Category: Regeneration and Environment

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

                         

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service's Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens Answering Wirral's Councillors Questions About Fire Service Cuts On Wirral
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens Answering Wirral’s Councillors Questions About Fire Service Cuts On Wirral

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.

Dan Stephens, Chief Fire Officer for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service gave a presentation to Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Committee on his “least worst operational response options”. He explained that due to budget cuts, if they could get the land (and money from government) to build a new fire station in Greasby that this would lead to the closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton.

He described in detail the various options to save money instead of station mergers, which ranged from only crewing stations during the day to just having firefighters on call (which would lead to a further five-minute delay in responding to emergencies and less time for training).

Dan Stephens in his presentation said that on fire station closures “as much as this is a very unpalatable option it may be inevitable especially in light of forecasted cuts until 2020”. During his presentation at each point he mentioned cuts to the fire service’s budget by the government Cllr Harry Smith (who wasn’t on the committee but just there to watch) heckled with a loud one word heckle of “criminal”.

The Chair asked Dan Stephens a question about how response times would be affected if they closed Upton and West Kirby stations and built a new one in Greasby. Dan Stephens said that it was difficult to predict, but there would be a slight increase in average response time to both areas. Some areas would see a faster response time and other areas would see a longer response. He believed the average response time would increase by an extra ten seconds to five minutes twenty-five seconds.

The Chief Fire Officer was then asked by the Chair about the likelihood of getting capital funding for a new fire station at Greasby. Dan Stephens answered that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service would be bidding for the money along with other fire authorities, however the bids would be judged on projected efficiencies.

Cllr Steve Foulkes thanked Dan Stephens for his presentation. Cllr Steve Foulkes asked why the cuts to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service were more than the cuts to other fire authorities and asked what percentage change in the precept would be needed to prevent the need for any cuts.

Dan Stephens said it would take a thirty-seven percent increase in the precept to prevent the need for cuts. He said that for every one percent increase in the precept they would raise an extra 67 pence per a Merseyside household.

On Cllr Foulkes’ other question he said that after World War II, the fire service moved from central government control to the control of local authorities. At this time they set national standards of fire cover. In the 1950s there had been lots of heavy industry on Merseyside for example docks. Call outs to industrial areas required a response of two fire engines within five minutes and one within eight minutes. The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service was therefore designed to combat the risk that existed back in the 1950s. The Merseyside population in the 1950s was 1.7 million, now was only 1.385 million.

In 2004 the old Fire Service Act was repealed and the standards of fire cover went too. Population based funding came in, which made Merseyside very expensive per a head of population. Although Merseyside got extra funding based on deprivation this didn’t totally offset the loss of funding.

Cllr Brian Kenny (not a member of the committee but Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability) thanked Dan Stephens and asked when they would make final decisions on the cuts. Dan Stephens answered that the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would set its 2014/15 budget at its budget meeting on the 22nd February 2014. He explained that although the changes to Wirral’s fire stations wouldn’t happen until 2015/16 that they needed to start now on implementation as it would take between eighteen months and two years to build a new fire station. Dan Stephens said that they needed to look into whether they could secure land in Greasby, once this was established they would go to public consultation.

The Chief Fire Officer estimated that they would know within three months whether they would be able to buy the land for a new fire station in Greasby. After public consultation if a decision was made to go ahead, then it would take a year to build a new station. He said that they were working with Wirral Council to try to secure land.

Cllr David Elderton said that if the two fire stations at Upton and West Kirby were merged at Greasby that he was concerned about the effect on response times to call outs to Hoylake. Dan Stephens said that “Greasby is the best operational location” and explained how some of the alternatives to a merger would also impact response times.

Cllr Steve Foulkes asked what the impact of the cuts would be on fire prevention such as fitting free smoke alarms. Dan Stephens said they had cut ninety jobs which included those in advocacy roles. He explained that with agreement with the Fire Brigade Union that they had changed shift patterns. The savings from this offset the total savings they needed to make. He said they would maximise the amount of time they could spend on fire prevention but that there would still be cuts to this area.

The Chair thanked the Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens for answering questions from councillors.

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

Wirral Council plays the Regeneration Game (badly)

Wirral Council plays the Regeneration Game (badly)

Wirral Council plays the Regeneration Game (badly)

                                

Just before Christmas started Wirral Leaks asked for a guide to the BIG Fund/ISUS/Working Neighbourhood investigation. Well where to start?

BIG stands for business investment grants. ISUS stands for intensive start-up support.

BIG is not to be confused with Think Big (marketed under the rather terrible catchphrase Think Big! Think Wirral). Think BIG was for grants of over £20,000 and as far as I know isn’t included in the whistleblowing allegations. Think BIG had a budget of £300k a year in Wirral Council’s budget from 2009/10 and is now called the Think Big Investment Fund.

Business Investment Grants (for under £20,000) were awarded to companies that were successful in applying for a business investment grant. Grant Thornton (who are also Wirral Council’s auditors) were asked in October 2012 for a quotation for work to look into the whistleblowers’ concerns. As a result of this work, two reports were produced and sent to Wirral Council. One report was on BIG and the other on ISUS.

In response to a question from Nigel Hobro to Cllr Phil Davies at the full Council meeting in July, Wirral Council published the summary of Grant Thornton’s report into the BIG program.

I made a Freedom of Information request for Grant Thornton’s ISUS report in August 2013. On the 23rd September 2013 Wirral Council stated that “the report, which has been reported previously, has been handed over to the Police for their consideration, in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report” and refused providing the report using a s.30 exemption (Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public Authorities).

I asked for an internal review as the investigation had been carried out by Grant Thornton UK LLP (who isn’t a public authority). Another factor I pointed out was that Wirral Council weren’t bringing criminal proceedings, but instead passing it to the police. I also pointed out that s.30 was a qualified exemption and subject to a public interest test (which Wirral Council hadn’t included in its original reply).

Wirral Council’s response to the internal review was that they still refused to release the report. However they did provide further detail as to why. Firstly they stated that the investigation into the BIG and ISUS program was done independently of Grant Thornton’s role as Wirral Council’s auditors. This was to “review the earlier investigation conducted by the authority’s Internal Audit section and to conduct their own investigation into these allegations” and referred to an assurance by Grant Thornton that their work on BIG & ISUS was independent to that of their work auditing Wirral Council’s accounts.

Wirral Council regarded the work that Grant Thornton had done on BIG and ISUS as on Wirral Council’s behalf, therefore in Wirral Council’s view a s.30 exemption still applied. Stating this in English only a person with a legal background would write “as such Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is still appropriate as the investigation was conducted by an organisation acting on behalf of the organisation.” Despite referring it to the police, Wirral Council gave the impression they hadn’t made their minds up as to whether they would start a criminal prosecution themselves. However if they hadn’t made their mind up already not to institute criminal proceedings on this why refer it to the police?

In a concession though, they did agree with me that the original refusal should have included Wirral Council considering the public interest test. The person doing the internal review did carry out a public interest test (of sorts).

They gave many reasons against disclosure (and none for). The reasons they gave were that they regarding it being in the public interest not to disclose the report were that “the investigatory process is safeguarded“, that it would “undermine an investigation/prosecution of criminal matters“, “dissuade members of the public from reporting potential or actual wrongdoings“, “undermine the prosecution process and the role of the criminal courts” and “could prejudice the right to a fair trial“.

However, there is more than this in this story. As referred to in this previous blog post headlined “Million pound contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd for ISUS scheme was never signed” and referred to at 1.16 to 1.22 of Grant Thornton’s report the contract between Wirral Council and Enterprise Solutions Limited (also known as Wirral Biz) was never signed (a copy of the unsigned contract is linked to from that blog post).

Therefore Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd don’t regard it as a binding contract. Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd are quoted in Grant Thornton’s report as stating in a letter to Wirral Council from December 2012 “this company has nothing to hide in relation to its involvement in any of the above programmes [one of which was the BIG programme] on which it provided services. We are therefore prepared to grant access on the basis requested, on the understanding that your costs of the exercise are borne by the Council.”

Despite this commitment by Enterprise Solutions (NW) Ltd to Wirral Council by letter in December 2012, that they had “nothing to hide” Grant Thornton state in 1.21 of their report that “we have not been given access to the documentation retained by the company concerning the services it provided under the BIG programme and have, therefore, been unable to discuss these with Enterprise Solutions.”

Complicating the matter further, Wirral Council was also in receipt of money from the (since abolished) North West Development Agency in the form of grants. This was for the ISUS (intensive startup side of things). The first ninety pages of the contract with the North West Development Agency is here and a further thirty-six pages here.

The North West Development Agency money given to Wirral Council under the terms in the contract (one hundred and twenty-six pages isn’t the whole contract as there were pages on publicity requirements I haven’t scanned in yet) came from Europe. Just to complicate things even further, Wirral Council also used Working Neighbourhood Funds money to fund these programs.

The whistleblowers’ concerns were that companies that didn’t qualify for grants were given them. On the BIG side, applications were first reviewed by the BIG Panel then the award of the grants were agreed by Wirral Council’s Cabinet (not part of public meetings of Cabinet but in private after the press and public were excluded) due to “commercial confidentiality“.

Grant Thornton looked into the applications of six companies that had applied for business investment grants. In five of these they found “financial anomalies” which were not explained to the BIG Panels. Four of these five were “significant anomalies” which had not been brought to the BIG Panel’s attention. The types of anomalies are outlined in 2.33 but ranged from accounts that indicated that the applicant had paid unlawful dividends (contrary to the Companies Acts) to balance sheets were one year’s opening balance didn’t match the previous year’s closing balance.

One applicant had included a £500 grant from Wirral Council in its accounts, which had been received four months before the accounting period that the accounts covered. Grant Thornton recommended that out of the six applications it looked at that Wirral Council should claw back the grant to the company referred to as BIG6 and refer that application to the police (which happened at some point earlier this year).

I asked Merseyside Police some questions in September about their investigation in September. The reply I got from a Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Thompson was “This matter is currently in the hands of Wirral Borough Council and any requests for information you have should be directed to them, perhaps by way of a Fredom of Information enquiry” (yes freedom is spelt incorrectly in the reply, but to be fair to Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Thompson I would guess that freedom is a word used very rarely by police officers).

This blog post contains a transcript of the answer given to Nigel Hobro by Cllr Phil Davies back in July 2013.

So who knows what’ll happen next in this overly complicated saga? Who knows? Certainly my attempts to make inquiries have been stonewalled (apart from the contracts which I’ve published). However there is an unconfirmed rumour that DCLG (the Department for Communities and Local Government) are going to clawback grant money from Wirral Council in 2014 which could come to a six-figure amount.

So there you have it, nearly everything I know about the BIG/ISUS saga and Wirral Council.

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

Secrets about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration revealed

Secrets revealed about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration plans and Neptune

Secrets revealed about Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Town Centre Regeneration plans and Neptune

                             

Indicative illustration of Neptune Development Limited’s masterplan for Birkenhead Town Centre
Indicative illustration of Neptune Development Limited’s masterplan for Birkenhead Town Centre

Earlier this year I made a Freedom of Information request for the procurement advice that Wirral Council received from Peter Oldham QC and also Weightmans’ partner Sean Crotty about the regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre.

A Rosemary Lyon (one of Wirral Council’s in-house solicitors) refused this request on grounds of commercial confidentiality (its own and other third parties). She stated that providing the information would “adversely affect its [Wirral Council’s] bargaining position concerning potential regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre which would result in less effective use of public money” and “make it less likely that companies or individuals would provide the Council with commercially sensitive information in the future and consequently undermine the ability of the Council to fulfil its role”. They even went so far as to claim that releasing the information “would adversely affect the course of justice”.

However, this blog post is the story behind what went on behind the scenes that Wirral Council clearly (according to the response to my Freedom of Information Act request) didn’t want to be disclosed to the public or written about in the media for reasons I will go into below.

On the 16th July 2013, the Leader of Wirral Council Cllr Phil Davies (under delegated decision making powers meaning that he made the decision on his own) gave his agreement to a “preferred development agreement” with Neptune Developments Limited to “allow them to work up a comprehensive redevelopment proposal for Birkenhead Town Centre incorporating Council owned land on Europa Boulevard and involving the re-modelling and offer of Birkenhead Market”.

In the report seen by Cllr Phil Davies before reaching his decision reference was made to “a commitment to develop a clear master plan for Birkenhead Town Centre” in the 2013/16 Corporate Plan. Reference was also made to the previous offer to Wirral Council in 2010 by William Tar Developments to build a casino on two out of three plots of land owned by the Council on Europa Boulevard. That offer was rejected in September 2010.

However what’s not been known widely by the public until now is that “At the same time and in response to the marketing exercise Neptune Developments Limited (NDL) submitted a proposal requesting that the Council move away from disposing of the sites separately and instead work with them to develop a wider regeneration scheme for Birkenhead. NDL had already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street and they suggested that this coupled with Council owned land on Europa Boulevard could be combined to allow a more comprehensive redevelopment scheme to be worked up and in turn would give a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites were developed separately” and that “negotiations have been continuing with NDL since the completion of the marketing exercise”.

Detailed below is Neptune’s proposal,

“Neptune proposes that the project is taken forward on the basis of a two stage agreement. The first, which is the subject of this Report, will involve granting NDL Preferred Developer Status which will be extendible to a period of 12 months and will be subject to NDL meeting the following performance targets:


  • Work up the Master-plan into a detailed implementation strategy for approval by the Council

  • Working with the Council, NDL will develop proposals which will reposition the town as a retail and leisure destination

  • NDL will negotiate further site acquisitions if necessary to deliver the agreed strategy.”

Subject to securing Members (Ed – Members means councillors) approval to the Strategy and Master-plan NDL would then be required to enter into a second Conditional Development Agreement which would commit them, at their own risk, to work up the proposals into a position were they could be implemented and to deliver the returns that are needed to secure the wider regeneration of this part of the Town.

It is proposed that the Conditional Development Agreement with NDL will be structured to ensure the Council receives the best value obtainable for the 3 sites on Europa Boulevard which will be determined by an independent valuation and all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk.”

In a section titled “Other options considered” it’s basically stated that no other options were considered because NDL has an interest in the land needed to build Birkenhead Market on once its moved.

“An initial assessment of the NDL proposals confirms that if delivered the scheme will have the potential to revitalise an important part of Birkenhead Town centre delivering a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites identified in this report were developed out separately. No other options have therefore been considered as NDL has already secured an interest in the balance of the land that is needed to deliver the re-provided market.”

The section on consultation states this “There will be a need to carry out extensive consultation on the scheme prior and during the detailed planning process. This will be carried out jointly between the Council and NDL.”

The section on legal implications refers to the advice that my Freedom of Information request in September was about (and refused). Once again Members means councillors.

“7.1 In the event that Members want to pursue this proposal and to ensure that it is compliant with current EU procurement law, Officers have sought advice from Weightmans LLP and Counsel about its legality.

7.2 The advice has now been received and it concludes that the Council would at this stage be able to enter into a Stage 1 Preferred Development Agreement on the proviso that a final test of lawfulness is carried out when the Stage 1 work has been completed and the detailed arrangements can be assessed.

7.3 NDL is aware of this advice and would be prepared to complete the first stage obligations at risk to allow the final lawfulness test to be undertaken when the scheme has been fully worked up.”

In other words Wirral Council’s happy to pass on the advice it received (at a cost of £7,404 of taxpayer’s money) to Neptune Development Limited to help them in a commercial venture as it may result in Wirral Council receiving money in the future for land in Birkenhead that it doesn’t want.

According to this article in the Wirral Globe in July 2013 Wirral Council wants to rebuild Birkenhead Market and move it.

Neptune Development Limited clearly as they have “already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street” have a commercial interest in any master plan proposals and would be able to “negotiate further site acquisitions” in advance of the master plan becoming public knowledge.

Doesn’t this all sum up how Wirral Council tries to operate though and considering the public interest in the regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre being done in accordance with EU procurement law do you dear reader think I should make a further Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the advice they received from Peter Oldham QC and Sean Crotty of Weightmans in relation to this matter in the hope that they would provide it this time?

P.S. If anyone would like to have a stab at translating ”all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk” into plain English that can be understood by the average person please leave a comment!

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

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

                               

Halfway through November after having attended (instead of going to one of the fireworks displays across the Borough) a Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee at Wirral Council on Guy Fawkes’ Night I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council for the briefing note that officers promised councillors about the effect of Peel’s dredging of the River Mersey on Wirral’s beaches.

The first reply stated I would have it by the 3rd December, then a further one by the 10th December, then on the 12th December they said they didn’t have one (making me think that was an end to it). On the 20th December I received an email telling me that the briefing note had gone out to councillors the day before. A copy of the briefing note was attached.

As it’s in the form of a Word document file, it doesn’t display in HTML correctly on the whatdotheyknow.com website, so I’ve included the briefing note below.

Briefing note requested by Members of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on 5 November 2013

1 Introduction

At the above meeting Members asked for a briefing note on dredging of the River Mersey and the Liverpool 2 proposals. This information is now provided in the narrative below and by reference to the documents which are available on the Marine Maritime Organisation’s web site. If any further information is required then please do not hesitate to let me know.

2 Dredging and Liverpool 2

In response to formal consultation from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) during September 2012, the Council noted that it’s own Coastal Strategy proposes continued maintenance of coastal protection infrastructure in the New Brighton/Egremont area and went to conclude based on the evidence provided, Wirral Council was satisfied that the proposed development will align satisfactorily with its terrestrial and marine plans and projects (see page 45 at: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/public_register/cases/documents/liverpool2/consultation_responses.pdf). The application to the MMO was approved on 12 December 2012.  

Consequently, the Council has not raised any objection to the arrangements for dealing with the dredging that would arise from the Liverpool 2 project, which have been subject to environmental assessment (see pages 3 and 8 at: http://www.eib.europa.eu/attachments/pipeline/20120101_nts_en.pdf) .

David Ball

Head of Regeneration and Planning

19 December 2013

The first document linked to explains that in order to make the channel deep enough for “post-Panamax container vessels” that the depth of the channel will be increased from 6.9m to 8.0m to “enlarge the tidal window through which vessels will be able to access the quay” and the dredging was expected to “commence in late 2013” lasting six to nine months.

The dredging is being done using the rather wonderfully named “trailer suction hopper dredgers, cutter suction dredgers and backhoes”. Wirral Council’s response to the consultation on this is below.

Wirral Borough Council (WBC)
Further to your email, the following sets out the position in relation to the three questions in your email;

How does the development impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough?
ANSWER The consultation material submitted with the MMO Licence application draws heavily on the Environmental Statement submitted with the original Harbour Revision Order application and Wirral Council is satisfied that the information provided, and subsequent discussions with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning on the placement of monitoring equipment, give sufficient comfort to Wirral that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough.

How does the proposed development align with any existing Wirral Borough Council plans or projects
ANSWER There are no terrestrial projects that would be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The Council is supportive of the principle of the Seaforth Dock expansion given the strategic importance of the Port of Liverpool for Merseyside and the North West and the need to secure it’s long term competitive position in the face of competition from ports elsewhere in the UK and Europe and support objectives. Wirral Council is preparing a Core Strategy for the Borough and no proposals within the Core Strategy will be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The Strategic importance of the port is also recognised within the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West. The Council is also consulting on a Coastal Strategy that proposes continued maintenance of coastal protection infrastructure in the New Brighton/Egremont area. From the evidence provided and the monitoring strategy proposed, Wirral Council is satisfied that the proposed development will align satisfactorily with its terrestrial and marine plans and projects.
The reports to the Council’s Cabinet/Select Committee previously emailed to you provide further context and detail, if required.

Any other comments on the proposed development
ANSWER Whilst not constituting an objection to the MMO Licence application, Neil Thomas’ email of 2nd November referred to the fact that Wirral Council is not satisfied with the initially proposed location of wave and current monitoring equipment. However, the Council is in discussion with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning with regard to re-locating monitoring equipment closer to the coastal defences at New Brighton, within the Mersey Estuary, with the intention of providing a more effective means of monitoring the impact of the development on Wirral’s coastal defences and navigation within the Mersey Estuary.

What’s interesting in Wirral Council’s response to the consultation is that they state both “that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough” but also “the Council is in discussion with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning with regard to re-locating monitoring equipment closer to the coastal defences at New Brighton, within the Mersey Estuary, with the intention of providing a more effective means of monitoring the impact of the development on Wirral’s coastal defences”.

So what does the environmental report state about the likely impact of this dredging on New Brighton? On page 16 it clearly states “The proposed scheme is predicted to have a minor adverse impact on tides and waves at New Brighton, MHDC have agreed to place a wave/current meter to monitor any changes in parameters which could affect this frontage. This measure forms part of a Deed of Agreement between MDHC and Natural England.”

All this of course leads to a number of questions (and I hope someone who knows more about this topic will leave a comment in answer to them).

1. Considering the above, was the recent flooding at New Brighton made worse by this dredging considering the “minor adverse impact on tides and waves at New Brighton” in the environmental report?

2. Why when the environmental report was available at the time of the consultation, did Wirral Council state in its response to the consultation “Wirral Council is satisfied that the information provided, and subsequent discussions with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning on the placement of monitoring equipment, give sufficient comfort to Wirral that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough.” and that considering what Wirral Council knew about the vulnerability of Marine Point to flooding that “There are no terrestrial projects that would be adversely impacted by the proposed development.”?

3. Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

4. Which reports to Wirral Council’s Cabinet and committees were “previously emailed”?

5. Was the above known when planning consent was given for Marine Point and did the design of Marine Point take the above into account when considering flood risk?

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

What Really Matters budget options, Improvement Board review, Foxfield School move, Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre, Rock Ferry High and Acre Lane sale, Fernbank Farm update, contracts and Wirral Council’s response to critical reports

What Really Matters budget options, Improvement Board review, Foxfield School move, Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre, Rock Ferry High and Acre Lane sale, Fernbank Farm update, contracts and Wirral Council’s response to critical reports

What Really Matters budget options, Improvement Board review, Foxfield School move, Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre, Rock Ferry High and Acre Lane sale, Fernbank Farm update, contracts and Wirral Council’s response to critical reports

                                 

The first half of last week saw each of the new policy and performance committees met to discuss the current What Really Matters? consultation on Wirral Council’s budget options for 2013-14.

The first policy and performance committee (Families and Wellbeing), which has a remit covering both education and social services met on Monday. As education and social care are about three-quarters of Wirral Council’s budget there was much discussion about what the impact of the budget options would be. At about two and a half hours long councillors asked questions of officers of the fifteen budget options that fell within the remit of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee. The budget options ranged from cutting £100,000 of funding to reduce teenage pregnancies and £60,000 to try to reduce substance misuse to getting schools to pay for school crossing patrols, the school improvement service and the early retirement costs of their staff (a saving of £1.215 million over two years). Another budget option (saving £2 million over two years) discussed was reducing the opening hours of twelve Children’s Centres. If this option is agreed then there will be a future public consultation on outsourcing the running of Wirral’s Children Centres to the private, faith or voluntary sector. As the What Really Matters consultation runs to the 6th December you can respond to the consultation by completing the questionnaire on Wirral Council’s website.

The second policy and performance committee (Regeneration and Environment) met on Tuesday evening to discuss ten budget options. Being Guy Fawkes night what politicians said was at times drowned out by fireworks, however the meeting started with the unusual scene of a committee Vice-Chair (Cllr Steve Foulkes) arguing with its Chair (Cllr Alan Brighouse). Normally a committee’s Chair is of the same political party as the Vice-Chair, but as the Lib Dems only have one representative on the Regeneration and Environment Committee the Chair and Vice-Chair are from different parties. The source of Cllr Steve Foulkes’ ire towards Cllr Alan Brighouse was about a Oxton Lib Dem Focus in which Cllr Foulkes claimed that Cllr Alan Brighouse was critical (or at least was associated with critical comments about) the What Really Matters? consultation. The rest of the meeting was about the budget options ranging from the not particularly controversial (the Floral Pavilion or Floral Hall as one councillor called it charging a £1 booking fee on tickets), to the Friends of Birkenhead Kennels running Birkenhead Kennels resulting in its opening hours reducing to 8am to 8pm (from a twenty-four hour service), cancelling maintenance of the non-golf and non-football pitch parts of Arrowe Park as well as cancelling maintenance of “fourteen local parks, thirty-two natural and semi-natural green spaces, and forty-four amenity green spaces”, switching off more street lights (alternate lights in residential areas) to charging at car parks at Fort Perch Rock, Royden Park, Wirral Country Park, Eastham Country Park and Arrowe Country Park. The charging at these five car parks is particularly unpopular with the public and a petition against introducing car parking charges at Eastham Country Park has attracted over a thousand signatures.

Wednesday saw the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee meet to consider five budget options and there were more fireworks. Cllr Chris Blakeley who welcomed the new councillor Matthew Patrick followed by saying that “might be the only kind word you’ll hear from me” wanted the meeting adjourned and resumed after the consultation had finished. The four Conservative councillors voted for an adjournment but were outvoted by the Labour councillors, a Lib Dem councillor and an independent councillor. The budget options they discussed (although the Conservative councillors decided not to ask any questions after being outvoted over having an adjournment) was to axe the Council Tax discount of 7.76% to the over 70s (or in an option that saved less money limit the discount to Band A, B and C properties), increasing what Wirral Council charges for its costs for Magistrate’s Courts summons for Council Tax non-payment or business rates non-payment from £85 to £95, charging people extra when they use their credit card to pay Wirral Council for something, an option involving merging their telecommunications contracts, reviewing mobile phone usage and buying cheaper printing equipment and finally transforming Wirral Council (basically making five hundred staff redundant and reducing redundancy payments to the legal minimum).

Thursday saw a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet. A revised recommendation for item 17 (progressing neighbourhood working including strategic reviews of street scene and community safety) was agreed that requested a further report and delegated future decisions about this area to individual Cabinet portfolio holders. The financial monitoring halfway through the Council’s financial year projected nearly a £600,000 underspend. However most of the underspend was agreed to be set aside to meet future restructuring costs with £100,000 released from reserves for spending to do with the Open Golf tournament next year. Cllr Phil Davies also made a comment about car parking charges and stated that the income from car parks had gone up this year to £1.4 million compared to £1.2 million the previous year (although not as much as expected). He singled out Cllr Stuart Kelly for particular criticism for commenting on the car parking charges shortfall in the press and used this opportunity (as many Wirral Labour councillors do) to blame their problems on the Coalition government finishing by calling on opposition councillors to “be more responsible”. He also reported that Wirral Council had received almost all of its Icelandic investment back and were confident of receiving the whole amount.

Cllr Ann McLachlan gave an update on the Improvement Board. There is a consultation on a review of the Improvement Board’s work followed by a public question and answer session of the Improvement Board on Friday. As part of its review a report has been published which makes for interesting reading including the view of the Improvement Board that when it first started its work that Wirral Council was denying it had the corporate governance problems that were identified by the Improvement Board.

The outcome of the consultation on moving Foxfield School from Moreton to Woodchurch was also reported (the Planning Committee recently granted Wirral Council planning permission for the move) and Cabinet agreed to move the school. The Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee talked about a report produced as a review by councillors looking into the outcomes for looked after children. The report’s recommendations were agreed.

Ben Harrison of the Byrne Avenue Community Trust told the Cabinet that they had got agreement on £350,000 of funding (to match Wirral Council’s £350,000) and wanted to start work on repairing the sports hall. The Byrne Avenue Community Trust wanted to restore the building, creating employment and asked that the asset be transferred to the Byrne Avenue Community Trust. David Armstrong (the Assistant Chief Executive) talked about the history of the site, which was classed as a surplus Council asset. He pointed out that the big funders (Sports England and the National Lottery) had turned down grant applications from the Byrne Avenue Community Trust and that the Community Trust hadn’t submitted a business case to the Council. The Council’s view that was due to the presence of asbestos that the repairs would cost three or four times more than the £700,000 allocated to give it a lifespan beyond the short term and that it had very significant running costs. There were serious structural problems with the building and their concern would be that however well intentioned that it would only be partially restored. He referred to other sports facilities nearby that had been built over the last ten years. Cllr Phil Davies commented on it and his memories of the building.

Cllr Adrian Jones, the Cabinet Member for Central and Support Services expressed his regret at the unhappy position the Cabinet found themselves in. He showed photographs of rusting steel reinforced beams supported by steel acro bars that were rotting away and estimated the cost of repairs at two to three million pounds. He said that the £350,000 was desperately needed and wouldn’t be wasted or lost and that he was sure they’d go away painting him as the bad guy. Cllr Phil Davies said that the condition of the building was more serious than they’d originally been told and that £700,000 wouldn’t go near what was needed to bring it to a minimum safety standard. He referred to the nearby Oval and facilities at Prenton High School for Girls. The Cabinet agreed the recommendations in the report which were to retake possession of Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre from Byrne Avenue Community Trust, withdraw the offer of a £350,000 grant and reallocate it to other Community Asset Transfer activities, declare the asset surplus and give authority to its disposal and if sold on the open market to do so at auction. David Armstrong reassured the Byrne Avenue Community Trust that Wirral Council would allow them to make a photographic record and recover any of their property so that the community would have a record of Byrne Avenue Recreation Centre.

There was a slight change to the recommendation agreed in the report on asset management and disposals. Although Acre Lane (the former professional excellence centre) and the former Rock Ferry High school were both declared surplus to requirements, the land at Manor Drive (called Fernbank Farm) was not declared surplus to requirements due to the Birkenhead County Court case hearing on the 21st November. Cllr Phil Davies said that they had a challenge to try and find an alternative site for the pony club which he knew was much loved and cherished. He said that they wouldn’t lose anything by awaiting the outcome of the legal case and it was agreed that a decision on declaring Fernbank Farm would be deferred to the next Cabinet meeting (which would be after the court case on the 2nd December). This change to the original recommendation was agreed by Cabinet.

The Cabinet then agreed to note a report on proposed public health contracting arrangements for 2014/15 and to a further report in February 2014 which would include a recommendation to agree to all 2014/15 contracts. Cabinet also agreed the award of the reablement and domiciliary support contract to providers named in the exempt appendix.

Agreement to proceed with a joint procurement for garden waste (including the option of providing composting services in-house through the Parks and Countryside service) was agreed by Cabinet.

The Highways and Engineering Services Contract for 2014-2018 (currently run by Colas) was awarded to either BAM Nuttall, Galliford Try or North Midland Construction. The “preferred bidder” that Cabinet decided on was again in an exempt appendix. Approval to start a tender for a four year traffic signals maintenance contract (with an option for a two year extension and cost of £350,000 a year) was also given by the Cabinet.

A two year pilot of emergency accommodation for homeless sixteen and seventeen year olds was agreed by Cabinet. Finally Cllr Phil Davies welcomed the Council’s new Director of Resources (and s.151 officer) Vivienne Quayle and expressed his thanks to Jim Molloy and his work as Acting Director of Resources. The Cabinet then excluded the press and public from the remainder of the meeting which included two business grants to Wirral companies or businesses, the exempt appendix for the Reablement and Domiciliary Support Procurement contract, the exempt appendix for the Options Appraisal for the Future Treatment of Wirral’s Kerbside Collected Garden Waste, the exempt appendix for the Highway Services Contract 2014 – 2018 and exempt appendix for the Emergency Accommodation Provision for 16 and 17 Year Olds.

Later this week a special meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will consider a report on Wirral Council’s response to critical reports (2010 – 2013) and a review of the Improvement Board which includes a suggestion that Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee should co opt some independent members to itself.

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