Tag: Birkenhead Market

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

                                                                 

I had an interesting meeting with Leonora and two Wirral Council officers in Birkenhead about the proposed changes to parking at the back of Birkenhead Market as a result of a traffic regulation order that’s being consulted on. I will start by pointing out that my wife Leonora regularly parks in the Birkenhead Market Service Road and has a Blue Badge. I did ask for my concerns to be fed into the car parking review which is now happening as a task and finish group chaired by Councillor Paul Doughty.

One of my issues was to do with the fact that if they went ahead with this traffic regulation order it would prevent users with a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. We started our survey of parking outside the One Stop Shop in Conway Street. The short 15 minute bays there were permanently in use. Each time someone moved another car came in within a few minutes. Interestingly G4S was also parked in the short stay bay there and had gone in to the One Stop Shop (G4S were the company the people were protesting about outside the Mayor of Liverpool’s house as reported in the Liverpool Echo recently).

We crossed the busy road and went past the Birkenhead Bus Station.

The blue badge bays in the car park next to Birkenhead Bus Station were (no surprise there) all in use. We then walked around the first half of the Birkenhead Market Service Roas talking on the way. The officers said that the Pyramids/Birkenhead Market were paying the costs of the traffic regulation order because of problems they had with antisocial parking blocking deliveries.

There were a number of cars and a van parked on that stretch of the Service Road but no loading or unloading was observed during the time we were there (late afternoon). What is interesting though is that the Pyramids (one of two bodies we were told would be paying for the traffic regulation order) currently charge people for parking in their multi-storey car park (apart from on a Sunday).

Leonora raised the issues she had about being (if the Traffic Regulation Order came into force at some future date) that she would be forced to park elsewhere. One of the market stall holders (who runs the flower stall) came over when he heard us talking. He was confused by what the Traffic Regulation Order was about as guess what no consultation had happened with the individual stall holders! He asked if it would it affect his customers picking up flowers? The Wirral Council officers assured him that it wouldn’t and explained it was aimed at blue badge users parking on the Birkenhead Market Service Road.

Technically if they’re only picking up prepaid flowers they were right, however if his customers were parking (rather than loading/unloading) with a blue badge it will affect them.

Wirral Council officers admitted to me that they had not consulted the individual market stall holders. Consultation problems seem to be a recurring theme with Wirral Council recently. Officers felt that consulting with the company that runs the market was enough as they so them as a representative body (even though there seemed to have been no clear communication or consultation with individualmstall holders).

What I did surprise them with though was a paper copy of Birkenhead Market Lease & sublease (which in a rather twisted irony in all this is with Wirral Council) which I received last Friday as part of the 2013/14 audit.

What’s interesting (and the detail of this was seemingly unknown to those Wirral Council officers who started asking me where I’d got the lease and sublease from the answer being Wirral Council itself) is that there is then a sublease with the market stall holders. Here are some quotes from it (which mention the Grange too):

“1.1 Right to use half width of access road

The full and free right for the owners and occupiers of the adjoining property known as the Grange Shopping Centre (“the Adjoining Land”) (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) at all times to pass and repass over and along that part of the access road situate on the Premises and shown coloured brown on the Plan with or without vehicles for the purpose of gaining access to or egress from the Adjoining Land but so that such right shall extend only to moving traffic whether pedestrian or vehicular PROVIDED that such right shall be exercised in one direction only such direction to be from the point marked X on the Plan to the point marked Y thereon or such other direction as shall be agreed from time to time between the Council the Tenant and the owner of the Adjoining Land and SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (5) of the Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer dated 1st October 1992 and made between The Council (1) and Legal & General Assurance Society Limited (2) (“the Transfer”)

1.2 Rights over Market Loading Bays

The full and free right for the owners or occupiers of the Adjoining Land (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) to use at all times those parts of the Premises shown hatched red on the Plan for the purpose of parking motor vehicles loading or off-loading or waiting to load or off-load goods into and from the Adjoining Land or any part thereof and for no other purpose whatsoever PROVIDED that (save as mentioned in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer)(except in case of emergency) no motor vehicle shall be so parked for a period in excess of one hour at any one time nor in a manner as shall obstruct traffic on the said access road coloured brown and green on the Plan SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer”

I presume as it mentions the side run by the Pyramid/Grange that there is something similar in their lease too. In other words what’s the point of a Traffic Regulation Order as Wirral Council is currently because of the contract they signed with the tenants (at least on the market side) supposed to be managing effectively the traffic in the Birkenhead Market Service Road through this clause in the contract already?

The fact that the two officers involved with the Traffic Regulation Order didn’t know about the clauses in the Birkenhead Market sublease until I brought it up is worrying in itself as surely the Asset Management side of Wirral Council has a copy of the lease and subleases for day to day management?

One of the two officers rather amusingly asked me “Do you know the budgetary pressures the Council is under?” (or words to that effect). I have a rather short reply to that as the press I was and tried not to smile too much at the question.

The point is, if someone is parked where they shouldn’t be and caused a nuisance or blocked that road it’s a police/traffic warden issue to deal with.

Much of the road can’t be currently parked in by blue badge holders as it’s even loading bays or double yellows with kerb blips.

The issue to do with traffic flow is also a civil matter too to do with how you enforce the lease. The fact the traffic side at Wirral Council doesn’t know what the asset side at Wirral Council is doing (and seemingly don’t talk to each other) is perhaps a rather worrying sign of a “silo mentality”.

The fact that the costs of the Traffic Regulation Order are being paid for by a company that will benefit from people paying an extra £2 at the expense of the disabled who will be prevented from parking for free here is again another worrying example of Wirral Council seemingly being on the side of commercial interests.

Officers did suggest as a compromise that if we dropped our objections to the proposed traffic regulation order that they would monitor the parking situation in a year’s time. This was not accepted. I also asked for these issues to be fed into the current car parking review and promised to email the relevant sections of the Birkenhead Market lease to them.

Sadly this is another tale where there has been lack of consultation with the individual market stallholders on an issue that will affect their trade. Wirral Council seem to take the “Beware of the Leopard” mentality of saying that they don’t have to consult with them and the plans were available and that it’s not their fault if people didn’t go and look at them.

Anyway the consultation on this proposed Traffic Regulation Order runs to Friday 26th September. If there are any unresolved objections after that it goes to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. The Highways and Traffic Representation Panel can then make recommendations to their parent committee.

However that’s just democracy for you. It seems however that Wirral Council once again are rubbing disabled people up the wrong way and who’s Wirral Council supposed to represent anyway, the people or “commercial interests”?

According to Wirral Council officers today (who aren’t going to just drop the plans because of these objections) the commercial interests of the people paying for the Traffic Regulation Order seem to (at the moment) carry more weight than the concerns of the people this will affect. Leonora did have a few things to say about the culture at Wirral Council, but I gather producing the lease & sublease (which came as a total surprise to them), shows there are existing contract obligations which as that covers most of the people using this road duplicates the purpose behind the Traffic Regulation Order.

Are they really going to go to the costs of possibly renegotiating the subleases with all market stall holders over this? Why do I ask that? Yes market traders have a specific badge on their car, but some of them will have Blue Badges and will park in the service road, which if the new Traffic Regulation Order comes into effect will mean they’d get (if a traffic warden was around) a ticket as market stall holders are limited to an hour maximum. Why can’t Wirral Council just deal with this as another other landlord/tenant issue? Words do fail me on this one really, but I could go on for a further thousand words on the thorny issue of parking and Wirral Council and still just be scratching the surface.

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

Hoylake RNLI Open Day and the top 7 stories this week

Hoylake RNLI Open Day and the top 7 stories this week

Hoylake RNLI Open Day and the top 7 stories this week

                                    

It’s a Bank Holiday today and although I’ve been down to the Hoylake RNLI Open Day today and taken plenty of photos which is a story on that can wait till tomorrow. Three years ago I wrote about the Area Forum where the beginnings of what is now the Hoylake Lifeboat Museum were discussed, which is one of the buildings that is open as part of the Open Day.

Wirral Council’s interest in the car park next to the Hoylake Lifeboat Museum was as you can read from this story in the Wirral News from 2010 was originally going to be sold off along with where the museum is after a decision by former Cllr Simon Holbrook (who was then Cabinet Member for Corporate Resources) in November 2010. However the decision was “called in” by councillors and reconsidered in December 2010, a letter from Hylgar Properties Limited being one of the factors that led to a changed decision. Despite brief mentions about that call in meeting, here and here on this blog, it seems I never did get round to writing up a detailed account of what happened at that call in meeting back in December 2010, however the minutes of what happened at the call in are on Wirral Council’s website.

As it is a bank holiday today, I will just be writing briefly today about what has been popular on this blog in the last week and taking the rest of the day off. The last week (August is traditionally a quiet month for politics) has seen 551 visitors to this blog viewing 1,247 pages. The top seven stories in order of popularity the last week have been:

1) Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

2) The incredible £754,783.18 that Wirral Council councillors cost (plus amounts for the Mayor & Deputy Mayor)

3) Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall “we’re not having straightforward consultation” (part 10)

4) Planning Committee on 8:5 vote approves plans for Tranmere Rovers training ground to move to Leasowe

5) Bidston Moss Retail Park: Five New Units Under Construction

6) Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

and

7) Government asks councils in England to bid for £16 million of money to tackle fraud

Note the Contact details for 66 Wirral Council councillors (2014) is in joint 7th place but as it is just for information I have not included it in the above list.

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

Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

                                                     

Treasury Building (Wirral Council), Hamilton Square, Birkenhead, 19th August 2014 (you can click on the photo for a more high-resolution version)
Treasury Building (Wirral Council), Hamilton Square, Birkenhead, 19th August 2014 (you can click on the photo for a more high-resolution version)

Yesterday on a sunny afternoon, I went to the Wirral Council building pictured above known as the Treasury Building to inspect various Wirral Council invoices. I was exercising an obscure right under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18. This right means that for a few weeks each year, as an “interested person” you can inspect the accounts for the previous financial year that in the process of being audited by Grant Thornton. You can also inspect all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts that relate to these accounting records and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents. This year (for Wirral Council) that period ran from 21st July to the 15th August, so sadly if you’re thinking of exercising this right you’ll now have to wait till next year to do so!

However I had put in my request during that brief time period for five areas I was interested in. I’ve briefly describe what those four areas were, the first was invoices from SCC PLC (which is a large IT company), the second and third batches were invoices for legal matters (solicitors, barristers, expert witnesses, court fees etc), the fourth were some general invoices and the fifth were various contracts (two of which were the Schools PFI contract and the Birkenhead Market lease).

The contracts aren’t ready yet, but the invoices were available for inspection yesterday and I also exercised my s.15(1)(b) right to copies. Just the copies of invoices comes to hundreds of pages of documents (which may take me a while to scan in). Some pages are more heavily redacted than others. However this blog post is going to concentrate on just one which is document 117 in one of the two legal bundles. The document (in the form I received it from Wirral Council) is below (you can click on the photo for a more readable version).

11KBW Invoice for appeal of an ICO decision notice (October 2013) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (£1872) redacted
11KBW Invoice for appeal of an ICO decision notice (October 2013) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (£1872) redacted

A bit of context is probably needed about this invoice first. 11KBW is a London-based chamber of barristers that specialise in employment, public and commercial law. You can find out more about them on their website. This particular invoice for £1,872 (including VAT) was for “perusing and considering papers, advising by email, telephone and writing and drafting grounds of appeal to an ICO decision notice”. Whereas the first bit of that is understandable, if you don’t know what an ICO decision notice is then I’d better explain.

If a person makes a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council, then is not happy with the response, requests an internal review, then they’re not happy with the internal review they can appeal the decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office (known as ICO). The ICO prefer to deal with things informally, but if they can’t they will issue a “decision notice”. A decision notice is an independent view of ICO’s one way or the other on the FOI request and as to whether the body to whom it has been made has complied with the Freedom of Information legislation and sometimes also the Environmental Information Regulations.

Unless the body to whom the FOI request is made or the person making the request appeals the decision notice within 28 days, the body to whom the FOI request is made has to comply with the decision notice within 35 calendar days. Sometimes ICO agree with the body the FOI request is made to so no further action is required. Other times the decision notice compels the body (unless they appeal) to disclose the information. If the public body doesn’t comply with the decision notice within 35 calendar days then ICO can tell the High Court about this failure and it would be dealt with as a “contempt of court” issue.

Helpfully (unlike a lot of other court matters), ICO have a search function on their website for decision notices. As the invoice is for drafting grounds of an appeal (which has to happen within 28 days of the notice) a search for decision notices from the 27th September 2013 to the 25th October 2013 brings up three decision notices FS50496446, FS50491264 and FS50474741.

The first of those three (FS50496446) states in the summary “As the council has now provided a response, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.” so it’s not that one. The last sentence of the summary on FS50474741 states “This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal” (which is a little out of date as by now the tribunal has already reached its decision on that matter). Therefore this invoice is (by process of elimination) about the eight page decision notice FS50474741.

The decision notice goes into the detail about what the original FOI request (which you can read for yourself on the whatdotheyknow website) was about (made on the 4th February 2012), which is for correspondence between Wirral Council and DLA Piper UK LLP. Much of the correspondence is between DLA Piper Solicitors and Anna Klonowski Associates Limited and includes an amendment to the contract between AKA Limited and Wirral Council. The information also included Bill Norman (Borough Solicitor)’s advice to councillors on publication of Anna Klonowski Associate’s report which was previously published as an exclusive on this blog on December 12th 2011.

When the AKA report was published, the issue made the regional TV news (you can view a video clip of that below this paragraph) and a no confidence vote which removed both Cllr Steve Foulkes as Leader of the Council and the minority Labour administration. The Labour administration was replaced by a short-lived (~3 month) Conservative/Lib Dem one in the February of 2012. The whole matter was a very sensitive (and somewhat embarrassing) period in Wirral Council’s history (even more than the public inquiry into library closures was) and it’s probably somewhat understandable as to why Wirral Council didn’t want information as to what happened “behind the scenes” being released into the public domain. As far as I remember (and it was some years ago so I hope my memory is correct on this point), Wirral Council was paying DLA Piper to give legal advice to itself and AKA Limited. This was in relation to the inquiry of AKA Ltd started by Cllr Jeff Green into Martin Morton’s whistleblowing concerns (in the brief period when as a Conservative councillor he was Leader of the Council).

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.

However, in addition to the details of the decision notice, other information has been blacked out. The part at the top right where it states “professional fees of”, I think relates to a junior barrister called Mr Robin Hopkins who is also on Twitter. The reason behind this is that at the bottom of the invoice it states “PLEASE MAKE CHEQUES PAYABLE TO Mr Robin Hopkins” and his name also appears as the organisation name on the list of invoices Wirral Council publish of over £500 for October. On Wirral Council’s systems although a small number of invoices from barristers chambers come under the name of the barrister’s chambers, most appear using the barrister’s name as the organisation.

As to the name of the Wirral Council officer that the pro forma invoice is addressed to, it would seem most likely that this is Surjit Tour. Not only does his short name fit what is blacked out, but he’s also the Head of Service for this service area within Wirral Council. I don’t know whether he’d actually be the solicitor at Wirral Council giving instructions to the barrister on this issue (as there are over a dozen solicitors employed at Wirral Council). I’ve no idea whose signature it is on this invoice and there are three other places on the invoice where officers’ initials or names have also been blacked out.

When the appeal to ICO’s decision notice was heard at the First-Tier Information Tribunal you can read this post about it on Paul Cardin’s blog, there’s another write-up about it in Local Government Lawyer and a copy of the 16 page unanimous decision of the tribunal can be read here.

The invoice (partly revealed) with my educated guesses in green as to what’s behind the redactions is below. However it begs the question, why did Wirral Council redact this information and what have they got to hide? Or is it just a case of they’d prefer the press and public to forget about the entire Martin Morton/AKA issues which were compared to “Watergate” by Cllr Stuart Kelly? If they’d chosen not to appeal this decision wouldn’t that meant a saving of £1,872 that Wirral Council could have instead spent on education or social services? I thought that a Labour councillor (was it Cllr Phil Davies?) stated that the current Labour administration was “open and transparent”? Only as recently as June of this year wasn’t the Cabinet Member Cllr Ann McLachlan stating “the key problem here that we have a high volume of FOIs from a small number of people”? So do Wirral Council see the people making FOI requests as the problem rather than their own cultural attitudes towards openness and transparency?

Partially unredacted invoice relating to an appeal to ICO Decision Notice FS50474741 (Robin Hopkins of 11KBW) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral for £1872 (invoice 117)
Partially unredacted invoice relating to an appeal to ICO Decision Notice FS50474741 (Robin Hopkins of 11KBW) Metropolitan Borough of Wirral for £1872 (invoice 117)

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

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking

                          

“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

-The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

The above quote is very suitable for another tale of bureaucracy gone wrong involving Wirral Council.

The below exchange shows a tale of Wirral Council that is sadly familiar, blaming the disabled, making them pay more, making sure officer’s plans can get approved by preventing those pesky members of the public objecting! In the “changed” Wirral Council I hope my intervention will lead to change. We shall see. I suppose in this case they just have the bad luck that these proposals affect this blogger’s wife (which in the interests of openness and transparency/ethics I’m declaring at the start of this piece). As Wirral Council seem to use an extremely small font size for their public notices, you can click on the image below for a more high-resolution version.

Proposed traffic regulation order public notice (Birkenhead Market Service Road) 9th July 2014
Public notice of proposed traffic regulation order (9th July 2014) Wirral Globe Birkenhead Market Service Road

CRM 825834 – PROPOSED WAITING & LOADING RESTRICTIONS – BIRKENHEAD MARKET SERVICE ROAD, BIRKENHEAD
John Brace 8 August 2014 10:35
Reply-To: john.brace@gmail.com
To: “Amos, Carl A.”
Cc: “Smith, Mark” , Surjit Tour , “Cllr Stuart Whittingham – Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation)” , Malcolm Flanagan , Cllr Alan Brighouse , Cllr Mike Sullivan , Cllr Steve Williams , “Cllr Ann McLachlan – Bidston & St. James ward councillor” , David Rees
Dear Carl Amos (Team Leader (Network Management)),

CC: Mark Smith
CC: David Rees
CC: Surjit Tour
CC: Cllr Stuart Whittingham (Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport)
CC: Cllr Ann McLachlan (Cabinet Member for
Governance/Commissioning/Improvement) & ward councillor for Bidston &
St. James ward
CC: Malcolm Flanagan
CC: Cllr Alan Brighouse
CC: Cllr Michael Sullivan
CC: Cllr Steve Williams

RE: Proposed Traffic Regulation Order (your reference KO) at Birkenhead Market Service Road/Car Parking Review

Dear Carl Amos (and others),

Thank you for your email of 4th August 2014 (your CRM reference 825834) in reference to a proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road, Birkenhead.

I appreciate the apology you give in paragraph two. The public notice (which stated was published by Surjit Tour) for this proposed traffic regulation order was published in the Wirral Globe on Wednesday 9th July 2014 and stated “A copy of the Order, map and a statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing to make the Order, may be seen at all reasonable hours at The One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Seacombe, CH44 8ED”.

My wife and I attended the Seacombe One Stop Shop on the afternoon of the 9th July. The staff at the One Stop Shop informed us that they had not been given a copy of the Order, map and statement of the Council’s reasons. Therefore we were unable to view them at this point and make any objections to the proposed TRO. What was the point of publishing the notice in the paper directing people to the One Stop Shop to view this when they did not have it?

Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2489 states in Regulation 7(3) “The order making authority shall comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of deposited documents available for public inspection” and Schedule 2 states in relation to the documents that they are to “be made available for inspection at the principal offices of the authority during normal office hours”.

This clearly didn’t happen. It is of course unknown how many (if any) other people would have made an objection as they couldn’t inspect or view the documents relating to this proposed TRO. I would therefore suggest that if you wish to proceed with the next stages of this TRO that you re advertise it in the press, this time making sure that you supply copies of the documents for public inspection to the One Stop Shop prior to having the notice published! Otherwise, it casts legal uncertainty as to the legality of any TRO that results as the regulations regarding consultation weren’t followed.

My comments on the proposed TRO are below (which it would be useful to feed into councillors doing the car parking review therefore I would appreciate it if someone would forward this to them):

I’ve been asked by my wife to respond on her behalf (but I am also commenting in my own capacity) to the proposed traffic regulation order as she is one of the people that will be affected by it if it goes ahead.

I will deal with the points raised first in your email. Parking is already prohibited for blue badge users along most of the Birkenhead Market Service Road as the majority of it is currently either loading bays or is double yellow lines with kerb blips (where those with blue badges can’t park).

Therefore parking in a way that’s obstructing loading bays is already something that a driver doing so could receive a ticket for. The proposed TRO won’t change the parking restrictions in the area around the loading bays so without greater enforcement any existing problem of obstructive parking is likely to continue even if the TRO is agreed.

In relation to displaced Blue Badge users. You refer to free car parking in the Grange and the Pyramids multi storey car park for blue badge users. However free parking in these car parks is only on a Sunday (for all users). Monday to Saturday there is a charge of £2 to park in either the Grange or Pyramids car parks which applies to all users (irrespective of whether they have a Blue Badge or not). Therefore it is misleading to refer to the Grange and Pyramids as “free disabled parking facilities” without mentioning that these are only free on a Sunday. Any concerns raised by the Pyramids/Grange Shopping Centre have to be viewed in light of a commercial interest in increasing patronage of their car parks by reducing parking for blue badge users on the Birkenhead Market Service Road.

There are 14 blue badge parking spaces in the Europa Square car park and 6 in Oliver Street (according to your website). I have no idea exactly how many disabled parking bays are available on Conway Street, but from memory it is not many.

The issue however is not the number of alternative free spaces (referred to in your email) but the fact that at the times when the shops are open it is often impossible for blue badge users to find one of the alternative parking spaces you refer to as available. My wife requires extra space around the space she parks in in order to safely get in and out of her vehicle. She uses a walking stick and has mobility problems due to a disability she has had from birth.

It is clear looking at the numbers of disabled spaces in the car parks in Birkenhead (compared to the overall numbers) and the numbers of blue badges issued by Wirral Council that there is under provision of spaces for blue badge users. I don’t believe that the proposed TRO will achieve its stated aim of road safety and Wirral Council has to be very careful (from the way your reasons are phrased) as it appears you are trying to make disabled people scapegoats.

There are a whole range of legal duties Wirral Council has, such as the public sector equality duty and due to what I’ve written above the impacts that this proposed TRO would have on blue badge users has not been fully thought through. For example those with mobility problems would be forced to park further away from where they’re shopping. This might not be a problem for the able bodied, but for those for whom the extra distance will cause additional pain and suffering is morally (and probably also legally) wrong.

I realise Wirral Council has had a chequered history with regards to how it has treated minorities (including the disabled) in the recent past. I hope the culture however has changed and I will receive a positive response to this letter and assurances that actions will be taken to prevent this happening in the future. Due to the serious corporate governance failings it highlights I am also publishing this letter. Please class it as a complaint/objection to the proposed TRO/to be fed into the car parking review.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

On 4 August 2014 13:30, Amos, Carl A. wrote:
> Dear Mr Brace,
>
> Thank you for your enquiry dated 30 July 2014 requesting information about
> the proposed waiting and loading restrictions along Birkenhead Market
> Service Road, Birkenhead.
>
> I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you experienced in viewing a copy of
> these proposals. Please find enclosed a copy of the consultation plan
> showing the extents of the scheme.
>
> The reason for this order is to prohibit parking along sections of
> Birkenhead Market Service Road and to allow loading and unloading for
> vehicles within the designated bays following concerns raised by the
> Pyramids Shopping Centre and Birkenhead Market Hall management teams. The
> effect of this order is to improve access for vehicles servicing the Grange
> Precinct and Market Hall and prevent obstructive parking.
>
> Vehicles except buses and for loading purposes are currently prohibited from
> travelling through Birkenhead Bus Station which provides access to
> Birkenhead Market Service Road. The proposed waiting and loading
> restrictions will prohibit blue badge holders from parking within the
> Service Road, however there are alternative free disabled parking facilities
> available in the following car parks; Europa Square, Oliver Street, The
> Grange and The Pyramids multi storey car parks. On street disabled parking
> bays are also available along Conway Street.
>
> Letters have been delivered to those businesses who may be affected by the
> restrictions and the proposals were also advertised within the local press.
>
> Apologies for the difficulties you experienced in viewing the proposed TRO,
> should you wish to register any comments can I please ask that you submit
> them to me by Friday 8 August so we can finalise the evaluation of
> consultation feedback and progress with the next stages.
>
> In the meantime, should you have any further queries please do not hesitate
> to contact me.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Carl Amos
> Team Leader (Network Management)
> Regeneration & Environment Directorate
> Wirral Council
> Tel No: 0151 606 2370
> carlamos@wirral.gov.uk
> Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk
> Please save paper and print out only what is necessary
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Smith, Mark
> Sent: 31 July 2014 07:38
> To: John Brace
> Subject: Re: proposed TRO behind Birkenhead Market
>
> Hello John
>
> Thanks for your email – I’ll ask our Traffic team to get the requested
> information to you as a matter of urgency.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Jul 2014, at 18:51, “John Brace” wrote:
> Hi,
> I’m not sure if your responsibilities still cover traffic matters, but I had
> an enquiry about the proposed TRO published in the local press about
> parking changes behind Birkenhead Market. The notice said the
> proposed TRO could be viewed at the Seacombe One Stop but when Leonora and
> I visited they stated they hadn’t been sent a copy.
> As the date for responses is I think August 1st could you if possible email
> a copy of the TRO to myself so any comments or objections can be made
> before August 1st?
> Thanks,
> John
> John Brace
> Jenmaleo
> 134 Boundary Road
> Bidston
> CH43 7PH
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
>
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.clearswift.com
>
> **********************************************************************

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

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

                             

Following a previous story on this blog about Birkenhead Market, someone suggested I look at the accounts for Birkenhead Market Limited so I decided to request the latest set of accounts for Birkenhead Market Limited from Companies House.

The accounts make for very interesting reading and may be why Neptune Developments Limited was asked by Wirral Council’s Cabinet to come up with a master plan for Birkenhead Market.

A copy of the latest unaudited accounts (for the year ending 31st July 2012) are below.

Registered number: 04403580

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

UNAUDITED

ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

REGISTERED NUMBER: 04403580

________________________________________________________________________________

ABBREVIATED BALANCE SHEET

AS AT 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

2012 2011
Note £ £ £ £
FIXED ASSETS
Intangible assets 2 1 1
Tangible assets 3 1,741,325 1,799,446
Investments 4 1 1
_________ _________
1,741,327 1,799,448
CURRENT ASSETS
Debtors 5 26,148 36,138
Cash at bank and in hand 59,931 101,441
_________ _________
86,079 137,579
CREDITORS: amounts falling due within one year 6 (4,308,952) (4,365,582)
_____________ _____________
NET CURRENT LIABILITIES (4,222,873) (4,228,003)
_____________ _____________
NET LIABILITIES (2,481,546) (2,428,555)
_____________ _____________
CAPITAL AND RESERVES
Called up share capital 7 10,000 10,000
Profit and loss account (2,491,546) (2,438,555)
_____________ _____________
SHAREHOLDERS’ DEFICIT (2,481,546) (2,428,555)
_____________ _____________

The directors consider that the company is entitled to exemption from the requirement to have an audit under the provisions of section 477 of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) and members have not required the company to obtain an audit for the year in question in accordance with section 476 of the Act.

The directors acknowledge their responsibilities for complying with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 with respect to accounting records and for preparing financial statements which give a true and fair state of affairs of the company as at 31 July 2012 and of its loss for the year in accordance with the requirements of section 394 and 395 of the Act and which otherwise comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 relating to financial statements, so far as applicable to the company.

The abbreviated accounts, which have been prepared in accordance with the special provisions relating to companies subject to the small companies regime within part 15 of the Companies Act 2006, were approved and authorised for issue by the board and were signed off on its behalf on 24 April 2013.

(signature of LD Embra)

Mr L D Embra

Director

The notes on pages 2 to 5 form part of these financial statements.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________
1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

1.1 Basis of preparation of financial statements

The full financial statements, from which these abbreviated accounts have been extracted, have been prepared under the historical cost convention and in accordance with the Financial Reporting for Smaller Entities (effective April 2008).

1.2 Going concern

The company meets its day to day working capital requirements through a combination of bank loans and overdraft facility. The company is currently in discussions with its bankers regarding the term of its loan and believes from current discussions with its bankers that the loan will be renewed on a basis that will enable the company to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due over at least the next 12 months. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that would result from the withdrawal of support from the company’s bankers. The directors therefore consider the going concern basis of accounting to be an appropriate basis to produce the financial statements.

While the company does have net liabilities at 31 July 2012 of £2,481,546, the balance sheet includes leasehold property at a historical cost carrying value of £1,683,406 in respect of an asset which is considered by the directors to have a considerably higher current market value.

1.3 Turnover

Turnover comprises revenue recognised by the company in respect of goods and services supplied during the year, exclusive of Value Added Tax and trade discounts.

1.4 Intangible fixed assets and amortisation

Goodwill is the difference between amounts paid on the acquisition of a business and the fair value of the identifiable assets and liabilities. It is amortised to the Profit and loss account over its estimated economic life.

1.5 Tangible fixed assets and depreciation

Tangible fixed assets are stated at cost less depreciation. Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write off the cost of fixed assets, less their estimated residual value, over their expected useful lives on the following bases

L/Term Leasehold Property – 50 years straight line
Fixtures and fittings – 25% reducing balance

1.6 Investments

Investments held as fixed assets are shown at cost less provision for impairment.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

2. INTANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS

£
Cost
At 1 August 2011 and 31 July 2012 1
_________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1
_________
At 31 July 2011 1
_________

3. TANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS

£
Cost
At 1 August 2011 2,747,799
Additions 2,250
___________
At 31 July 2012 2,750,049
Depreciation
At 1 August 2011 948,353
Charge for the year 60,371
___________
At 31 July 2012 1,008,724
___________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1,741,325
___________
At 31 July 2011 1,799,446
___________

Under the small companies regime the company is exempt from preparing consolidated accounts and has not done so, therefore the accounts show information about the company as an individual entity.

3. FIXED ASSET INVESTMENTS

£
Cost or valuation
At 1 August 2011 and 31 July 2012 1
___________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1
___________
At 31 July 2011 1
___________

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

4. FIXED ASSET INVESTMENTS (continued)
Subsidiary undertakings
The following were subsidiary undertakings of the company.

The aggregate of the share capital and reserves as at 31 July 2012 and of the profit or loss for the year ended on that date for the subsidiary undertakings were as follows.

Name Aggregate of share capital and reserves Profit/(loss)
£ £
Birkenhead Market Services Limited 189,459 (48,927)
___________ ___________

Under the small companies regime the company is exempt from preparing consolidated accounts and has not done so, therefore the accounts show information about the company as an individual entity.

5. DEBTORS

Included within other debtors are loans to the following related companies Liverpool Developments (2001) Limited, London Provincial and Overseas Limited, Europa Plaza Developments Limited, Jelder Consultants Limited and Landmark Projects and Developments Limited.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £12,600 due from Liverpool Developments (2001) Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £12,600.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £29,721 due from London Provincial and Overseas Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £29,721.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £735 due from Europa Plaza Developments Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £735.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £109,152 due from Jelder Consultants Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £109,152.

All of the above loans and associated accrued interest are still due and payable to the company. All amounts have been provided against on the grounds of prudence, due to uncertainty over recoverability.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

6. CREDITORS
Amounts falling due within one year

The bank loan and overdraft facility are secured by a first legal charge over the property and its associated asset, debentures by, and unlimited cross guarantees by and between the Borrower and Birkenhead Market Services Limited and a guarantee for £150,000 by Mr L D Embra.

7. SHARE CAPITAL

2012 2011
£ £
Allotted, called up and fully paid
10,000 Ordinary shares of £1 each 10,000 10,000
___________ ___________

DIRECTOR’s BENEFITS: ADVANCES, CREDIT AND GUARANTEES
The balance on Mr D F Doyle’s loan account is £nil (2011 £4,588). The maximum amount due in the year was £4,588. No interest was charged during the year.

The balance on Mr J E Richardson’s loan account is £5,000 (2011 £3,000). The maximum amount due in the year was £5,000. No interest was charged during the year.

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