1) How many pupils go to the school and how many teachers and other staff are there at present?
Wirral Council state that there are now 21 pupils on the roll at Lyndale School (as of yesterday 30th September 2014). However it is noted that a number of these will reach secondary school age next year and will not be directly affected by the proposed closure in January 2016.
According to the Lyndale School website there are 19 teaching assistants and 3 teachers at the school. However this information might be out of date. It is possible there are other staff too that are not listed on its website. However only The Lyndale School could answer the actual current number about how many teachers and other staff are now employed on this particular day as this number fluctuates. My own guess is that the total number of staff is somewhere between twenty-two and thirty-five (I am assuming you are referring in your question to paid staff and not volunteers).
2) How many different schools are likely to be used for the transfer of the children if the school is closed and would the attention they receive now be diminished in another environment?
Stanley School and Elleray Park have already been named as alternative schools so at least two, however some parents have said they will not send their children to either of those schools if Lyndale School closes. So the number of different schools if it was closed that the children at Lyndale School would go to is likely to be a number between three and six. In theory it could be as high as twelve, but that’s highly unlikely.
In answer to the second part of your question, if the school was closed and the pupils were transferred to either Elleray Park or Stanley School, then Wirral Council plans to spend less money on a per pupil basis than Lyndale currently receives. Currently Lyndale School receives on average ~£33,000 per pupil, this would drop to between ~£17,000 per a pupil to ~£26,000 per a pupil depending on which one of five new bands that particular former Lyndale School pupil is assessed in based partly on their EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan).
However if Lyndale School shut and the former Lyndale pupil/s was transferred to an independent special school, the amount received per a pupil would be uncapped. If the former Lyndale School pupil went to a special school outside of Wirral (bear in mind Lyndale School is in Eastham very close to the edge of Wirral so it is a possibility parent/s would choose placements outside of Wirral) the amount would also be uncapped based on the current policy.
This is because Wirral Council’s current policy is to not have a cap on funding for independent special or out of borough special placements, but they intend to introduce a cap for special pupils in schools on the Wirral Borough from next year assuming they get agreement to this from the various decision-making bodies.
This reduction in funding will probably lead both to less staff time available per a child and/or a reduction in other costs that the school has. That is the view of the parents, some councillors, staff and other people replying to the consultation. However Wirral Council takes a different view on this point.
I do not think it is realistic to state that education would remain the same as they receive at Lyndale School although Wirral Council would disagree with me on that point.
3) Would all children find places nearer or further away from home as at present and would transport be provided for them to go and come back from school each day?
The first part of that answer is impossible to answer until a final decision over closure is made and a parental choice is made about alternative schools. However I remember one parent stating that they moved house so that they could be nearer to Lyndale School, therefore in some cases the places would be further away from their home.
SEN Transport can be provided for pupils to go and come back from school, however some parents choose to take their children to school themselves. If your question is would SEN Transport be provided at the new schools as a choice, then the answer if yes if it was requested. However SEN Transport is not compulsory and results in a cost to Wirral Council.
4) What would happen to the present teachers and other staff if the school was closed?
They would lose their jobs, that is to say they would be made redundant as the school had closed. It would then be down to the individual members of staff to apply for jobs elsewhere if they so wished to do so at that stage.
It is to be noted that Wirral Council made an error in the consultation document in relation to what would happen to the staff if the Lyndale School closed.
Despite how the unimplemented Cabinet resolution of 4th September 2014 is phrased, no jobs are guaranteed. Any decision over employing former Lyndale staff elsewhere would be up to that school’s governing body, the usual legal processes such as filling out application forms, criminal record background checks, interviews etc and the former Lyndale staff would be in a competitive process with other applicants for any new jobs created at other schools.
Due to the funding reduction, even if all the former Lyndale School staff applied for jobs at the places where the former Lyndale School pupils had been moved to, the funding reductions would mean that there would be a reduction in posts compared to current staffing levels at Lyndale School.
5) Would the real saving come from the sale of the Lyndale premises and site?
(a) it was declared surplus to requirements (a decision that would have to be made by Wirral Council)
(b) a buyer was found
(c) there are other decisions that would have to be made by bodies outside Wirral Council in relation to the land and buildings before a sale could proceed as it is a school. It is unknown whether such bodies would agree to it or not. For example multiple approvals would be needed from the government in relation to the land and buildings before any changes such as a sale or change of use were made.
(d) in order to change its use planning permission would be required (a decision that would have to be made by Wirral Council)
It is to be noted at this stage that the Land Registry entry for Lyndale School refers to a conveyance agreement (if memory serves correct 1952) between Cheshire County Council, a limited company and an individual. I note that prior to the creation of Wirral Council in 1974, this piece of land was in the Cheshire County Council area. Although Cheshire County Council was abolished in 2009, in 2009 its functions were transferred to Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East.
I do not currently have access to a copy of this document, which is lodged with Land Registry, Birkenhead. Due to public service cutbacks I have to wait for an appointment with Land Registry in order to view and request a copy of it although either Chester West and Chester or Cheshire East should have a copy when the Cheshire County Council records were transferred.
I have given as full an answer as I can to the above questions, considering that some of the detail is either not known to me, would take too long to collate or would result in me having to make enquiries of others.
There will be a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee on 2nd October 2014 starting at 6.00pm in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall to discuss the recent Cabinet decision and decide what to do next.
At the moment implementation of the decision has been put on hold pending the outcome of that meeting.
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 did Wirral Council’s response to my letter about the Lyndale School Cabinet decision on 4th September say?
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
I have received a full response to my letter of the 8th September 2014 to Wirral Council about the Cabinet decision on the 4th September 2014 about the decisions on Lyndale School. This letter was received after the 24th September 2014 deadline in the letter of the 8th September 2014, although an earlier letter was also received stating that this letter would happen by the 1st October 2014. I have yet to consider my response to Wirral Council’s letter of the 30th September 2014 which is below.
The letter of 30th September 2014 is included below as is, there are some missing full stops and unnecessary apostrophes which have been printed as they were in the original letter.
For information I include it below. I am considering my options as to what to do next. The protocol states that an “application for judicial review must be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose”.
That’s 3 months from 4th September 2014 so a maximum time limit of 4th December 2014. However it would be inadvisable to wait that long as permission would be denied for not being done “promptly”!
Personally I feel that we’re getting soon to the date when “promptly” would be an issue (although maybe that explains Wirral Council’s tactics). The call in has put implementation of the decision on hold until at least the 2nd October 2014.
For the ease of converting to HTML some minor formatting has been lost as to how it was laid out in order to get this published promptly. A line of equals signs represents the end of an A4 page.
(Wirral Council logo)
Department of Transformation & Resources
Joe Blott Strategic Director of Transformation &
Resources
Town Hall, Brighton Street
Wallasey, Wirral
Merseyside, CH44 8ED
DX 708630 Seacombe
Website: www.wirral.gov.uk
date 30 September 2014
By Email and Post
to Mr John Brace
Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
your ref
my ref
service Legal and Member Services
tel 0151 691 8569 Please ask for Surjit Tour
fax 0151 691 8482
email surjittour@wirral.gov.uk
Response to Pre-Action Protocol letter
Dear Mr Brace
I write further to your letter before claim dated 8 September 2014. For the avoidance of doubt, this letter constitutes Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (“the Council”) formal response in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.
1. The Claimant
The proposed Claimant is Mr Brace; who is unrepresented.
2. The Proposed Defendant
The proposed Defendant is Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
3. Reference details
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: Surjit Tour, Department of Transformation and Resources, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 8ED
The Council’s in-principle decision of 4 September 2014 to publish statutory notices in respect of the closure of Lyndale School (“Lyndale”) from January 2016.
5. Response to the Proposed Claim
The Council denies Mr Brace’s claim for the reasons detailed below.
7. Address for further correspondence and service of court documents
Please address any further correspondence in this matter to Surjit Tour.
8. Background
8.1 Lyndale School is a special school providing specialist educational provision for primary aged pupils, the majority of whom have Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (“PMLD”). There are 21 pupils currently on the roll, nine of whom will be transitioning to secondary school by the end of the 2015/16 academic year. The declining number of students admitted to Lyndale over recent years has drawn into question The Lyndale’s financial viability for the future.
8.2 In 2013 the Department for Education (“DfE”) radically reformed the way in which funding for High Needs pupils is provided. Previously, funding was based significantly on the number of places available at a school rather than the number of pupils actually attending. The new system places a far greater emphasis on the number of pupils attending and their specific needs. Lyndale has set a balanced budget for 2014/15 for 40 places and 23 pupils. Applying the new intended future DfE funding arrangements, Lyndale may only be funded for 23 places, a reduction of £170,000. This shortfall would only increase as the number of pupils reduces. Funding this shortfall would not be possible without a significant reduction in funding for other schools in the area.
8.3 In addition, there are two other primary schools, namely Stanley and Elleray Park which are rated as providing good and outstanding education to students with complex learning difficulties, some of whom will have PMLD.
8.4 The Report presented to Cabinet details why the option to expand Elleray Park and Stanley Schools was the most viable option and therefore we do not propose to go into any further detail here.
8.5 The report to cabinet on the 4th September 2014 contains information on the background history of CLD/PMLD provision. The report also details the responses to the consultation and the independent consultant’s report. A link is provided for your information:
8.6.1 (1) Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;
8.6.2 (2) Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:
8.6.2.1 Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
8.6.2.2 That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually with
children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
(a) – Elleray Park Special School
(b) – Stanley Special School
(c) – Another appropriate school
8.6.3 In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
8.6.4 The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
8.6.5 A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
8.6.6 The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.
8.7 I respond to each of your proposed grounds of challenge as below.
9. Cabinet meeting notice requirements
9.1 You state in your letter that the Council has not complied with Regulations 8-9 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 set out below as the document specified in Regulation 9 was not published.
9.2 Regulation 8
9.2.1 (1) In these Regulations a “key decision” means an executive decision, which is likely–
9.2.2 (a) to result in the relevant local authority incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the relevant local authority’s budget for the service or function to which to which the decision relates; or
9.2.3 (b) to be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards or electoral divisions in the area of the relevant local authority.
9.2.4 (2) In determining the meaning of “significant” for the purposes of paragraph (1) the local authority must have regards to any guidance for the time issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 9Q of the 2000 Act (guidance).
9.3 Regulation 9
9.3.1 (1) Where a decision maker intends to make a key decision, that decision must not be made until a document has been published in accordance with paragraph (2), which states–
9.3.2 (a) that a key decision is to be made on behalf of the relevant local authority;
9.3.3 (b) the matter in respect of which the decision is to be made;
9.3.4 (c) where the decision maker is an individual, that individual’s name, and title if any and, where the decision maker is a decision-making body, its name and a list of its members;
9.3.5 (d) the date on which, or the period within which, the decision is to be made;
9.3.6 (e) a list of the documents submitted to the decision maker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the key decision is to be made;
9.3.7 (f) the address from which, subject to any prohibition or restriction on their disclosure, copies of, or extracts from, any document listed is available;
9.3.8 (g) that other documents relevant to those matters may be submitted to the decision maker; and
9.3.9 (h) the procedure for requesting details of those documents (if any) as they become available.
9.3.10 (2) At least 28 clear days before a key decision is made, the document referred to in paragraph (1) must be available for inspection by the public–
9.3.11 (a) at the offices of the relevant local authority; and
9.3.12 (b) on the relevant local authority’s website, if it has one.
9.3.13 (3) Where, in relation to any matter–
9.3.14 (a) the public may be excluded under regulation 4(2) from the meeting at which the matter is to be discussed; or
9.3.15 (b) documents relating to the decision need not, because of regulation 20(3), be disclosed to the public,
9.3.15 the document referred to in paragraph (1) must contain particulars of the matter but may not contain any confidential, exempt information or particulars of the advice of a political adviser or assistant.
9.4 It is accepted that the “in-principle” decision is a “key decision” under Regulation 8 and therefore the Council must comply with Regulation 9.
However the Council has fully complied with Regulation 9 by publishing the Forward Plan for the period of August 2014 to November 2014.
9.5 The Forward Pan specifically identifies the “Outcome of Lyndale School Consultation” as a key decision and therefore complies with Regulation 9(1)(a) and (b).
9.6 Further, in compliance with Regulation 9(c), page two of the Forward Plan lists the names of the Cabinet members who would be making the decision. It also identifies that the decision is expected to be taken in September 2014 in compliance with Regulation 9(d).
9.7 In relation to Regulation 9(e)-(g), therefore were no reports available at the time the Forward Plan was published, however they were made available in advance of the Cabinet meeting.
9.8 For these reasons, the Council considers your point here to be without foundation.
10. Cabinet decision take by the wrong people
10.1 Your letter states that regulations require a member from the Church of England and Roman Catholic diocese to be appointed to the Council’s Families and Wellbeing Policy Committee and Coordinating Committee (“the Committees”). These committees review, amongst other things, the Cabinet’s decisions on education matters. As such they are “education overview and scrutiny committees” as defined in Regulation 13(1) Local Authorities (Committee System)(England)(Regulations) 2012 and must therefore comply with the requirements in the Regulations.
10.2 Specifically, Regulation 13(2) states that the “committees must have at least one qualifying person” which is defined in Regulation 13(3) as “the person nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education for any Church of England diocese.” Regulation 13(4) and (5) has the same provision in relation to Roman Catholic diocese. This is accepted by the Council.
10.3 However, you further state that as a Church of England diocese member was not appointed to the Committees, a member should have been appointed to the Cabinet. This is not required by any of the Regulations quoted in your letter, nor any other statutory provisions.
10.4 You claim that a Church of England diocese member was neither appointed to the Committees nor the Cabinet when the “in-principle” decision was made on 4 September 2014 that such decision is in someway invalid or defective. We set out below why the Council considers this is completely unfounded.
10.5 Firstly, Table 1, Point 18 of the Council’s Constitution states that the Executive has the authority “to consider and determine statutory proposals relating to the establishment and discontinuance of schools.” As you are no doubt aware, the Executive is comprised of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet. Secondly, as referred to above, Diocese members are only required to be appointed to the Committees whose function is to review decision relating to decision. Furthermore, the role of the Committees is to scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet and, if necessary, recommend that Cabinet reconsider the decision. The Committees have no authority to nullify the decision of the Cabinet.
10.6 The Cabinet was not required by any regulation or statutory provision to appoint a diocese member and had absolute authority to take the decision in this matter. Any claim to the contrary in entirely without foundation.
10.7 However, as stated, the Council is aware that it is required to have a Church of England diocese member on the Committees. To this end, we have contacted the diocese on numerous occasions in order to receive an appropriate nomination from them. As yet, a nomination has not been received despite the Council’s best efforts. This is due to no fault of the Council and as stated above, this anomaly does not invalidate the decision taken by the Cabinet on 4 September 2014.
11. Human Rights
The Council is fully aware of its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) and the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and ensures that all decisions it makes are fully compliant with these.
The Council refutes any suggestion that there has been a breach of the human rights of any children by the decision under challenge, for the reasons set out below.
11.1 Protocol 1 (Article 2) – Right to education
11.1.1 The assertion that the Council is denying the children of Lyndale the right to an education is entirely without merit. Article 2 of Protocol of the ECHR does not provide a pupil of an educational institution with the right to receive an education or be taught at a specific institution. It merely provides that a pupil must have access to the education system. No child currently at Lyndale is being, or will be, denied access to an education.
11.1.2 In addition, case law has established that local authorities have the discretion to allocate resources how they deem fit when arranging education provision, provided that a pupil is not denied access to the education system, which has not happened in this case.
11.1.3 No final decision has been made in relation to whether to close Lyndale or not. No child will be denied the right to continue their education and so will not be denied access to the system Therefore, there is no legal basis for this alleged ground of challenge.
11.2 Article 2 – right to life
11.2.1 To establish that this Article is engaged, you would have to demonstrate that either; a) the Council were deliberately trying to end the lives of the pupils; or b) we ought to be aware that there was a real and immediate risk to the lives of the pupils were they to be moved to alternative educational provision.
11.2.2 No decision has yet been made in relation to any specific pupil transferring to an alternative educational provider. Therefore this ground of challenge is entirely baseless.
11.2.3 Any suggestion that the Council are deliberately trying to end the lives of the children is simply untenable and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a real and immediate risk to their lives given that no decision has been made to transfer any child to an
alternative educational provider. This ground of challenge is therefore completely unfounded.
11.3 Article 3 – prohibition of torture
11.3.1 The Council denies that the children of Lyndale would be subject to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment.
11.3.2 Torture is defined as “deliberate inhumane treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering.” It is refuted that the children of Lyndale would be subjected to any suffering, let alone serious or cruel suffering or otherwise.
11.3.3 Inhumane treatment is defined as treatment “causing intense physical and mental suffering.” There is no evidence to suggest that any children will be subjected to physical or mental suffering.
11.3.4 Degrading treatment is “treatment or punishment” which “humiliates and debases” the victim. The Council’s in-principle decision to publish a statutory closure notice cannot in any way be described as a decision designed to humiliate or debase the children of Lyndale.
11.3.5 You have provided no evidence to substantiate this claim and is it entirely without merit.
11.4 Article 11 – freedom of assembly
11.4.1 Your reference to this Article is unclear and the Council considers that the Article is not engaged in this matter in any event.
11.5 Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination
11.5.1 This Article is only engaged if a breach of another Article is proven. Given the difficulties, set out above, that you would have to sustain an argument that any of the above Articles have been breached, the Council denies that Article 14 is relevant.
11.5.2 You suggest in your Letter before Claim that the political views of the parents were discounted and that this, in some way, led to Article 14 being engaged. This is denied given the points raised above however we wish to point out that the views expressed by the parents during the consultation process were taken into account in this matter as demonstrated by the summary of the responses considered by Cabinet (which is publicly available online). The Council refutes the suggestion that differing political views affected the decision and denies that any individual or group has been discriminated in any way by its “in-principle” decision.
11.5.3 Further, your reference to children being born disabled is unclear.
12. Equality Act 2010 (“Equality Act”)
12.1 Section 13
12.1.1 You have provided no evidence to sustain an allegation that less money would be spent on the education of the Lyndale children if Lyndale were to close, therefore the Council considered this allegation unfounded.
12.1.2 As mentioned in the Cabinet Report, the net result of a potential closure of Lyndale would be a £33,470 budget surplus. If the Council made a final decision to close Lyndale after completing all of the 5 stages of the statutory processes this could be shared across all remaining schools who would stand to gain £3,347 additional funding each.
12.1.3 The Council does not hold any information relating to the protected characteristics of any staff members of Lyndale. If you require this information we suggest you make further contact with the School direct.
This information is not held by the Council but the governing body of the school
12.2 Section 15
12.2.1 The aim of this process is to secure the highest standard of education possible for the children of Lyndale. In order to secure this, the Council has a duty to ensure that the provision of the education is affordable in the long-term. Your assertion that this is not a legitimate aim for the purpose of the Act is without foundation.
12.2.2 The Council has consulted extensively with interested parties, including staff, parents, Governors and the general public with regard to the potential closure of Lyndale and will continue to invite representations from such parties during the representation stage of the Statutory process. Having considered these views and the report which considered the SEN Improvement Test which was applied to a range of different options it has been decided, in principle, that the closure of Lyndale is the most proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim set out in the 4th September cabinet report.
12.3 Section 19
12.3.1 This argument is legally flawed as, pursuant to s.19(1) Equality Act, the parents would have to possess a relevant protected characteristic. You have provided no evidence of this.
12.4 Section 26
12.4.1 The allegation that the Council has in any way violated the dignity of the persons affected by its decision, whether the children or otherwise, is entirely misconceived and without foundation and is not supported by any evidence.
12.4.2 Further, there is no evidence that any current or previous members of staff at the school have been intimidated by any members of the Council.
12.5 Section 27
12.5.1 For this section to be engaged, the Council would have had to have subjected the parents to a detriment directly because they have threatened legal proceedings. As far as the Council is aware, no legal proceedings have been issued.
12.5.2 You have provided no evidence of this and therefore your claim is unfounded. In any event, the Council denies that any parents have been subject to a detriment.
12.6 Sections 85 and 86
12.6.1 Your claim in relation to these sections are also without foundation as you have provided no evidence to suggest that any children will be subject to a detriment as a result of this decision.
12.6.2 Furthermore, the Council has consulted a wide range of interested parties on a number of different options to ensure that all consultees were aware of the different proposals that the Council wished to consider prior to making an appropriate “in-principle” decision that would lead to the children continue to receive the highest standard of education.
12.6.3 In addition, the decision to commence the statutory process to publish a closure notice to close the school from 2016 is not determinative that the school will be closed or that the children will be moved to another school which is specifically designed to provide education to pupils with special educational needs and other disabilities. On that basis, the children will suffer no detriment as a result.
12.6.4 Further, the allegation that children are being penalised for their parents’ opposition to the proposals, or for any other reason, is entirely without foundation. This is simply incorrect and there is no evidence to support such a spurious allegation.
12.7 Section 112
12.7.1 The Council strenuously denies any breach of the Equality Act, therefore your point in relation to this section has no legal foundation.
12.8 Section 149
12.8.1 For the reasons set out at paragraph 14 below, the Council has clearly discharged its public sector equality duty under the provision of the Act.
12.9 Section 158
12.9.1 The Council accepts that the pupils at Lyndale have educational needs that are different from the needs of pupils in mainstream education. However, you state in your letter that pupils with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (“PMLD”) form a small minority of the school population. This is not the case, there are 21 pupils on the roll at Lyndale, 18 of which are diagnosed as having PMLD.
12.9.2 In dealing with your point, we reiterate that the level of education provided to the children will not be affected by the proposals.
===================================================================================================================
13. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (“DDA 1995”) and the Disability Discrimination Act 2005
13.1 I do not propose to respond in detail to the provisions referred to in the above Acts given that both were repealed by Schedule 27(1) Paragraph 1 of the Equality Act.
13.2 As a gesture of goodwill, I have listed below the points you have raised in relation to these Acts that are covered by the new Equality Act.
13.2.1 Sections 21B, 28B, 28C and 28F DDA 1995 are now covered by s.13 Equality Act.
13.2.2 Sections 21D and 49A DDA 1995 are now covered by s.149 EA 2010.
13.3 I have responded to the points raised under the new provisions above.
14. Equality Impact Assessment (“EIA”)
14.1 As mentioned above, the Council is fully aware of its public sector equality duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons with a protected characteristic and those without.
14.2 In order to comply with this, the Council commissioned an EIAs which commenced on the 6th December 2013 and further reviewed on the 6th August 2014. The purpose of the EIA was to ensure that the Cabinet was fully aware of any equality implications when considering a proposal that Lyndale may close before making an in principle decision to public a statutory closure notice.
14.3 The EIA, which is publicly available online, assesses the impact that the proposals could have on pupils; staff at both Lyndale and other schools; and the parents of children affected by the decision. The EIA refers to the potential positive impact that the proposals could have on the children concerned, for example they may be provided access to new and varied opportunities, and steps that can be taken to ensure there are no negative consequences.
14.4 The members of the Cabinet had access to the EIA documents and reviewed both of them prior to making its decision of 4 September 2014. As such, it is clear that the council has had “due regard” to its’ public sector equality duty under the Equality Act.
15. SEN Improvement test
15.1 The Council is fully aware of its obligation to apply the SEN Improvement test to the decision in this matter. To assist compliance with this duty, the Council instructed an independent consultant to assess all the options.
15.2 Specifically in relation to the points you raise, Table 1 and Part 7.7 of the independent consultant’s report referring to the SEN Improvement Test (which is also publicly available) indicate that both alternative schools, Stanley and Elleray Park have at least as good Ofsted judgements. This demonstrates that if in due course it is proposed that Lyndale pupils are placed in either of these schools it will not limit their access but will improve their access to high quality education and services.
15.3 The two alternative schools are special schools with staff that are suitably qualified to teach and support children although no decision has yet been made that a particular child will move to either of these alternative schools. Furthermore, if in due course the Council decides to implement a decision to close Lyndale it will look to support staff at The Lyndale in finding alternative employment. However, no decisions in this regard have been made, so this particular ground of challenge is extremely premature. However, the Council wishes to point out that no pupil’s access to specialist staff will be affected.
15.4 Part 7.7 of the Report also states that the first alternative school, Stanley, has new accommodation specifically designed to cater for children with PMLD. In particular, it has 12 large classrooms, a hydrotherapy pool and sensory facilities. The second alternative school, Elleray Park, is currently being expanded to enhance the specialist facilities that pupils with PMLD require. As such, it is clear that if a decision to close Lyndale is made in due course, pupils at Lyndale will be able to access suitable accommodation facilities at other schools in the area. This may include Elleray Park or Stanley Schools whose capacity has recently been increased.
15.5 On that basis your assertion that there will not be an improved supply of places is unfounded.
15.6 Further, reiterating what has already been mentioned in this letter, both Elleray Park and Stanley schools are special schools and are therefore more than able to receive pupils with PMLD and other complex needs.
15.7 Referring to the point you raise regarding funding, the Report clearly states that this is a viable option. Most other options lead to a budget deficit of between £26,000 and £168,000 which is financially unsustainable and would lead to a significant reduction in the quality of education provided to the pupils at Lyndale, which you will agree, is not a viable option. This proposal indicates there would be a surplus of £33,000.
16. Premature Challenge
16.1 In addition to all of the reasons stated above, the Council regards your threat of Judicial Review as being extremely premature. As is clearly stated in the Cabinet minutes, this is merely an “in-principle” decision to proceed with the statutory process.
16.2 There are still several stages of the statutory process to undergo which includes a stage whereby any person or organisation will be invited to make further representations to the Council in response to the statutory notices. The Cabinet is under a statutory obligation to consider such representations before making a final decision. It is possible, that the Council may decide not to close Lyndale School.
16.3 As these processes have not yet been completed and no final decision on the matter has been made, it is the Council’s view that any suggestion of a way of challenge by way of Judicial Review at this stage is extremely premature and unnecessary.
17. Further information
17.1 At section nine of your letter you outline numerous requests for further information. The Council’s response to each request is detailed below.
17.1.1 The Council’s Cabinet Report of 4th September 2014, its appendices and the record of the Cabinet decision of 4 September
2014 sets out fully the Council’s reasons for its “in-principle” decision.
17.1.2 The Council does not hold statistical information relating to staff at Lyndale. It is possible that Lyndale may hold such information and it would therefore be appropriate for you to deal with Lyndale direct in relation to this request
17.1.3 You have requested information relating to statistics on any protected characteristics of the Council’s workforce. The Council does hold such information, but cannot see the relevance of this request in light of the proposed grounds of challenge. Any such information is held purely based on information employees have provided about themselves to the Council as their employer and is not relevant to the in principle decision to publish a statutory closure notice.
17.1.4 In relation to your request for statistics on pupils at Lyndale – the Council can confirm that currently 21 pupils are listed on the admission the roll at Lyndale. 18 children have been diagnosed as having PMLD, three have complex learning difficulties, two are of Asian (Indian) origin and the remainder are White British.
17.1.5 The Council believes that the financial information that is publicly available as part of the Cabinet report fully discharges its duty of candour in relation to the request for a three year projection of Lyndale School’s budget.
17.1.6 Any earlier draft of the report detailing the outcome of the consultation are not relevant as officers continued to consider their report in the light of feedback and responses
18. Documents you request
18.1 At Section 10 of your letter you request a number of documents that you consider relevant. The Council’s response to each request is detailed below.
18.1.1 Please refer to Appendix 6 of the Cabinet report (which is publicly available) which contains a summary of the responses received during the consultation.
18.1.2 The Council’s response to your request for these documents is detailed at Paragraphs 17.1.5 and 17.1.6 above.
18.1.3 Six public meetings which formed part of the Council’s consultation process were held, to which all interested parties including staff and trade unions were invited to attend. Notes of these are published with the Cabinet report at Appendices 5-7.
18.1.4 As part of the Council’s consultation process it met with the Chair of governors of Lyndale and the whole governing body in separate meetings.
18.1.5 There was no report commissioned from a Principal Educational Psychologist.
18.1.6 Details of how the Council think the preferred option meets the SEN Improvement test – this is detailed extensively in the Cabinet Report, its’ appendices and Paragraph 15 above.
19.1 For the reasons set out at paragraphs 9 and 10, the original Cabinet decision of 4 September 2014 was entirely valid and therefore your request that the Council issue an undertaking to postpone proceeding with the statutory process is unreasonable and inappropriate.
19.2 Any further Cabinet meeting that takes places that considers any decision associated with the decision made on the 4 September 2014 will, of course, comply fully with the regulatory and constitutional requirements, which the Council is subject to.
19.3 The Council is committed to openness and transparency about its decision-making and from the nature of the information that is publicly available all interested parties are able to determine the full range of information the Council took into account, including the different options considered, before the decision of 4 September 2014 was made. The Council is satisfied that its decision making process to date has been transparent and open, and does not consider that a further meeting would be beneficial particularly in light of the fact that the early stages of the statutory process have not yet completed and no final decision with regard to the potential closure of Lyndale has been made.
If you are still minded to pursue a claim for Judicial Review, the Council will vigorously oppose any proceedings and seek to recover its costs of defending such proceedings. We consider the threat of such proceedings to be premature, wholly misconceived and entirely without merit for all the reasons set out above.
Yours sincerely,
(signature of Surjut Tour)
Surjit Tour Head of Legal and Member Services and Monitoring Officer
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Expense claim forms for Councillor Tony Smith 2013 to 2014 reveal mysterious Lyndale School meeting in February 2013
Expense claim forms for Councillor Tony Smith 2013 to 2014 reveal mysterious Lyndale School meeting in February 2013
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith is a Labour Party councillor for Upton ward. He is the Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services. His expense claims relate mileage claims for travel to Cabinet meetings, the Youth Parliament meeting in November 2013, Council meetings, meetings of the Health and Wellbeing Board, meetings of the Schools Forum, meetings of the Children’s Trust Board, attendance at a social workers conference at the Floral Pavilion, the meeting of 5th February 2014 to consider the Lyndale School call ins, meetings of the Youth and Play Service Advisory Committee, a safeguarding meeting at Acre Lane, meetings with staff, training sessions and a meeting with parents and “Mr D” (or possibly “Ms D” or “Mc, D”) at Lyndale School on the 1st February 2013.
Some of his claims were not allowed, all seven disallowed claims relate to Cabinet meetings.
The meeting with parents and the mysterious “Mr D” (or possibly “Ms D” or “Mc, D”) on page 7 at Lyndale School on the 1st February 2013 comes as a surprise to me and this was three weeks before Wirral Council valued the land and buildings at Lyndale School at £2,696,103.00 and many months before the plan for closing the school became known to the public just before Christmas 2013.
Could the mysterious “Mr D” (or possibly “Ms D” or “Mc, D”) referred on page 7 be David Armstrong (Wirral Council’s Assistant Chief Executive/Head of Universal and Infrastructure Services)? Mr David Armstrong has responsibilities for school assets such as the land and buildings is on or does it refer to someone else? Who were the parents and the mysterious “Mr D” (or possibly “Ms D” or “Mc, D”) that Cllr Tony Smith met with at Lyndale School? What was talked about at this meeting and what was it about?
UPDATED 15:51 Lyndale School visitors’ book shows that Cllr Tony Smith, Julia Hassall and Dawn Hughes all signed the visitors’ book around the same time on that day. It is possible that Cllr Tony Smith is referring to parents + Mc (referring to Alison McGovern MP) and D (referring to Dawn Hughes).
Back in February 2014 David Armstrong denied he had visited the school and that anyone else in his team had gone to look at Lyndale School.
David Armstrong stated at a public meeting on the 27th February 2014 “I can honestly say Councillor Fraser that I don’t know the answer because I’ve deliberately because I don’t want it to confuse the debate and become a distraction, we have done no action whatsoever looking at the Lyndale site.
I said to Pat this evening after the parents spoke at the last meeting, I would very much like to have visited the school and have a look around, so I did talk to Pat but also to remind myself about the school as I was a mainstream teacher.
I deliberately haven’t done that because if I go to the school particularly with my current monitoring responsibilities everyone will think I’ve come to look at the building or look at the site or look at the land. I know the area that the site occupies but genuinely myself and no one else in my team that work with me would have come to look at the site. So I couldn’t actually quote that figure tonight.”
and
“I tried to explain, that I am known as the asset person in the Council and currently I have all the baggage and tags that go with that. There has been no work done on looking to dispose of the site.”
Below are the nine pages of expenses forms submitted by Councillor Tony Smith.
Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8Cllr Tony Smith expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road
Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road
Public notice of proposed traffic regulation order (9th July 2014) Wirral Globe Birkenhead Market Service Road
Below is our objection to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road. If you wish to also object the closing date is Friday 26th September 2014. A copy of the plan of which parts of the Birkenhead Market Service Road will be affected by the proposed Traffic Regulation Order can be downloaded from here. These plans are provided under the “fair use” provisions for news reporting in s.30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 c.48 and have already been provided to the public but are copyrighted by Ordnance Survey.
Surjit Tour,
Wallasey Town Hall
Brighton Street,
Seacombe
CH44 8ED
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral
CH43 7PH
Dear Surjit Tour,
Your reference: KO (proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road)
Below are our objections (from both John and Leonora Brace) to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road which is being consulted on (the consultation closes on 26th September 2014).
The public notice for the proposed traffic regulation order was first published in the Wirral Globe on the 9th July 2014 with a closing date for objections of the 1st August 2014. However as a copy of the proposed order, Council’s statement of reasons and map had not been made available to the One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Seacombe when we visited on the afternoon of the 9th July 2014, it was agreed that in order for the Council to comply with the Regulation 7(3) of SI 1996/2489 that a further public notice would appear in the local press (with the necessary documents being sent to Council offices for inspection by the public during the consultation period).
This notice was published in the Wirral Globe on the 3rd September 2014. A meeting was held on site to discuss the proposed traffic regulation order on the afternoon of 17th September 2014 at which Leonora Brace, John Brace and two Wirral Council officers were present. This meeting gave an opportunity for both sides to discuss the outstanding objections we had to the readvertised traffic regulation order and to observe levels of parking in the area of the Birkenhead Market Service Road at that time.
The reasons behind the proposed traffic regulation order were explained to us by officers. The effect of the traffic regulation order (if agreed) would be to prevent parking by Blue Badge holders, as all of Birkenhead Market Service Road that was not a loading bay would have a “No waiting and no loading at any time” restriction (known as double yellow lines with kerb blips which prevents parking by Blue Badge users).
If agreed, it would displace those drivers with a Blue Badge that can park there for up to three hours to elsewhere in the area of Birkenhead Market. Although Blue Badge users can park in Council car parks without any restriction on length of stay, at the time of the site visit the nearest Blue Badge spaces in the Council car park next to Birkenhead Bus Station were all in use.
The Pyramids multi-storey car park was referred to by officers both by email and during the site visit as a potential solution to the displaced parking that would result, however it was confirmed to me by a member of the Pyramids staff that although parking there is free on a Sunday, that during Monday to Saturday a charge is made for parking. We were both told that the Pyramids Shopping Centre is one of the two bodies that are funding this traffic regulation order (the other being the organisation that runs the Birkenhead Market Hall).
During the site visit, one of the stall holders at Birkenhead Market expressed concern over the potential effect on his customers. It was clear there was confusion about the proposed traffic regulation order and there had been no consultation with each stall holder at Birkenhead Market to explain the proposed changes.
Individual stall holders have a sublease which allow them to park for up to an hour in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. Their rights are detailed in the sublease between Birkenhead Market Limited and Birkenhead Market Services Limited (which is defined in the lease as an overriding lease) and the obligations towards stallholders are specified in section 1.1 (Right to use half width of access road) and 1.2 (Rights over Market Loading Bays). There is also a lease between Wirral Council and Birkenhead Market Limited dated 31st July 2003.
Some stall holders are also in receipt of a Blue Badge, therefore can now park in some stretches of the Birkenhead Market Service Road for up to three hours. However if the proposed traffic regulation order is agreed, these disabled stall holders will be restricted to only the hour they are now granted under the sublease.
During the period of consultation on this traffic regulation order, a car parking review was undertaken by councillors which reported back to councillors on the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on Monday 22nd September 2014. One of the recommendations to a future Cabinet meeting agreed at that meeting was “Cabinet approves the following ‘Objectives’ and ‘Principles’ which should provide a guiding framework for any future Car Parking strategy.” which included the following objective relevant to this objection:
“To provide sufficient numbers of disabled parking spaces in good proximity to shops and services.”
Whereas we realise that this recommendation is yet to be agreed by a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet, the traffic regulation order as proposed would prevent parking for Blue Badge holders in the Birkenhead Market Service Road (whether customers, market stall holders or others) and displace these drivers elsewhere. As observed on the site visit, the nearest disabled parking spaces in the car park by Birkenhead Bus Station were all in use, which would force drivers with mobility problems further away from where they shop or work. The lack of spaces nearby could displace these drivers to the Pyramids car park where on a Monday to Saturday they would be charged for parking.
It is understood that a minority of careless drivers who do park in an obstructive way in the Birkenhead Market Service Road and that this can cause problems for commercial traffic wishing to load and unload. However there are existing powers to traffic wardens and the police to deal with such matters and the existing Blue Badge holders parking responsibly shouldn’t be penalised for the actions of other drivers and forced to park elsewhere!
The public notice about this traffic regulation order published in the press on Wednesday 9th July 2014 details five proposed sections on Birkenhead Market Service Road of over thirty metres of “No Waiting” and four restrictions on stretches on the Birkenhead Market Service Road of over 30 metres in “parking bays” with an exemption in the parking bays for goods vehicles.
Regulation 9 of SI 1996/2489 states that if the proposed traffic regulation order prohibits loading and unloading by vehicles of any class for a total distance of more than thirty metres out of fifty metres on one side of any length of road and an objection is made, then a public inquiry has to be held before making such an order.
If Wirral Council agrees with us that a public inquiry should be held on this matter, then the regulations require a further public notice published in the local press at least three weeks before the inquiry is held.
Our last points are that Wirral Council has duties under various pieces of legislation (Equality Act 2010 c.15, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 c.13 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 c.50) not to discriminate against the protected minority of disabled people in the way it carries out its procedures and policies. The traffic regulation order, if agreed, would prevent disabled shoppers in receipt of a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. It would also restrict disabled market stallholders in receipt of a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road from the current three hours they have to the one hour that they are granted under the sublease. It appears that this latter group of people has not been directly consulted in this matter.
For these reasons, whereas we both understand the commercial reasons why the Pyramids and Birkenhead Market Hall want Wirral Council to grant a traffic regulation order to help deal with obstructive parking on the Birkenhead Market Service Road, we formally object to the proposed traffic regulation order and look forward to hearing from you in the near future about how you wish to proceed in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
John and Leonora Brace
===================================================================================================================
Previous articles on this matter:
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly takes on Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies on a matter involving Wirral’s forest
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly takes on Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies on a matter involving Wirral’s forest
Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly explains to the Coordinating Committee why he disagrees with the Cabinet decision about Forest Schools and Healthy Homes 18th September 2014 Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The following is meant as satire. Obviously Cllr Stuart Kelly is not Robin Hood and Councillor Phil Davies is not the Sheriff of Nottingham. You can watch the meeting from beginning to end, however the video clips below are of the part of the meeting described below that video clip.
Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly had gone into Nottingham’sWirral’s castle as he disagreed with the plans of Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies. The plans Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” had were about the Forest Schools and Healthy Homes programs.
Councillor Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly regularly appeared in articles in the local newspaper the NottinghamWirral Globe and was known for being a “thorn in the side” of the Sheriff.
In the recent past he had argued with the Sheriff as the Sheriff was charging the poor peasantspeople (who didn’t have computers) of Wirral an extra £5 to have their garden rubbish removed in brown bins. The Sheriff had disagreed with Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly then. As far as the Sheriff was concerned, the bins tax was fair (and although not stated obviously fairer than the bedroom tax which the Sheriff was against).
After the Sheriff had heard at a meeting recently that any of the peasantspeople of Wirral could go into one of its many 24 libraries (on which a consultation on reducing the opening hours was now taking place on the orders of the Sheriff) and sign up to pay the “bin tax” online (completely failing to mention the irony of Cllr Foulkes’ plan to close half of the libraries which was stopped a few years ago by Sue Charteris, the Labour government and the people of Wirral).
One of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s colleagues Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry (who is not Maid Marian despite also having the initials MM) told Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly that he had five minutes only to make his case. Thankfully she did not add that if he exceeded his time she would call the guards of the castle and have him dragged off to the dungeon (formerly the Mayor’s wine cellar) for having the gall and brass neck to try to upset the Sheriff.
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly of Oxton explained the many hardships the peasantspeople were suffering. He wanted the children of Wirral to visit the forests! He wanted the people to have warm homes and not be cold in the winter ahead! He was doing this all for the people! He disagreed with Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies as he felt that it was wrong to try to stop or cut how much was spent on these matters as if they did the people would suffer!
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry then called Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” to speak, again for up to five minutes.
Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies was keen to show he wasn’t as bad as Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly had painted him earlier. He blamed it all on Prince John Queen Elizabeth II and the Coalition government. He explained that the Forest Schools target was to send 660 children to the forests of Nottingham Wirral over the last two years. In fact at the end of year one it had exceeded its target! Therefore this was why the money was taken away. Yes, classes of fifteen, instead of thirty were now being used but this was all for the be benefit of the children! It was his contention that both on Healthy Homes and Forest Schools that this was prudent financially.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry then asked for the witnesses to be called. A senior manager of the forests of Wirral came to speak. She explained what the Forest Schools program was about and how it was run by the rangers. They had decided that classes of fifteen were the best size. The experienced rangers were running the program, with the money used to backfill their positions.
Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall said how fabulous the work of the Forest Schools was and how it was better now it was fifteen and not thirty.
Another councillor asked if the budget was cut. The senior manager of the forests confirmed it had. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry referred to a “reduction in activity” followed by Cllr Mike Sullivan again.
Cllr Janette Williamson of Liscard described it as a “great project”.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The effect on the children was talked about as well as how it made a “voluntary mute” “chatty and enthusiastic”. However the officer warned of the effect on places like Bidston Hill which was suffering whilst its ranger was doing this.
Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham asked a question about £18,000? The officer replied that was the underspend in year one. She continued talking about the beneficial effects on the young children and the benefits of it, not just on the children but on others too. The reduction in early years involvement in the Forest Schools program from four events to two was referred to. Various people asked questions and the debate went on.
Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall referred to the fact they might have to lay off rangers, to a rather horrified look from Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry who intervened. How much each schools paid to be involved was mentioned, with the poor schools paying less than the richer schools.
Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to the benefits, a decrease in school absence, increase in outdoor use and exercise and other benefits. The manager replied. She was thanked by Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry who then asked the Healthy Homes witness to come forward.
Lisa told everybody about what the Healthy Homes program was, how it was about healthy lifestyles, smoking cessation and a “whole house” approach (whatever that means). She referred to the NHS, training “champions” and “partner agencies” as well as grants and loans that could be provided to tackles hazards.
Cllr Mitchell of Eastham referred to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service. The manager referred to “significant progress” as well as the police service and fire service. He asked her another question and she said she could only speak for Wirral Council. Cllr Mitchell of Eastham asked another question.
Cllr Berry of Moreton West and Saughall Massie asked about the budget cut and when she had been told? Had she been asked for comments about the potential impacts? He referred to numbers of assessments done.
The answer given referred to housing renovation loans, central heating and grants. Cllr Janette Williamson of Liscard indicated her question had already been answered. Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to a presentation last year of Ian Platt about the Healthy Homes program and funding. The manager replied to his points using phrases such as that they could “still help everyone”.
Cllr Mike Sullivan of Pensby & Thingwall said the manager was not “Mystic Meg”. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry thanked the witness and called Kevin Adderley.
Kevin Adderley said he was “very pleased” and that the two schemes he was “proud of”. He went into detail about the impacts of the Forest Schools and Healthy Homes programs and referred to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.
Cllr Mitchell of Eastham asked why he had selected these to be earmarked for savings and why wasn’t the money capitalised?
Kevin Adderley answered that was explained in the Cabinet Report. He went into a little more detail. Mitchell of Eastham asked another question, Kevin Adderley again referred to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry made a point, Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to all the people who could be helped. Kevin Adderley replied that it was in privately owned accommodation, not registered social landlord and that they couldn’t be expected to knock on 100,000 doors on the Wirral, they had to rely on people coming forward.
Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to that they were in danger of disadvantaging people and that they should be proactive. Kevin Adderley replied that he was sure they wouldn’t want to advertise to private sector landlords and that there was a “fine balance”.
Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton referred to the “age of austerity” and that he could only think in terms of his own household’s budget. He disagreed with capitalising the expenditure and referred to cuts and the “prudent financial management” and that they shouldn’t be finding ways of spending money that they haven’t got.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Fiona Johnstone to come forward as a witness. Fiona Johnstone said she would take questions, but in answer to an earlier question about process it had first been agreed with the Cabinet portfolio holder. Kevin Adderley left for two minutes at this point. She continued by explaining the history of it all and when things had happened and would happen. Kevin Adderley returned. Fiona Johnstone continued on about Forest Schools and other matters. Mitchell of Eastham referred to the benefits to the children. Fiona Johnstone replied that there would be a full evaluation in May or June. However in her view the question was what could they afford to do more efficiently followed by talking about outcomes. Cllr Mitchell of Eastham referred to the review. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry interrupted.
Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby & Irby referred to the fact it was public health money. Fiona Johnstone answered that they were waiting till the call in was complete. Cllr Anita Leech of Leasowe and Moreton East referred to the Cabinet minute about public health spending. Fiona Johnstone replied that they had monthly reports on the budget and in answer to a question as to whether these monthly financial reports went to the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee the answer was “not now”.
Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols asked a question. The answer given by Fiona Johnstone was that every project had been asked to make an assessment of the impact and those assessments had been received. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols asked if that was a written assesment? Fiona Johnstone replied that it was for 38 projects. Cllr Phillip Brightmore of Pensby & Thingwall asked a brief question to which Fiona Johnstone referred to that there would be a need to understand a proper evaluation.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly to sum up in five minutes. Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to the ringfencing of the money for public health. He said that the Forest Schools was “knocked into a cocked hat” and was a “victim of its own success”. Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to the reduction in class sizes from thirty to fifteen and referred to the Healthy Homes scheme.
He was interrupted by others, but Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry told him to “carry on”.
Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly referred to substandard housing and how it had nothing to do with next year’s deficit. He questioned the stability of this year’s budget and how they could say that reducing to fifteen in each class for Forest Schools was a “success”? He referred to twenty-one households who would be affected by Healthy Homes and that how they need to think about priorities as these were small amounts of money.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies to speak for five minutes.
He thanked Cllr Moira McLaughlin, said the project was a pilot project time limited to two years but that it was “something new” and “not a precise science”. Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies was not surprised that they had not been able to spend their total amount of funding. In the case of Forest Schools and Health Homes he felt it was “financially sensible” to make savings and think about “how best to use the money”.
He then went to refer to “savage cuts” and how Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly was asking for the original budgets to be restored. Even if he did restore the budget he didn’t think it could be spent by 31st March 2015 as the rangers wouldn’t have the spare capacity, he even went so far as to use the word “nonsense”.
In closing he said he would like to see the projects continue, referred to them as “fantastic” and what’s needed was an “enlightened government” (in reference to cuts). He asked Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly to join him in a lobby on the train to number 10 Downing Street to endorse the position of the Cabinet.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin of Rock Ferry asked if anyone wanted to debate it. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols left.
Cllr Jerry Williams of Bebington said that the Council was “working well” in “difficult circumstances” and that he knew Cllr Stuart “Robin Hood” Kelly was an “opposition councillor”. He wanted to dwell on the positives rather than being totally negative.
Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby and Irby said that it was public health money and they had to remember that it was nothing to do with the challenges.
Cllr Anita Leech of Leasowe and Moreton East referred to the ringfencing of the money and how the best number of class sizes was fifteen for the Forest Schools program. Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham referred to the Forest Schools project being an “excellent project”. Cllr Gerry Ellis of Hoylake and Meols returned. Cllr Dave Mitchell of Eastham continued by referring to what Ed Miliband and the Labour Party’s spokesperson had said would happen if they were elected in May 2015 and how they would not change anything. He referred to how the Forest Schools program was allowing young people to improve their lives.
Cllr David Elderton of West Kirby and Thurstaston referred to the concerns of Wendy Clements and the ringfencing of the money and that they should leave it alone and not throw the “baby out with the bath water”. Cllr Phillip Brightmore of Pensby and Thingwall referred to the money.
Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry referred to Cllr Paul Doughty’s resolution and the three options they had. However the middle one wasn’t applicable. They could refer the matter back to Cabinet or agree to uphold the original decision.
Cllr Paul Doughty of Prenton move a recommendation congratulating officers and referring to “prudent financial management”. His recommendation was that the Cabinet decision of 7th July 2014 would stand. Cllr Moira of Rock Ferry seconded it.
An amendment was moved by Cllr Wendy Clements of Greasby, Frankby and Irby. The amendment was to refer it back to the Cabinet asking them to be careful to evaluate the use of ringfenced funds and retain the projects. This was seconded.
There was a vote on the amendment.
For the amendment (6): Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Bruce Berry, Cllr Gerry Ellis, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Wendy Clements.
Against the amendment (9): Cllr Janette Williamson, Cllr Jerry Williams, Cllr Michael Sullivan, Cllr Walter Smith, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Paul Doughty and Cllr Moira McLaughlin.
The amendment was lost.
Voting on the original recommendation.
For the recommendation (9): Cllr Janette Williamson, Cllr Jerry Williams, Cllr Michael Sullivan, Cllr Walter Smith, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Phillip Brightmore, Cllr Paul Doughty and Cllr Moira McLaughlin.
Against the recommendation (6): Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Bruce Berry, Cllr Gerry Ellis, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Steve Williams and Cllr Wendy Clements.
The recommendation was won and the nine Labour councillors voted to uphold the original decision of the Labour Cabinet (which is led by Cllr Phil “Sheriff of Nottingham” Davies).
The original Cabinet decision of the 7th July 2014 upheld by a majority vote (the call in related to section (5) of the original decision) was:
RESOLVED: That
Revenue:
(1) it be noted that at Month 2 (May 2014), the full year forecast projects a gross General Fund overspend of £3,137,000;
(2) the increased commitment of £152,000 for Carbon Reduction Commitment allowances contained within the above figure be noted;
(3) that the payment of New Homes Bonus grant of £242,253 which is a general grant received outside of directorate budgets be noted;
(4) the risks relating to non delivery of savings as detailed in paragraph 3.3 of appendix A and requirement for mitigation and actions to be identified be noted;
(5) the mitigation actions being undertaken including capitalisation, reprofiling and use of public health budgets as per paragraph 3.5 (of Appendix A) and reductions to 2014/15 growth as detailed in paragraphs 5.2 and table 5 above (of Appendix A). Further mitigation action will be developed as appropriate during the year;
(6) the application of the additional New Homes Bonus grant against the Carbon reduction commitment and overall overspend to reduce the net overspend to £2,894,747 be approved.
Capital:
(i) the spend to date at Month 2 of £1.3 million, with 16.7% of the financial year having elapsed be noted; and
(ii) the revised Capital Programme of £61.3 million (Table 1 at 3.1 of Appendix B) be approved.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
