sign a declaration that they each accept the office of councillor. Regulation 2 of The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) Order 1990 specifies the form that a declaration should take. It is short so it is copied below.

DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE

I, ……. having been elected to the office of councillor declare that I take that office upon myself, and will duly and faithfully fulfill the duties of it according to the best of my judgement and ability.

I undertake to be guided by the National Code of Local Government Conduct in the performance of my functions in that office.

Date ………. Signed ……..

This declaration was made and signed before me

Signed ……..

*Proper officer of the council of the county, district or London Borough of ……

*If the declaration is made before any other person authorised by section 83(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, adapt accordingly.

So all the councillors on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee have each signed a clause in their acceptance of office which states they will “be guided” by the National Code of Local Government Conduct when undertaking their duties as councillor.

The National Code of Local Government Conduct, which the Secretary of State issues under s.31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 states this on the subject of lobbying about planning applications.

LOCAL SUPPLEMENT TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS

Contracts, Planning Applications etc: Canvassing

  1. If you are canvassed by any member of the public who requests, directly or indirectly, your aid in securing a business contract with the Council or in the determination of a planning or other application you shall, subject to the qualification contained in the following paragraph, report such canvassing to the Director of Corporate Services, who shall investigate and, where appropriate, report on such canvassing to the Council.
  2. Subject to paragraph 6 below in relation to contracts, a passing comment by a member of the public on a matter of public interest should not necessarily be construed as canvassing; in assessing whether an approach merits reporting the matter to the Director of Corporate Services, you should consider the circumstances of the approach and whether the approach appears to be made from a narrow vested interest or whether it can justly be described as being in the wider public interest.

Wirral Council has a Code of Conduct to guide both councillors and officers in how planning matters are dealt with. The sections of it that deal with lobbying and the National Code of Local Government Conduct are included below.

1.2 This Code of Conduct relating to Planning Matters is intended to be supplementary to the National Code of Local Government Conduct prepared by the Secretary of State for the Environment under provision of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The provisions of the National Code continue to have full force and effect. The purpose of this Code is to provide more detailed guidance on the standards to be applied in relation to planning related issues.

….

1.6 It is recognised that Members will, from time to time, be approached by developers and objectors in relation to planning proposals.

1.7 Part of this Code is intended to assist Members in dealing with and recording such approaches and is designed to ensure that the integrity of the decision making process is preserved.

2. Lobbying

2.1 To ensure that the integrity of the decision making process is not impaired, either in reality or in perception, through the lobbying of members who will make decisions, it is important that any approaches by lobbyists are recorded and that any representations made to members form part of the public information leading to any decision. If an approach is received by a member of the Planning Committee, from an applicant, agent or other interested party in relation to an existing or proposed planning application, then the member shall:

Inform such applicant, agent or interested party that, in order to avoid accusations of partiality, he/she is only able to offer procedural advice and that any such person should either write to officers of the Council or write or speak to a member(s) who is not on the Planning Committee. This should not however be taken to mean that members who are on the Planning Committee should not listen to the views that the lobbyist wishes to express.

Complete the standard form provided, and forward this to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning. This will enable a record to be kept of any such approach. This form of record keeping will assist individual members to counter any accusations that his or her decision has in some way been biased or partial.

Where a member of the Planning Committee receives written representations directly in relation to a planning application, (or proposed planning application) the member should pass a copy of the correspondence to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning in order that those representations can be included in the officer’s report to the Committee.

2.2 Members of the Planning Committee should avoid organising support for or opposition to a planning application and avoid lobbying other Members. Such actions can easily be misunderstood by parties to the application and by the general public. Members of the Planning Committee should also not put pressure on officers for a particular recommendation.

So to recap, both the National Code of Local Government Conduct (which councillors on the Planning Committee have signed a form to state that they’ll be guided by in their decision-making) and Wirral Council’s own Code of Conduct state that if a councillor on the Planning Committee is lobbied over a planning application, then the councillor should contact an employee of Wirral Council to report it. Wirral Council’s Code of Conduct makes it clear that this is to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning. The post of Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning no longer exists since the senior management restructure. However the equivalent officer now would either be the Director of Regeneration David Ball or the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment Kevin Adderley.

Last month I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council for both a copy of the blank form that councillors are to use to record such lobbying approaches and a copy of any forms submitted over the past twelve months (March 2013 to March 2014).

Despite the 20 day legal time limit for responding to my request expiring five days ago, Wirral Council haven’t (yet) supplied a copy of a blank form. However Wirral Council have stated that covering the period March 2013 to March 2014 it has no records of any forms detailing lobbying approaches to councillors on the Planning Committee.

On the 20th February the Planning Committee decided to refuse planning application APP/13/01375. The Planning Committee’s decision to refuse has since been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who will reach a decision at some point after 21st May.

Prior to the Planning Committee deciding to refuse the application, the Chair of the Planning Committee Councillor Bernie Mooney received a two-page letter. The letter was sent by Edward Landor Associates who were acting on behalf of the applicant and states “It is requested a copy of this letter is made available to all Committee Members”. The two page letter is below and you can click on each page for a higher definition and more readable image if you want to read it in full.

Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney page 2
Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney Page 1 of 2
Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney page 2
Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney Page 2 of 2

This two page letter is clearly lobbying of a councillor on the Planning Committee. If the letter was circulated to the whole Planning Committee it is a letter lobbying every councillor on the Planning Committee. Shouldn’t councillors on the Planning Committee who received the letter have filled out a form recording this lobbying? So why do Wirral Council in response to my FOI request state “Wirral Borough Council can confirm that no such forms have been submitted during the specified timeframe”?

At the start of the Planning Committee on 20th February that made the decision on the planning application referred to above, Councillor Bernie Mooney went through some of the provisions in Wirral Council’s Code of Conduct for planning matters and then said (you can watch a video of her saying this by following the link) “They’re the rules as they stand. So they’re the rules I hope everybody understands them, I don’t think I’ve missed anything out. My job is just to make sure everything runs smoothly and everything is complied with”.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

                     

Yesterday Councillor Phil Davies agreed that consultants on the Hoylake Golf Resort project would be paid an extra £113,189 based on a report in the name of Kevin Adderley, the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment. David Ball, Wirral Council’s Head of Regeneration (davidball@wirral.gov.uk/0151 691 8395) had a role in preparing the report.

The report on which Councillor Phil Davies made his decision has not been made available to the public on grounds that it has “commercial sensitive information”. However the surprising decision would seem to not to comply with The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. The decision is a key decision however:

  • A document detailing that they wish to make a key decision was not published 28 clear days by Wirral Council before making the decision (see Regulation 9 (Publicity in connection with key decisions).

  • A notice was not published five days before the decision detailing agreement of the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee that it was an urgent decision and could not be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 10 (General Exception).

  • A notice wasn’t published claiming special urgency and detailing agreement of either the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee, Mayor or Deputy Mayor that it was urgent and couldn’t be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 11 (Cases of special urgency).

  • It’s a legal requirement that an annual report (see Regulation 19) is brought by the Leader to a meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about decisions where a case of special urgency is used since the last report. Despite this being a legal requirement since the 10th September 2012, to my recollection no such report has ever been brought to a Council meeting.

Councillor Phil Davies’s decision could still be called in by councillors as a call-in deadline of 24th April 2014 has not yet passed. The reason for the urgency was given as “to allow the OJEU Competitive Dialogue process to be finalised and a preferred developer for the Hoylake Golf Resort project to be selected and announced prior to the Open Golf Championship at Royal Liverpool in July 2014.” At least one Conservative councillor has previously asked at a public meeting about when the public will be consulted on Wirral Council’s Hoylake Golf Resort plans.

UPDATED: The extra £113,189 paid to David Langdon (AECOM) is in addition to £123,823 already agreed by Cabinet last year who also agreed to £55,000 of legal advice from Pinsent Masons LLP.
A report on Wirral Council’s website from last year details what the Hoylake Golf Resort is about.

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

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

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.

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

                   

Mersey Tunnel tolls have been decided annually by Merseytravel (Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority), however the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority ceased to exist at the start of this month and was replaced by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (also known by its legal name which is the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority). The existing Merseytravel representatives from Wirral Council (along with representatives from the other Merseyside Councils) sit on the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority with the addition of two representatives from Halton.

Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee discussed a motion about the Mersey Tunnel tolls, which had been referred to it by the Mayor at the Wirral Council meeting of the 10th March 2014. Prior to recent changes to Wirral Council’s constitution such policy motions were discussed and voted on by a meeting of all of Wirral’s councillors (of which there are sixty-six). The Regeneration and Environment Committee has only fifteen Wirral Council councillors on it.

The motion about the Mersey Tunnel tolls was proposed by Councillor Les Rowlands (a Conservative councillor for Heswall ward whose term of office ends this year and will probably be standing soon for reelection). Councillor Les Rowlands is also one of four Wirral Council representatives on Merseytravel (the others representing Wirral Council are Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Ron Abbey and Councillor John Salter). The motion was seconded by Councillor Andrew Hodson (who is also a Conservative councillor in Heswall ward) and a copy is below.

(1) Council regrets the recent tunnel toll increases for all toll classes forced through by the Labour-led Integrated Transport Authority.

(2) Council notes that since the introduction of the 2004 Mersey Tunnels Act, sponsored by former Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas and supported by Labour Members throughout its passage through Parliament, Merseytravel has accrued over £40 million in surpluses which have been used on their pet transport schemes and vanity projects.

(3) Council also notes that Merseytravel have squandered large amounts of money as can be evidenced by the £70 million failed tram scheme colloquially known as ‘Line 1 to Nowhere’ and its extravagance in occupying a half empty building at No 1 Mann Island.

Therefore Council believes

(a) The consistent increases year on year is damaging Wirral’s economy putting further pressure on motorists and businesses.

(b) Council recognises such increases place a greater strain on tunnel users who have to travel to and from work placing an unfair tax burden on Wirral residents.

(c) Council recognises discount toll schemes/free crossings for local residents already exist in other parts of the country and while recognising that fast tag users benefit from a discount, Council believes that regular users should be rewarded with a local discount scheme over and above that afforded by use of the fast tag such as that announced for the Mersey Gateway Bridge of a “local user discount scheme” with up to 300 free journeys per year.

Council therefore requests the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to write to the Chief Executive/Director General of Merseytravel requesting an urgent meeting to discuss: if and how the Mersey Tunnels can be reinstated back into the national road network and Tunnel Tolls abolished.

If that is not possible how a ‘local user discount scheme’ over and above that which already exists through the Fast Tag can be implemented to ease the burden on the hard pressed motorists of Wirral.

Video of the first twenty-five minutes of the meeting can be watched above.

The meeting started with Councillor Steve Foulkes asking for legal advice from the “Borough Solicitor” (who is Surjit Tour who wasn’t present but Colin Hughes was present to offer legal advice to committee members) on whether he should declare just a personal interest in the Mersey Tunnel tolls agenda item as a member of the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority*.

Councillor Steve Foulkes also pointed out that Councillor Les Rowlands was also a member of Merseytravel and that he “did state he [Councillor Les Rowlands] could take part in the debate”** and asked for clarification over the nature of the interest.

* The Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority had in fact ceased to exist as it had been abolished eight days previously by s.6 of The Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014. What Councillor Steve Foulkes probably meant instead was an interest arising as he is a member of the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

** Whether Councillor Les Rowlands took part isn’t a decision for Councillor Steve Foulkes to make. Councillor Les Rowlands isn’t part of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee but as the proposer of the motion Standing Order 7(6) applies which states “A member of the Council who has moved a motion which has been referred to any committee shall be given notice of the meeting at which it is to be considered. The member shall have the right to attend the meeting and an opportunity of explaining the motion.”

Colin Hughes who forgot to turn on his microphone when replying said, “Yes, I’d declare that if I was you I’d do that.” However Colin Hughes didn’t state whether it was a personal or prejudicial interest, just that Councillor Foulkes had to declare an interest.

The Chair asked if anyone was subject to a party whip (no one replied that they were). The Chair then said the next item was “minutes of the last meeting which was held on the 10th March”.*

*The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee hadn’t met on the 10th March, only Cabinet and a meeting of full Council met on the 10th March.

The Chair said they would change the order slightly and have the second notice of motion (on the Mersey Tunnel Tolls) first. He then said (in relation to Cllr Les Rowlands), “I think I’m right, he was here but he’s not here now but Councillor Les Rowlands doesn’t wish to speak to that.” Other councillors drew Cllr Alan Brighouse’s attention to the fact that Councillor Les Rowlands was in fact sitting on the front row with cries of “He’s here” to which Councillor Alan Brighouse replied, “He’s here is he? I can’t see him!”.

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

Politicians Paint A Picture to Public of Plenty of Pavement Parking Problems at Policy and Performance Committee

Politicians Paint A Picture to Public of Plenty of Pavement Parking Problems at Policy and Performance Committee

Politicians Paint A Picture to Public of Plenty of Pavement Parking Problems at Policy and Performance Committee

                       

Cllr David Elderton shows photos of pavement parking problems to the politicians on Wirral Council's Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee
Cllr David Elderton shows photos of pavement parking problems to the politicians on Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee

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 item on parking on pavements and grass verges starts at 5:00

Councillors on Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee received an update on parking on pavements and grass verges.

Some councillors were most put out at what they saw as a lack of enforcement action on pavement parkers in the patch they represent. Officers of Wirral Council said that apart from places where there was a traffic regulation order, single yellow or double yellow line that enforcement of pavement parking was down to the police.

However the police saw matters such as pavement parking as a low priority. Wirral Council had piloted nine areas where traffic regulation orders restricted pavement parking. Since the summer, they had also placed over a hundred warning notices on cars parked on the pavement.

Damage to grass verges, pavements, underground services and the Council’s insurance costs for highway related tripping accidents were also discussed. Councillors eventually decided (as there was nothing in the budget for this item) to refer the matter to the next meeting of Constituency Committees to deal with as they see fit.

Cllr Jerry Williams said, “In Bebington this is one of the major issues. We get more complaints about verges and parking issues than anything else at all and it’s because you know people are parking on verges, pavements not where we’ve got difficult circumstances of 1920s houses, it’s where you’ve got a road where it’s five car widths wide and they’re parking their cars on the pavements and verges and a good example in Bebington is Teehey Lane shops, just had a few thousand pounds spent on it in relation to broken pavings. Again the issues of people with disabilities tripping and other people. The next thing you know the milk lorries are driving on at seven o’clock in the morning when I’m running down the road, driving on the pavements damaging the pavements again.”
…
“Let’s also have a go at these utility companies. We all know who are the worst offenders. Who do I think is the worst offender? Without any question of a doubt BT Openreach. They are the worst, every time the Council officers go onto them to ask for some sort of regulation, they certainly say we’ve discussed it with the operatives, things are going to be done. The next thing you know, we’ve asked the officers you see them parking on the pavement!”

Cllr David Elderton said, “I’d put this on the screen but frankly I can’t put a USB on at the moment. That photograph of … situation where he showed the problem of putting stickers on people’s cars causing a major obstruction. That did help and the press release that came out on the 18th July last year did also enhance things for a while and as you will know I kept this next to my heart in my wallet even the ticket that you’re supposed to put under the windscreen of a car.

So that wasn’t a good idea. In my opinion we’ve lost the way, we’ve lost the emphasis on it completely. It’s no longer being managed and controlled in the way that I believe it should be.”

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