Posted by: John Brace | 19 August 2015

FOI response details reasons why Fort Perch Rock car park charging plans were opposed

FOI response details reasons why Fort Perch Rock car park charging plans were opposed


Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3

Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015

After the U-turn last month on car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park, New Brighton I made a Freedom of Information request for the objections made during the consultation period.

In addition to a petition of objection which when the consultation finished had 876 signatures but now has 4,010 signatures there were nineteen written objections which included a thirteen page letter sent on behalf of the Wilkie Leisure Group.

Objectors referred to pay and display parking in Hamilton Square, Birkenhead and the reduction in visitors once charges for parking had started. Many objectors thought that car parking charges would put people off from visiting New Brighton. Some objectors thought that what charging would be unlawful. Others felt that Wirral Council ordering the pay and display ticket machines before the consultation on the proposed traffic regulation order started pre judged the outcome of the consultation.

The most detailed objection from Singleton Clamp & Partners Limited sent on behalf of the Wilkie Leisure Group stated:

The official reason for the U-turn given was the what was in the lease that meant that this could lead to parking charges elsewhere in New Brighton. Promenade Estates were quoted in a Liverpool Echo article by Liam Murphy that they would charge for parking at other car parks in New Brighton if charges at Fort Perch Rock car park were brought in.

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


  1. Mr Brace, You have a Legal Department within the Council to among other things examine Contracts, Leases and other Legally Binding Documents. You also have Legal Advice available at meetings to which Councillors attend.

    • Further, the people who have had to make a Claim against the actual property Owners (Neptune?) re: Flooding may well have to pay higher rents and the Council Tax payer, higher Council tax, due to these and other matters. It is Criminally Negligent to say the Least and once again the Council Tax Payer would foot the Bill.

  2. Mr Brace, The above two comments may sound strange, as the Council would normally be in charge of the Roads, etc, at New Brighton. But it is actually the Business Partners who have influenced Decisions made by the Council, not the Council itself (see 2011 Lease). At least one professional witness within that Consultation has stated it would be unlawful to rely on the 1984 Act. Therefore is this another case of the use of get out clauses?
    move away from the most improved Council in the Country?

  3. I bet the real reason was if they started charging at all the other car parks they would also have to start charging at the car park next to the town hall in seacombe, which is free! and they would want that would they!