EXCLUSIVE: Leaked minutes of Merseyside Pension Fund’s Investment Monitoring Working Party held on the 17th September 2015

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked minutes of Merseyside Pension Fund’s Investment Monitoring Working Party held on the 17th September 2015                                                                      I will start off by declaring an interest as I have a close relative paid a pension by the Merseyside Pension Fund (which Wirral Council administers). My second declaration of interest is that in the section 6. … Continue reading “EXCLUSIVE: Leaked minutes of Merseyside Pension Fund’s Investment Monitoring Working Party held on the 17th September 2015”

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked minutes of Merseyside Pension Fund’s Investment Monitoring Working Party held on the 17th September 2015

                                                                    

I will start off by declaring an interest as I have a close relative paid a pension by the Merseyside Pension Fund (which Wirral Council administers). My second declaration of interest is that in the section 6. Notes Action Points or Discussion Points, the reason for the extraordinary meeting of the Pensions Committee held on the 28th September 2015 was to resolve my objection to the 2014/15 accounts.

These are leaked minutes as only the first page comprising a list of those present, apologies and declarations of interest was published by Wirral Council as an appendix to this report considered by the Pensions Committee at its meeting on the 16th October 2015.

The other ten pages of the minutes of the Investment Monitoring Working Party meeting the Pension Committee decided it was not in the public interest to publish.

Below are the minutes of Wirral Council’s Investment Monitoring Working Party meeting held on the 17th September 2015.


Minutes of Investment Monitoring Working Party,

17th September 2015

In attendance:











(Chair) Councillor Paul Doughty (WBC)Peter Wallach (Head of MPF)
Councillor Geoffrey Watt (WBC)Joe Blott (Strategic Director Transformation and Resources)
Councillor Cherry Povall (WBC)Leyland Otter (Senior Investment Manager)
Councillor Pat Cleary (WBC)Greg Campbell (Investment Manager)
Councillor Adrian Jones (WBC)Susannah Friar (Property Manager)
Councillor Brian Kenny (WBC)Adil Manzoor (Tax Accountant)
John Raisin (Chair of Pension Board)Noel Mills
Donna Ridland (Pension Board)Rohann Worrall (Independent Advisor)
Louise-Paul Hill (Aon Hewitt)
Emma Jones (PA to Head of Pension Fund)

Apologies were received from:

Councillor Ann McLachlan (WBC)Councillor Paulette Lappin

Declarations of Interest

Councillor Paul Doughty declared an interest due to a relation being a beneficiary of Merseyside Pension Fund.

Councillor Geoffrey Watt declared an interest due to a relation being a beneficiary of Merseyside Pension Fund.

Introduction

1. Minutes of the meetings held on 16 April 2015.

Cllr Paul Doughty (PD) opened the meeting. There were no amendments to the minutes.

Action points

None.

2. External Manager Presentations part 1

2.1 Nomura

The Nomura Portfolio Review was presented by Masaaki Tezuka (MT) the Chief Portfolio Manager (Japan) and Andrew Whitaker (AW) Head of Relations (UK). AW introduced the themes of the presentation and MT gave the performance overview and answered questions from the panel.

A discussion ensued with regard to the investment performance and the market review of the year to June 2015. The profits among Japanese manufacturers were debated and it was expressed that it is concealing the weakness in exports. MT stated that exports have been reduced but this is expected to pick up. The competitiveness against the Asian markets was quite strong due to the exchange rate of the yen. It was further discussed that the Japanese market is lagging behind the US and European market.

Action points

None.

3. External Manager Presentations part 2

3.1 JP Morgan – European Equities

Patrick Vermulean (PV), Paul Shutes (PS) and Monique Stephens presented their European equities review and reported on performance and current portfolio positioning. PV explained that Paul Shutes is replacing Nick Wilcox and will assume the responsibility for the client management of the mandate.

A discussion ensued with regard to Ryanair and their outlook for the future. It was explained that Ryanair have changed their focus toward the customer and are addressing their business and website to improve the overall service to create a better business model akin to Easyjet.

PV discussed how they endeavour to ‘take the noise out of the market’ by monitoring earnings consensus and broker analysis; looking at normal distribution to find stocks between two extremes. PV asserted that they have good contacts with management and use a consensus to take companies out of the equation. However, when companies are all moving in the same direction the signal can be weak.

Action points

None.

4. Quarterly Review

4.1 Management Executive

PJW presented the Quarterly Review which covered themes such as the collapsing values of Chinese equities, sovereign bond markets and global monetary policy. PJW asserted that Greece was the dominant theme overall.

PJW reported on a number of issues including global government bond markets and the performance of risk assets. The value of the fund and the funding position was looked at and the performance of the Fund over the quarter and over 1 and 3 years. The asset allocation and MTAA including the MTAA panel meeting on 16 June 2015 were also reported on.

A discussion ensued with regard to the formulation of the benchmark and the strategy of the asset allocation. It was stated that the benchmark is reviewed on an annual basis and the Independent Advisors also offer guidance on this process.

Action points

None.

4.2 Market Commentary

Noel Mills (NM) gave a market commentary and reported on the market background which has been affected by the decline of the global equity market post the second quarter. This is largely a result of the Chinese equity bubble bursting and the renewed possibility of a Greek default which could see a postponement of the US economy moving to higher interest rates. The volatility of the markets continues and US monetary policy is set to tighten.

Action points

None.

4.3 Aon Hewitt Update

Louis-Paul Hill (LH) presented the Strategic Monitoring Report of Aon Hewitt to members. Within his report he gave a funding level update which looked at how the estimated funding level has progressed since the 2010 valuation. The risk analysis, asset allocation, investment outlook and ideas and current research were also reported on.

An extract from that report follows below:

Funding Level Update

Introduction

The following section sets out an estimate of how the funding level has
progressed over the period from 31 March 2010 to 30 June 2015. lt also provides an attribution analysis of the changes in the funding level.

Mercer, the Fund’s actuary, has provided information regarding the Fund’s liabilities. The estimated funding level has been updated to account for the finalised valuation results from 31 March 2013.

Funding Level Progression (4.2 Market Commentary)
Funding Level Progression (4.2 Market Commentary)

Notes:

Please note the funding level update and attribution analysis below do not constitute actuarial advice. They are instead our best estimate of how the funding level has evolved and the driving factors behind this. Further, we are not positioned to, nor do we, offer any comments on the appropriateness of the assumptions provided by the actuary.
 
The funding level fell between the actuarial valuation at 31 March 2010 and the actuarial valuation at 31 March 2013. Since the valuation at 31 March 2013, the funding level improved over the following 12 months to 85%, however the funding level deteriorated during the second half of 2014.

Using "like for like" assumptions (based on the assumptions from 31 March 2013) the funding level at 30 June 2015 remains broadly unchanged over the quarter at 77%.


Asset and Liability progression

The chart below separates the estimated movement in the funding level from the 2010 and 2013 valuation dates into: the estimated liability value movements and the asset value movements.

The liabilities increased in value significantly between 31 March 2011 and 31 December 2012, mainly due to falling gilt yields. For a year following the 31 March 2013 valuation, the present value of calculated liabilities reduced, when the prospect of tapering (a reduction of quantitative easing) caused gilt yields to rise. However, in the second half of 2014 this reversed, as gilt yields moved dramatically lower due to the falling oil price and uncertainty in Europe, resulting in the present value of liabilities rising above 31 March 2013 valuation levels.

While asset performance has been strong, the movement in the value of the liabilities has resulted in a volatile funding level.

The Fund’s assets reduced by c. 2.1% over the quarter, with all asset classes generating a negative return, with the exception of Property.

Gilt yields moved higher over the quarter, reducing the discounted present value of liabilities, as the sharp move up in German bond yields and mixed US economic data impacted the gilt market.

The changes in gilt yields since the last valuation and over the quarter are shown on the charts overleaf.

Progression of assets and liabilities
Progression of assets and liabilities
UK Fixed Income Yield Curve
UK Fixed Income Yield Curve
UK Index Linked Yield Curve
UK Index Linked Yield Curve

Reasons behind the change in funding level



The chart overleaf decomposes the change in the funding level over the quarter across the various contributing factors. The contributing factors are:

Outperformance over benchmark — Approximate impact of any outperformance (underperformance) relative to the assets’ benchmark return.

Benchmark asset return – Approximate impact of the strategic benchmark return over period.

Interest on liabilities – Given that liabilities are due to be paid at fixed points in the future, as we move closer to the time of payment, these liabilities are discounted for one quarter less thus increasing their value (all other market conditions equal). The Fund must achieve this return to keep the funding level unchanged (everything else being equal).

Change in market conditions – Change in discount rate in this period due to changes in gilt yields and inflation expectations.

Scheme experience/other — What has happened in reality to the Fund compared to what was assumed in the valuation over the period. For example, expected inflation versus realised inflation.

Benefit outgo – Assumed benefits (pensions) paid during period.

Contributions paid – Total contributions paid (either taken from the Schedule of Contributions or using actual contributions paid) during period.

Future service cost — Cost to Fund of providing benefits accrued over period.


Funding level attribution (quarter)

Funding Level Analysis - Q2 2015
Funding Level Analysis – Q2 2015
The main points to note are:

The overall effect of the strategic benchmark asset return was a negative impact on the funding level of 1.8%.

Outperformance by managers versus their benchmarks increased the funding level by 0.2%.

Interest accrued by rolling the liabilities forward over the quarter has reduced the funding level by 0.3%.

The majority of the liabilities are real (or index linked) in nature and therefore changes in the real yield will have a large effect. The result of a continued fall in yields over the quarter is shown by a 2.3% increase in the funding level. This is called the "change in market conditions".

Contributions paid resulted in an improvement of 0.3% in the funding level. Benefit payments and future service costs reduced the funding level over the period by a further 0.1% and 0.5% respectively.

Funding level attribution (since 2013 valuation)

Funding Level Analysis - since 31 March 2013 valuation
Funding Level Analysis – since 31 March 2013 valuation
The main points to note are:

The Fund’s assets and investment managers have performed strongly since the valuation.

Interest accrued by rolling the liabilities forward has reduced the funding level although the major negative impact on funding level has come from changes in the market conditions (falling gilt yields).

Contributions paid resulted in a large improvement including the lump sum paid in Q2 2014 with benefit payments and future service costs reducing the funding level.


Action points

None.

4.4 Valuation and Performance Summary including Monitoring Report

LO reported on the monitoring reported quarter 2 and noted there were some minor differences in figures produced due to reconciliation issues.

The valuation of the fund as at 30 June 2015 stood at £6.6bn and ahead of its benchmark by 0.19% returning -2.07% against the benchmark of -2.26%. The performance of the mandates was looked at to 30 June 2015. The performance of the majority of external managers has been good but M&G Recovery and M&G EM Equity continue to lag and are being monitored by the Fund.

Amundi and Legal & General Active Fixed Income continue to be on Watch status.

Action points

None.

5. Internal Presentations

The Responsible Investment report was tabled.

Action points

None.

6. Notes Action Points or Discussion Points

It was agreed that Councillor Paul Doughty, Councillor Treena Johnson, Councillor Pat Cleary and Councillor John Fulham would make up the Task & Finish Group to review the status of ethical investments and to coordinate a public message. EJ to arrange a suitable date.

An extraordinary meeting of Pensions Committee has been arranged for the 28 September 2015 to gain approval of the Annual Report.

Action points

None.

6.1 Noting items

Task & Finish Group to meet.

Extraordinary meeting of Pensions Committee 28 September 2015.

6.2 Action points

EJ to arrange suitable date of Task & Finish Group.

6.3 Summary of Recommendations

None.

6.4 Discussion Points (including any other business)

None.

5.1 Action Points

None.

Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 8 October 2015 at 10.00 am, 6th floor, Cunard Building.

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

Why are people objecting to the Hoylake Golf Resort plans?

Why are people objecting to the Hoylake Golf Resort plans?

                                                             

Cllr Phil Davies at a recent Cabinet meeting
Cllr Phil Davies at a recent Cabinet meeting

Regular readers of this blog will know that this blog has covered Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s efforts to find land for a new fire station first in the centre of Greasby and now on the outskirts of Saughall Massie. However, a much larger threat to Wirral’s greenbelt has received little media attention so far.

The plans for a Hoylake Golf Resort cover an area of 357 acres in the greenbelt. Wirral Council own about 189 acres which they lease to farmers. Hoylake Municipal Golf Course occupies a further 106 acres (which is also owned by Wirral Council). The remaining ~63 acres are owned by private landowners. These landowners have signed agreements with Wirral Council to sell their land if planning permission is granted for the Hoylake Golf Resort.

Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed to spend money to move forward plans for Hoylake Golf Resort back in 2013 at a cost of £178,823. In April 2014 Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed to pay a further £113,189 so that the announcement could be made in time for the 2014 Open Championship.

However the Open Championship came to Wirral in 2014 and went with no announcement. Instead a year later in 2015 Wirral Council announced that the Nicklaus Joint Venture Group had been awarded preferred developer status.

Wirral Council ran a "consultation" that closed last month on the plans. Once a formal planning application is submitted people will have a further opportunity to state their views on the plans.

Commenting on the plans for a Hoylake Golf Resort local councillor Gerry Ellis stated, “As a concept, it’s a wonderful project that could bring much employment to the area and provide excellent new facilities for residents and visitors to enjoy. However, I see many problems ahead which are likely to slow down or even derail the development. Many objectors are already raising their concerns about loss of Green Belt, disturbances to wildlife, potential flooding problems and lots of other issues.

I’m keeping an open mind on it and waiting with interest to see the planning application and other detailed proposals of the developers which are due to be revealed within the next few months.”

Local people have set up a website to air concerns they have about the plans.

A planning application for Hoylake Golf Resort is expected towards the end of 2016.

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

Why after 2 years, 9 months and 13 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group?

Why after 2 years, 9 months and 13 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group?

                                                   

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

Before I start this epic tale, I would just like to point out that someone has started a petition demanding an apology from the Labour administration at Wirral Council for their answer at the last Council meeting about information requests and their poor record on FOI requests.

A long time ago (29th March 2013), I made this FOI request for the minutes of meetings that happen behind closed doors (not public meetings) for committees that councillors sit on. Part of this request (part 26) was for minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group.

I think it is better to provide a chronology at this stage as to how this part of the request went (references are to this part of the request).

29th March 2013 FOI request made.
29th April 2013 Internal review requested due to lack of reply.
30th April 2013 Internal review sent by Wirral Council. Request refused on cost grounds (section 12), but offer made to send minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group.
30th April 2013 Clarification over meaning of request sent/internal review as response on 30th April 2013 was first response.
30th July 2013 Internal review changes reason from cost grounds (section 12) to vexatious or repeated request (section 14).
14th August 2013 Decision appealed to Information Commissioner’s Office.
19th June 2014 Wirral Council amends reason for refusal from vexatious or repeated request (section 14) to cost grounds (section 12).
8th September 2014 ICO issue decision notice FS50509081. Decision notice overturns cost grounds (section 12) reason, finds Wirral Council failed to provide advice and assistance (section 16) and hasn’t responded to request within 20 days (section 10(1)). Wirral Council given 35 days to provide information or different reason.
4th November 2014 FOI request for minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group refused on section 40 (personal data) grounds.
12th November 2014 Internal review of 4th November 2014 decision requested.
30th April 2015 After ICO intervention Wirral Council replies. Wirral Council refuses internal review on section 14 (vexatious or repeated request) grounds.
Unknown date Decision appealed to ICO.
29th July 2015 ICO issued second decision notice (FS50569254). Decision notice overturns section 14 (vexatious or repeated request) reason for all of request except adoption/fostering panel part. Finds Wirral Council have breached section 10 (again).
3rd September 2015 Wirral Council respond to decision notice FS50569254. Minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group now refused on section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40 (personal data).
7th September 2015 Decision appealed to Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
11th January 2016 Wirral Council supply minutes of Safeguarding Reference Group held on 19th April 2011.

Wouldn’t it have just been easier (as they made the offer to send the minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group in April 2013) to supply these minutes then? How much officer time was wasted in refusing six pages of minutes on a committee that 7 councillors sat on and at least 5 senior managers (although one wasn’t present for the meeting).

The sixteen page serious case review about Child A, Child B, Child C & Child D referred to in the minutes dated 6th April 2011 can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

Three of the 7 councillors present are no longer councillors and at least three of the senior managers have either gone into early retirement or left Wirral Council.

There are 4 parts in the six pages of minutes where names have been blacked out. Did it really take 2 years, 9 months and nearly a fortnight to do this?

What was the point in spending over 2 years and 9 months refusing this request? The minutes they’ve supplied refer to a further meeting on the 20th July 2011 so although this is welcome, they may not be the right ones! I requested the minutes of the meeting immediately before my request on the 29th March 2013. Is the implication that the incoming minority Labour administration in 2011 scrapped the Safeguarding Reference Group (which was re-established on the 15th December 2014)? I’m not sure!

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

What was Cllr Samantha Dixon (Chester West and Chester Leader)’s response to criticism over disabled parking problems in Chester?

hat was Cllr Samantha Dixon (Chester West and Chester Leader)’s response to criticism over disabled parking problems in Chester?

What was Cllr Samantha Dixon (Chester West and Chester Leader)’s response to criticism over disabled parking problems in Chester?

                                                                 

An example of blue badge spaces (but not in Chester)
An example of blue badge spaces (but not in Chester)

Well it seems to be the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s lucky day as he has two mentions on this blog. It’s time for an update to Isn’t it time the barriers in local government were removed for disabled people?

However first a recap of the story so far (Wirral councillors and officers can breathe a sigh of relief as this story is about Cheshire West and Chester Council).

Cheshire West and Chester Council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds with a company to put barriers up at its car parks (albeit it this was a decision made by a previous administration). Councillors were at the time assured by officers that the issue of Blue Badge holders/disabled drivers would be thought through. The operation of these car parks however wasn’t outsourced and remains controlled by Cheshire West and Chester Council.

As far as I can tell from the 30th November 2015 last year barriers were introduced at a number of their car parks. Cheshire West and Chester insisted that Blue Badge users (but only those issued by Cheshire West and Chester) could apply for a special microchip to go in and out of the car parks controlled by a barrier. However even Cheshire West and Chester residents with a Blue Badge have to wait a month for a microchip.

Just before Christmas my wife (who is a Blue Badge user) visited one of these car parks to get that traditional Cheshire welcome of (and I paraphrase), "this is a local car park for local blue badge users, now go away".

So I complained and you can read Isn’t it time the barriers in local government were removed for disabled people? for a copy of what I wrote.

Yesterday I received a reply back from the Labour Leader of Cheshire West and Chester Cllr Samantha Dixon. I’m sure the Labour Party is aware what I do for a living, which perhaps explains why as a non-Cheshire West and Chester resident I received a reply. The car park (one of many in Chester) in question is also in the ward that the Leader of Chester West and Chester Council represents.

It’s a matter of public interest, so in the interests of hearing both sides I am publishing her reply here (and my response). As I was writing this blog post, I received a copy of the traffic regulation order and public notice too, so those are included at the end.


Dear Mr Brace

I refer to your e-mail of 21st December to the Rt. Honourable Frank Field MP and copied to a number of Cheshire West Councillors. As your e-mail is about parking in Chester city centre, I am able to provide a response to the Blue Badge parking issues you raise.

You are correct that there is a national Blue Badge scheme, details of which are set out in the Department for Transport booklet entitled "The Blue Badge scheme: rights and responsibilities in England." Under the scheme, Blue Badge holders can park close to their destination, either as a passenger or driver, but the scheme is intended for on-street parking only (please refer to pages 6 and 17 of the booklet). Where a time restriction applies, a parking clock must also be displayed as the concession is limited to a maximum stay of three hours.

Many councils, but not all, also allow Blue Badge holders to park in their car parks for three hours free of charge, but in Cheshire West, four hours free parking is available in the Council’s pay and display car parks. In some council areas, charges apply to Blue Badge holders from the point of arrival in local authority car parks. Spaces for Blue Badge holders must be provided in all car parks whether or not charges apply.

This Council is in the process of converting a number of its car parks in Chester city centre from pay and display to ‘pay on foot’ or ‘pay on exit’ systems in order to be able to manage the car parks more efficiently and to increase the flexibility of payment methods. Where ‘pay on foot’ systems are introduced, it is normally the case that free parking for Blue Badge holders is removed altogether. The Council has, however, introduced a system for borough residents who are Blue Badge holders to apply for a microchip sticker which allows four hours free parking in most car parks affected by the changes, effectively making them permit holders for the car parks in question.

Badge holders who reside outside the borough are able to continue to park for four hours free of charge in Frodsham Street and Hamilton Place car parks, both of which are located in the heart of the city and are for the exclusive use of Blue Badge holders during the day (8am to 6pm). Of these, Frodsham Street (postcode: CH1 3JJ) is the larger car park, providing 80 spaces. I can understand that the directions from Lower Watergate Street seemed quite complicated when communicated via the intercom, but I can reassure you that access to Frodsham Street car park is straightforward. There is also plentiful on-street parking for Blue Badge holders throughout the city centre.

The Council published a notice in local newspapers detailing all the impending changes on 11th June 2015 and the information also appears on the Council‘s website. The signage in the car parks is being replaced as each site is converted and no longer refers to free Blue Badge parking. In light of your comments, we will, however, review the information on the signage to see if it can be improved.

I note your comments about the ticket barriers at Chester Station. We are advised the station is managed by Arriva Trains Wales and that if you send details of your request to the company at: customer.relations@arrivatrainswales.co.uk, they will be pleased to look into it.

I am sorry that you experienced inconvenience on your recent visit and I hope this information is helpful for the future.

Yours sincerely

Sam

Councillor Samantha Dixon
Leader of the Council
Councillor for Chester City Ward (Labour)

Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 972868
Mobile: 07768 177238
Email: samantha.dixon@cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk


Here is my response.


Dear Cllr Dixon,

Thank you for that comprehensive reply to my original message.

I have read your reply to my wife and she has agreed that I should send this response on her behalf. I have also made a Freedom of Information request for the traffic regulation order that relates to the Lower Watergate Street car park. As you will no doubt be aware there are regulations that apply to the traffic regulation orders that apply to this sort of off street parking and at least one of these makes explicit reference to blue badge users.

Thank you for your suggestion to contact Arriva Trains Wales about Chester train station, I already have, but am still awaiting a reply.

I also realise that the decision to go out to tender for the changes to the car park system in Chester was made by a previous administration before the Labour administration took over in May. A company then supplied the barriers/intercom system whereas the operation of this parking system is controlled by Chester West and Chester Council employees.

As you (or if not you your CWAC officers) will no doubt be aware Chester West and Chester Council employees have the ability to check the validity of any blue badge (whether issued in Chester West and Chester or not).

I fear that anything I write beyond this will become somewhat technical and may only make sense to CWAC’s Monitoring Officer/ whichever solicitor at CWAC deals with traffic matters or traffic officers at CWAC. I therefore apologise in advance if I getting technical.

Firstly you haven’t outright stated if the traffic regulation orders relating to the car park in question and the other car parks that this applies to have been changed. It is possible that the notice in the paper you refer to was part of the public consultation on such changes. If so, this hasn’t made clear.

However in order for changes to be approved traffic regulation orders still need to be lawful and comply with the regulations (even for off street parking).

You have stated that accommodation has been made for Chester West and Chester residents with a blue badge to exit and enter the car parks to which the changes have been made.

However the legislation makes no distinction between blue badge users based on the public body that issued the blue badge, so either:

a) the traffic regulation order at Lower Watergate Street still refers to blue badge users and you are preventing non-CWAC issued blue badge users from parking there (when CWAC has the ability to check all blue badges) and/or

b) you are discriminating against some disabled drivers (who do not have a CWAC issued blue badge) whilst allowing CWAC issued blue badge users to park there

You refer to other nearby car parks that Blue Badge users (where the Blue Badge is not issued by CWAC) can use. I presume you regard this as a "reasonable adjustment".

However the issue is the provision of a service by Chester West and Chester Council at the Lower Watergate Street car park.

Essentially the provision of car parking at other nearby car parks is not entirely relevant (although I realise a number of other car parks have been switched to the same barrier system).

I realise you point out that Blue Badge users not issued by CWAC can park on single and double yellow lines elsewhere in Chester. However I’m sure you and I both know how gridlocked traffic can be in Chester city centre (especially on race days). From a traffic management perspective are you seriously suggesting that blue badge users (not issued by CWAC) should park in such a way that will effectively bring traffic to a crawl?

However the problem is that traffic in this off-street car park is covered by a traffic regulation order.

Therefore the The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 applies to whichever traffic regulation order covers this car park.

Regulation 6 of those regulations states:

Exemption in favour of vehicles displaying disabled person’s badges

6.—(1) The following provisions of these Regulations have effect for requiring local authorities to include, in orders to which these Regulations apply, exemptions in favour of a vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge.

(2) Any exemption from a provision which these Regulations require to be included in an order may be limited to vehicles of the same class as those to which the provision applies.

So therefore my point is you can’t treat blue badge users issued by CWAC differently to other blue badge users in CWAC car parks. The point about booklets and everything else is therefore irrelevant.

I am therefore copying in the Monitoring Officer at CWAC Vanessa Whiting in this response and requesting that she (as is her legal duty) follow the procedure in s.5A of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to both:

a) write a report which will be sent to all councillors at CWAC and
b) try and remedy this situation

As I sadly have had a lot of professional contact with various local authority monitoring officers, I hope I will be pleasantly surprised and Vanessa Whiting will remedy a situation that shouldn’t have happened in the first place and that this matter will not require further measures.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace


And in another interesting development, whilst writing this blog post, Chester West and Chester have responded to the FOI request (considered under the Environmental Information Regulations) for a copy of the traffic regulation order and have also supplied the public notice advertising the changes.

Here is a link to the public notice (which is a variation to the original traffic regulation order) and a link to the traffic regulation order.

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 receives extra £725,000 of education funding (but Lyndale is still closing)

Wirral Council receives extra £725,000 of education funding (but Lyndale is still closing)

Cabinet 17th December 2014 vote on Lyndale School closure L to R Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Education), Cllr George Davies, Cllr Ann McLachlan
Cabinet 17th December 2014 vote on Lyndale School closure L to R Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Education), Cllr George Davies, Cllr Ann McLachlan

I do keep an eye on Wirral Council press releases (although I rarely write stories based on them as sometimes the facts in them are untrue) and their latest one is about receiving an extra £725,000 of funding for schools.

I’m half expecting a Labour councillor to pop up and say how terrible this is, how it’s all the government’s fault and that this is the reason that schools like Lyndale School have to shut.

However, this story is more complicated than that and the issue has been discussed at at least one meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee.

Basically the gist of the story is this. Those families on means tested benefits, if they have children can ask the school for free school meals. If they do so, then Wirral Council receives extra money through the Pupil Premium which then results in extra money for the school.

However there is a stigma attached to parents telling a school that their family is on means tested benefits, so many parents don’t. Indeed the parents probably worry about the stigma of free school meals causing embarrassment to their child or children too.

I remember one embarrassing incident from my childhood when I was at a new primary school (I was around ten years old). I went to pay for my school meal at the till but one of my friends didn’t. I ran after them and pointed out they’d forgotten to pay, they turned bright red and explained that they received free school meals because their parents were on means tested benefits. Yes twenty-five years later I still remember!

So Wirral Council has used the housing benefit and council tax information it has instead of relying on parents supplying this information to the school.

As a result Wirral Council will receive an extra £725,000 this year (if you remember Lyndale was being shut for a projected shortfall of ~£190,000).

So you see once again, this mantra of "it’s all the government’s fault" that the Labour administration on Wirral Council repeat again and again turns out to be somewhat of a smokescreen. Labour are in charge of Wirral Council so they are accountable to the public.

Wirral could’ve been doing the above for years and no doubt lost out on millions of education funding over the years as a result. I wonder if this change would never have happened if it hadn’t been for the Rt Hon Frank Field MP behind the scenes persuading the councillors and officers at Wirral Council to be sensible? Indeed the Rt Hon Frank Field MP, rather frustrated by the arcane bureaucracy at Wirral Council recently stated at a public meeting that it was easier to secure peace in Syria than to get Wirral Council to circulate minutes of a public meeting quickly.

This is of course one of the advantages to filming a meeting as you don’t have to wait months for the minutes.

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