Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree to consultation on master plan for Birkenhead

Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree to consultation on master plan for Birkenhead

Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree to consultation on master plan for Birkenhead

                                                       

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.

You can watch what happened at the Cabinet meeting on the 12th March 2015 above.

Wirral Council Cabinet meeting at Birkenhead Town Hall Thursday 12th March 2015 Left to right Surjit Tour, Cllr Phil Davies and Joe Blott
Wirral Council Cabinet meeting at Birkenhead Town Hall Thursday 12th March 2015 Left to right Surjit Tour, Cllr Phil Davies and Joe Blott

Wirral Council’s Cabinet met at a different venue to usual (Birkenhead Town Hall). At the start, Councillor Phil Davies wanted to show people the trophy that Wirral Council had received for being “Most Improved Council”. You can see a photo of when they received the award on the Local Government Chronicle website, but below is a photo of Cllr Phil Davies showing people the award at the Cabinet meeting.

Councillor Phil Davies shows off the Local Government Chronicle award Wirral Council received for being most improved council 12th March 2015
Councillor Phil Davies shows off the Local Government Chronicle award Wirral Council received for being most improved council 12th March 2015

Moving to what was on the agenda, Cabinet recommended the draft pay policy statement to the next Council meeting, the revenue financial monitoring report for month ten was hardly commented on, however various councillors commented on various capital projects.

Kevin Adderley talks to the Property Development Framework report at Cabinet on the 12th March 2015
Kevin Adderley talks to the Property Development Framework report at Cabinet on the 12th March 2015

Kevin Adderley talked to the Property Development Framework report after which the Cabinet agreed the recommendations in the report.

Kevin Adderley talking to the Enterprise Zone report at Cabinet on the 12th March 2015
Kevin Adderley talking to the Enterprise Zone report at Cabinet on the 12th March 2015

Mr Adderley then talked to the Enterprise Zone report and again Cabinet agreed the recommendations.

Cabinet agreed a slight increase in the amounts paid to residential and nursing homes and the arrangements for the delivery and commissioning of social care.

Cllr Tony Smith tells Cabinet what the outcome of the consultation on Pensby High School was 12th March 2015
Cllr Tony Smith tells Cabinet what the outcome of the consultation on Pensby High School was 12th March 2015

Councillor Tony Smith told Cabinet what the results were of the consultation to merge Pensby High School for Boys with Pensby High School for Girls. Cabinet agreed to move to the next stage of publishing notices.

The draft admission arrangements for primary schools and secondary schools were also agreed.

Cllr Pat Hackett talks at a Cabinet meeting about the master plan for Birkenhead Town Centre
Cllr Pat Hackett talks at a Cabinet meeting about the master plan for Birkenhead Town Centre

Councillor Pat Hackett spoke to the report recommending a consultation on the masterplan for Birkenhead Town Centre. He referred to an “improved market” and the stage one lockout agreement that the Council had entered into with Neptune Developments Limited. The detail of the proposals were covered in an earlier blog post. Cabinet agreed that Neptune Development Limited were to consult with the public (as well as staff who work at Europa Pools) on the masterplan.

Kevin Adderley pointed out that the Mars Pension Fund had recently advertised the Grange and Pyramids shopping centre in Birkenhead as being for sale. The recommendation to have a consultation was agreed by Cabinet.

A slight increase from April in fees charged to scrap metal dealers was agreed. Cllr George Davies spoke on the report reporting the consultation on licensing of private landlords in four areas on the Wirral. Cabinet agreed to refer the proposals to the Council meeting on the 16th March 2015.

The nominations from Cabinet for Civic Mayor and Deputy Mayor for 2015/16 were as follows:

Civic Mayor: Cllr Les Rowlands
Deputy Mayor: Cllr Pat Hackett

Cabinet then excluded the press and public from the rest of the 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:

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub

                        

At Thursday’s meeting of Merseytravel, councillors had to decide whether to sell a Liverpool pub (bought for £106,174 in May 2009) for only £18,000. The pub was bought as part of the since axed Merseytram scheme. According to the report prepared for councillors it was “overgrown with vegetation”, “substantially demolished” and only retained its front walls. Due to fly tipping Merseytravel was served with a “environmental enforcement order” by Liverpool City Council. Despite its unloved state, since being purchased by Merseytravel, “minimal works to improve the site have been completed by Ascot Property Group in 2013”.

Budget Meeting, Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority
Thursday, 6th February, 2014 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 6 (Disposal of Land)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Item number six is the disposal plans, Tony’s going to actually present that <A HREF="“>report, I’m just going to make the point that this part of the land is actually falls within my ward, I’ve checked with the Monitoring Officer and I don’t need to declare an interest because I have no personal interest in the matter. I did want to make that clear beforehand, so Tony?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Thank you Chair. Yeah, Merseytravel owns a small plot of land on the corner of West Derby Road as you can see in the report. This proposal is to accept an offer for the sale of it to an organisation called The Lofts (Ormskirk) Management Limited.

The background to this property purchase on behalf of our Merseytram scheme was to secure the land for the tram. Obviously now that the site is owned by ourselves, we’ve further looked to try and dispose of it. We have taken a decision it’s important to establish.

Effectively the building is just a façade, it’s just a shell, it’s an old pub, it’s derelict, it’s been knocked down. In fact recently it was identified by the city council as an eyesore and obviously I’ve been exploring there’s actually been a lot of debris and fly tipping from the site. At the moment it’s a liability to us and what we’re looking to try and do is dispose of it.

The advice of the District Auditor is effectively we should pursue a meeting and sell to the adjacent landowner, who’s actually preparing a land package to … a large … of the site. Our understanding is that there’s going to be a planning application for residential and then retail usage. The proposal is that we’ve had from them is to sell for £18,000 which is a reduction on what we purchased it for, details are in the report and if you want me to take any questions Chair on the proposal?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Yeah, thanks Tony. Les and Steve.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): Yeah, I can understand the issues around this particular piece of land and it’s got a history of causing us problems. We are expending revenue on looking after the piece of land I guess, but my question and challenge is really about how we deal with what maybe I don’t know a portfolio of bits of land that are this. Some of them may be a remnant of Merseytram, others may be different but particularly there is another methodology of getting rid of land where you go through open auction, you do it through an agent and you don’t know who the owner is. Sometimes that brings a better price or a worse price.

The argument that’s sort of been discussed or debated is should we have gone to auction with this rather than just simply .. bid we’d have got more money. Or if we auctioned it now with a reserve price of £18,000 would we get more potentially?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): I’ll just say Chair, we did look at obviously going to auction there’s a cost but there’s no guarantees that there’d be buyers. The advice from the District Auditor was that the best option including the landlord who’s actually bought the plots of land is to make the best bid. If we want to open auction there would only be one bid and we may only get the reserve price.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Shane do you want to add to that?

Shane Fitzpatrick (Senior Head of Operations, Merseytravel): Just to add a comment on that, the land obviously was acquired from the Liverpool City Council and one of the conditions of the sale was to offer that back as an option. That was not, there was no take up on that offer.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks for that Shane, I’ve got Les first and then Tony.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative)): Chair, I was going to bring up the auction thing but that having been said now, looking at what it was bought for £106,000 and what we’re asking for it now £18,000 is actually a very low price for a plot of land that’s built some buildings on.

I mean I know in Wirral there’s been some damage to prices, but round about £80,000 to £90,000 for a plot of land for a house. So when I see £18,000 I mean I take it into account that it is a piece of land that’s been you know misused, fly tipping and everything else but it’s still a fair amount of land for £18,000. Surely you could have done a bit better than £18,000?

Tony (Merseytravel officer): Obviously that reflects the condition of the land. It’s actually derelict and it’s only a façade wall, it’s completely derelict land. Also …

Continues at EXCLUSIVE: Incredible £88,174 loss made by Merseytravel on sale of Liverpool pub (continued).

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

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

What did politicians say when they put up Mersey Tunnel tolls and how did they vote?

                               

Budget Meeting, Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority
Thursday, 6th February, 2014 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 4 (Tunnel Toll Setting 2014/15). The report for this agenda item can be downloaded from Merseytravel’s website.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair, (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Item four is the tunnel tolls setting process for 2014/2015, Gary and Frank do you want to introduce the report?

Merseytravel officer (Gary Evans, Head of Customer Delivery): Thank you Chair. Members will have the report in front of them, just to summarise the report it’s very consistent with previous year’s toll setting arrangements. Section two of the report details the legal process that the Authority must follow in considering and setting toll levels for the year. Section three actually details the authorised toll levels that were triggered in line with the Tunnels Act 2004 by RPI levels published in November 2013.

Section four covers the actual tolls that have been charged over the past five years and helps give Members a historical view around the authorised levels compared to actual levels charged along with the Fast Tag discount offered and that detail is in section four. Section five of the report, in determining the tolls Members must take account of issues of an economic and social nature in their decision making process. Section five details a range of economic and social data for the Merseyside region for 2013. This range of evidence will allow Members to have a considered opinion.

In section six Members will be aware that some of the principles of the Tunnels Act are to ensure that toll levels are broadly in line with other transport options in the region and section six details the cost of those alternative or comparable cross river transport services in place. Finally section eight of the report it details that any potential toll increase of ten pence, passed on vehicles in other classes generates the Authority approximately £2.4 million per an annum. I’m happy to take any questions on that report.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): OK thanks Gary. Are there any questions or comments for Gary in the first instance? Steve?

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): Thanks Chair and clearly as a Wirral representative it’s a highly sensitive issue and a difficult issue for Wirral Members to deal with because I think it is well accepted that the major impact of the tunnel toll increase does fall on Wirral residents and a great number of other residents indeed who use the tunnel on a daily basis as a commuter route or route to work. So clearly it is a difficult issue, I just want to lay out though a few issues.

This is my, having been new to the Authority last year this is the second time I’ve been confronted by this difficult decision and it is a decision we have to make because there’s a little bit of a clue in the name of this organisation, it’s the integrated transport authority and those people who want to separate the tunnel as a separate entity are missing a trick. The tunnel is integral to the things we do. Integrated transport means all routes whether it be bus, whether it be train, whether it be ferry, whether it be people who use the tunnel and the tunnel is in our ownership. So it falls upon us to make this, make this difficult, often very difficult decision.

One of the factors Gary referred to is the issue in and around the economy and whilst we are being told by the government everything’s great and the economy’s on the uplift. The economy always grows slower in the north-west. I think the economy at the moment is the, economic growth is so fragile that the tunnel toll in our sort of own mini economic scenario may be something that doesn’t help the economy, in fact hinders it and slows it down even further. At the same time as hailing that the economy is on the up, Chancellor Osborne consistently refers to further austerity packages.

Austerity for the north west, well austerity for local government means you are singled out and are hit with the biggest cuts. Austerity for north-west local authorities means that you are picked out for the most severe cuts and the highest percentages. I won’t quote the examples but we are always hit hardest, perhaps because we lack a number of Tory MPs. So therefore I think the tunnel tolls, partly by being part of the integrated transport network is also part of the overall budgetary position that the Authority finds itself in.

Now individuals can pick which topic they think extra money made from tunnel tolls is spent on, others can pick ones that are more favourable, others can pick ones that are less favourable, but nevertheless it does form part of the overall budget package. So any money that isn’t, is removed by any resolution today, would have to be found and replaced. So I’m glad that later on in the business the Authority is setting a freeze on the levy for the local authorities and that will certainly ease the position for any council tax payer over on the Wirral. And if the money, if the tunnel tolls say overnight were to be free and passed onto the council tax payer directly I think that would be an enormous burden for every single household particularly Wirral and elsewhere.

That would be impossible to bear and would not get through a referendum Chair I would add. People would vote against something that would lead to a ten percent hike on Council Tax simply to pay for the tunnels. So we are in a position where we have to make a budgetary decision in and around that based on the knowledge we have in front of us.

My argument has been since I’ve come on the Authority and before that position is that this link between across the Mersey or links across the Mersey is such of economic, national economic significance that it should have the right to be included in the national road network and therefore funded directly from national taxation as opposed to what is a local taxation situation. It appears our plea last year was unheard and it also appears that consultation that is taking place at the moment actually picks out estuary crossings for one that will always be tolled under this government’s consultation. So I think, if nothing else happened today, we need to get lobbying and make sure that that exemption is removed and that we have the right to campaign for the tunnels to be taken into the national road network and see how far we get with that. So clearly there’s those issues.

The other issue is that the overall budget of the ITA must be robust enough to maintain the running and safety of those tunnels because we would know that the economic damage done by say one tunnel going down or you know heaven forbid two tunnels in a state that they couldn’t remain open would be massively detrimental to our economic recovery, in fact it would probably see the economy off overnight. So we have to have a robust budget and people think that whilst the tunnels are well maintained, there’s a reason for that because the cost of the serious and major repair and damage to the infrastructure of the tunnel itself would exceed you know many people’s budget, we’d probably have to borrow money to actually do that. So it is well that we remember that, that this budget should be robust and a high level of reserves to dig your .. major repairs if necessary.

So having said all those things I do not believe that this is the right time in the economic cycle for us to increase the tunnel tolls for all the I can see the temptation to do so and from my part I haven’t prepared any resolution otherwise, but will probably unless someone convinces me in the next part of the debate will see myself actually voting against the increase based on the fragile economy that we are part of that the tunnel toll increase at this time would be the wrong route but I do believe, I do believe seriously that if we are serious about getting into the national road network we need to up our game and certainly we have one Conservative MP on Merseyside who should have the ear of government.

It would appear that the ground can change overnight, when we look at the decision on the A14 which was to be financed by tolls and it so happens that the Tory MP had the ear of government and that decision was reversed so they can change their mind if the right people use the right amount of influence. So my view is that we should continue the campaign for the national road network to take over the funding of the tunnels. In the absence of that, I understand the very difficult decision that we make today but I don’t feel on the basis of the evidence that I’ve got in front of me that I could support it today. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks Steve, that’s a very helpful contribution at that.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Thanks Chair. I’m not going to rehearse the story because quite frankly I agree with a lot of what Councillor Foulkes has had to say today. I do have a proposal to put forward, I think just to add to what Steve has had to say is that constantly on Merseyside, Wirral as well as a lot of the other surrounding councils are statistically below the national employment levels and have been for some time and quite a difference between those two levels. So it is an area that is actually under the cosh as it were.

Austerity I agree with Steve has hit us for whatever reasons us a lot harder up in the north-west and we’re all feeling it to all the councils and that means right down to the services that we’re giving and to the general public that have to pay for those services. It is really, really tight. Our councils locally will have to pull up their belt certainly and taking difficult decisions to actually keep those services running and to make decisions that are on a lot of occasions non political but have to be made to actually keep those services going to the people and if that means increasing you know they’ve had to do it but in other areas they’ve had to cut the cloth according to their need and take that service and the cost of that service down.

I think Merseytravel should be giving a message out at this time too, I agree again with what Steve said. I think this is the year, this is the time when we as Merseytravel, whilst still being safe in our tunnels, completing all the jobs that we’re expected to do health and safety and all that, should be sending out a message to say look we realise that this is hard, we realise that this is going to have an impact on the local economy ie people going to work it is going to be a hard time to put an extra ten pence on the tunnel tolls. It may not seem a great deal to us but it is to the people who have to travel every day through the tunnel to go to work. It’s a lot of money on their wage packets at a time when their wage packets are not going up, they’re going down.

So I’ve got a proposal that we keep and freeze the tunnel tolls to the level that they are now and then relook at it next year. At the same time I would like to see and I’ll reiterate what I said last year, a discount scheme and I am not talking about Fast Tag which is for everybody, I am talking about a Merseyside discount scheme which I know operates in other parts of the country. I would like to see that looked at and see whether we can do something for the people of Merseyside to have a local discount scheme. Now that’s my proposal to the meeting today. Thank you Chair.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): OK thanks for that. I appreciate you’re putting forward a motion. I’m going to suggest that we take your motion at the end of the debate and allow all Members who wish to have their contributions first but it is being circulated around the chamber. Does anyone else want to make any contributions? If there’s no other Members from the, oh go on Steve.

Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral Council, Labour): It is helpful now to see it in print. Errm, right ok well we do I mean yeah looking at paragraph d it’s probably something I missed out in my contribution before. I you know, in my every day life I have to turn up at Unilever which is an international company and we have many colleagues and employees that travel from this side of the water and beyond through the tunnels to go to work. I’m amazed actually the number because I do think I’m getting a bit obsessive about Merseytravel now, I’ve done my own mini survey and out of nine people I asked who do that trip on a regular basis in their car only one of them had got a Fast Tag and they’d let it run out.

So I have to asking myself Fast Tag there, which is a signficant saving every day, why is these barriers up or why are these people not engaging with something that immediately saves them money. I just wonder if our marketing of the Fast Tag is as great as it should be, because there is an alternative out there. So I actually have no problem supporting Les’s motion, it doesn’t say who’s seconded it. I believe that John has seconded it, so that’s fine and dandy by me so just the issue about Fast Tags, that there is an alternative for people to save money but I’m amazed by the number of people that don’t take them up.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Yeah I think that’s a very good point Steve because I was going to say from my position sat here as Chair that I heard everything that you both have said and I think we all take the same view that this always a very difficult and challenging decision and process that Members go through every year. It’s not an easy process and inevitably some of the recommendations that come to us are challenging. Steve’s point is exactly right in the sense that if we were ever to get a free crossing across the river the only practical way of that ever happening would be for the government to take the tunnels into the national road network.

When we’ve asked in the past, government ministers and Department for Transport officials have been unequivocal in the fact that there is no government thinking of taking the tunnels into the national road network and furthermore and I’m glad Steve pointed it out in the government’s consultation on the national network’s proposals for both the road and the railway networks it actually singles out on page fifty-two of the document that estuarial and river crossings will remain on a tolled basis under the government’s policy. Added to that it also makes the point that new road schemes will be looked at under a tolled basis which is government policy but apparently doesn’t seem to count if the proposed road runs through John Major’s former constituency.

So with the government having no clear intent of taking the tunnels off our hands that leaves us in a bit of quandary doesn’t it you know in terms of the way you could finance the tunnels? Either it would be via the levy and the county taxpayer which in any circumstances would be challenging but in its current circumstances where finances for local government are so excruciatingly difficult because of the way the government is behaving. He’s absolutely right that on balance then the cost of the tunnels does fall to the users in that very difficult situation and obviously although the cost of running those tunnels is always significant to make sure we operate them not just in a way that is fit for purpose, but those key assets that they are for the Liverpool City Region but in doing so in a way that actually provides them to be some of the best operated in the world and some of the safest in the world. That does come at a price, but it comes at a price and we’re always very conscious and keen that we operate those in the most cost-effective and most cost efficient way accordingly.

I also take on board everything that’s been said about the state of the local economy. Whilst I think there’s been some elements of encouraging news and some elements of employment growth locally particularly some elements in terms of a report that came out last week about private sector employment increasing .. in the local area. I fully take on board just how fragile things are in the local economy and that remains a very, very difficult and challenging situation that we find and it would be nice to see the government taking a more thorough approach in terms of the way they look to support our region accordingly.

But I think it’s also important when we look at this debate that we don’t just view the tunnels as an isolated part of our transport network. You know we are an integrated transport authority and the tunnels are not only integral to the transport network of the Liverpool City Region but it’s actually vital that they operate in an integrated way and that the decisions we take in regard to the tunnels are not in isolation to the overall transport network as a whole and equally the decision that we take when we go through this process of setting the tolls we can’t take in isolation of our overall budget setting process which we’re going to deal with as the next item which we know is as challenging as it is this year and inevitable that it will get even more difficult as we go into the future.

So with that all in mind and it’s very, very difficult for us to take this decision, I’m on the balance of considerations of the opinion that the ten pence increase that is being proposed is proportionate and on balance the best decision that we can take in very difficult circumstances at this moment in time. However I’m still very conscious of the fact that that still represents a ten pence discount on the authorised toll that could be charged. It’s not going to up to £1.80, the proposal’s £1.70 and furthermore and Steve made the excellent point about the Fast Tag scheme, the Fast Tag scheme will still demonstrate a considerable saving for local users and your point about actively and proactively marketing the Fast Tag scheme is exactly right Steve.

Last year was the first time that we’d ever properly done that and I’m really pleased we’ve managed to get usage of the Fast Tag up to forty percent of all users and let’s remember the vast majority of those Fast Tag users are local residents and local businesses. There is a saving to be had and it works out that every seventh journey if you use the Fast Tag is free so it’s very strong I think from all of us that we want to make sure we continue that proactive marketing of the Fast Tag to make sure we maximise the uptake and make sure that local commuters and local residents and local businesses will get that benefit. If there’s no further contributions from the floor, Les do you want to move your motion?

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Thank you. Chair, I take on board the protection that you’ve said and I agree with a lot of it and there is obviously frustrations on both sides but given that reserves are healthy, given there’s been an underspend in the capital program, the £2.4 million could be found and I think it’s important that we send out a message from Merseytravel that we’re not prepared to raise it every year, year on year, year on year and in times we can listen and we can help and that’s all I’m asking for not every year we go against .. item but let’s send a message … to do that Chair that’s all I ask.

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): I think I’ll take that on board Les and I think whilst I’m conscious that reserves are healthy, we need to make sure that we’ve got healthy reserves to deal with any issue that may arise. Both in terms of any sort of significant issue with regard to the operational maintenance and operational things but also any other opportunities on the transport network and the way that we want to develop an integrated transport network that is fit not just for the twenty-first century but is fit for a world class city region which is what we want for the Liverpool City Region. If there’s no further contributions Les do you want to move your motion?

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Yes Chair, I’d like to move the motion and if I can remove paragraph c) from the proposed motion to my motion which says maintain existing discount on authorised tolls for cash and Fast Tag tolls to the level that is effective from the 1st April 2014 and d) the authority asks the Director General and Chief Executive to investigate the cost implications as well as any implications under the Tunnel Act 2004 of bringing forward a further discount for Fast Tag users in order to reduce the burden of tolls on regular users of the tunnel.

Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem): Second that Chair

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Thanks John. Can I see all Members in favour?

Cllr John Salter (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral, Conservative)
Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): All against?

Cllr Joanne Calvert (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr John Fulham (St Helens, Labour)
Cllr Stephen Kermode (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley, Labour)
Cllr Mark Norris (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Marlene Quinn (St. Helens, Labour)
Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Malcolm Sharp (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Hayley Todd (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Jeremy Wolfson (Liverpool, Labour)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): That’s lost. In that case can I move the recommendations in paragraph 11 of the report. Is that agreed?

Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour): Can I second that?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Do you want to put that to the vote accordingly? All in favour?

Cllr Joanne Calvert (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Anthony Carr (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Gordon Friel (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr John Fulham (St Helens, Labour)
Cllr Stephen Kermode (Sefton, Labour)
Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley, Labour)
Cllr Mark Norris (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Marlene Quinn (St. Helens, Labour)
Cllr Mary Rasmussen (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Liam Robinson (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Malcolm Sharp (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Hayley Todd (Liverpool, Labour)
Cllr Jeremy Wolfson (Liverpool, Labour)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): and against?

Cllr John Salter (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Steve Foulkes (Wirral, Labour)
Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral, Conservative)
Cllr John Dodd (Sefton, Lib Dem)

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): and that’s carried.

Cllr Les Rowlands (Wirral Council, Conservative): Can I have my vote recorded?

Cllr Liam Robinson (Chair (Liverpool City Council, Labour)): Absolutely, that’s why we put it to the vote for you.

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

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority – Minutes (30th January 2012) Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets

Minutes of the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority meeting of the 30th January 2012 and links to Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12 report

On the 29th March 2012, Wirral Council’s Cabinet received a report on the outcome of the Tender Exercise. Merseytravel had changed their minds about bidding on the 1st February (two days after the meeting that these are the minutes for). The reason/s behind this are partly in the resolution and in the papers and resolutions at its meeting of the 9th February 2012 as between 30th January 2012 and the 1st February 2012 Merseytravel realised how difficult a financial situation they were in, following the papers being published for the 9th February 2012 Budget meeting on the 1st February 2012.

Note: below is the official minutes of the meeting (not my own notes) from the 30/1/2012 meeting and were approved at its meeting on 9th February 2012. I wish I’d discovered that Merseytravel had started putting the minutes on a website before typing it up! Links to he report about the Wirral Tramway and Appendices on Merseytravel’s website are below.

Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12

Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12 Appendix 1

Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12 Appendix 2

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

30 January 2012

Present: Councillor M Dowd, Chair
Councillor A Dean, Deputy Chair

Councillors R Abbey, C Blakeley, G Friel, S Glover,
J Hanson, A Makinson, K McGlashan, M Murphy,
M Quinn, M Rasmussen, L Robinson, L Rowlands,
P Walton

Also Attended

Councillor S Foulkes – Leader Wirral Metropolitan
Borough Council,
Councillor R Round Leader Knowsley Metropolitan
Borough Council and
Councillor B Grunewald Deputy Leader St Helens
Metropolitan Borough Council

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Apologies for absence were submitted by
Councillors J Dodd, B Griffiths, J Salter, D Callan, T Elwood
C Roberts, Councillor J Anderson (Leader, Liverpool City Council)
and Councillor P Dowd (Leader, Sefton Metropolitan Borough
Council)

——————————————————————————————

78.   Local Transport Plan Delivery, Bus and Merseytram Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the Local Transport Plan Delivery, Bus and Merseytram Committee held on the 8 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

79.   People, Organisational Development and Governance Delivery
          Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the People, Organisational Development and Governance Delivery Committee held on the 10 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

80.   Tunnels, Ferries and Visitor Economy Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Tunnels, Ferries and Visitor Economy Committee held on the 12 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

81.   Corporate Social Responsibility Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee held on the 12 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

82.   Rail Services Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Rail Services Committee held on the 11 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

83.   Policy and Delivery – Review Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Delivery – Review Committee held on the 19 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

84.   Strategy and Finance Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee held on the 19 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

85.   Urgency Sub – Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Urgency Sub – Committee held on the 12 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

86.   Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associates Assets
(CX/16/12)

———————————————————————————————————————-
Councillors R Abbey, C Blakeley and L Rowlands together with Councillor S Foulkes (visiting Wirral Metropolitan Council Leader) all declared a personal interest as members of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
———————————————————————————————————————-

The Authority considered a report of the Director of Resources regarding the Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets. Together with presentations from Mr Richard Mawdsley (The Peel Group) and Mr Scott McIntosh (Mott McDonald) and a verbal update from Mr. Steve Cook (Merseytravel’s Forward Planning Officer) (copies attached to these minutes).

Mr. R Mawdsley in his presentation gave a brief background history to The Peel Group as a company; its development around Salford Quays and the vision for Wirral Waters; The Mersey Waters Enterprise Zone and Peel International Trade Centre and its goal to redress the balance around local investment on both sides of the River Mersey. This was the hope that from the investment, especially with the Trade Centre, 700 jobs will be created. The Wirral Waters projects was seen as a 30 year initiative that the time line of which could not be specified however Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters were seen as sister projects. The tramway was envisaged an exemplar part of the scheme supported by the Government which it was envisaged would assist in increasing patronage to the Rail and Ferry services as well as a Visitor Economy for the Merseytravel attractions.

Mr. Steven Cook outlined to the Authority the transport planning all aspects for the Wirral Waters and how officers from relevant departments of Merseytravel were

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

working together to achieve this Section 106 Agreement. The Agreement was for 25 years however the project had a number of variables and timescales were not set, therefore it was a challenge and a Steering Group consisting of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Officers, Peel, the Highways Agency and Merseytravel had been established.

There had been agreement on rail infrastructure development; bus service links from Birkenhead to Seacombe; park and ride; protection of railway line and a figure of £15.4 million had been reached to ensure the East Float area was sustainable. Due to the lack of a timescale the agreement was based on a time if arrangement, so as they were built monies were released.
The Authority then received a presentation by Scott Macintosh and from Mott McDonald. (Copy of presentation attached to these minutes). The key message from the presentation was that it was considered a one off business opportunity, the tram industry were excited by the prospects and there was a lot of interest, including offers of assistance of second hand equipment and some European tramway operators. The Government too were interested in the project.

Cllr Dowd thanked those who had presented and opened the floor to Members and invited Leaders for questions and comments.

Cllr Ann Murphy commented on the ‘deja vu’ aspect of the debate and previous aspirations have been dashed, disciplinary was also expressed at the lack of reference to the whole of Merseyside in the benefits of the projects as all would be contributing to the finance.

Cllr A Makinson enquired that as the current and tender was for the Heritage Tramway and the suggestion was to develop to a commuter service it must be acknowledged that the heritage trams would not meet commercial, environmental or statutory standards, so what would be the implications and the extra costs.

The Director of Resources confirmed that Officers would ensure that the trams met statutory requirements.

Councillor R Abbey commented that the previous scheme had been let down politically and a Merseywide approach

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

had always been taken by the Authority as shown by the support for the Liverpool/Knowsley tram project. However before commitment to the project it had been proven to be deliverable on sound financial reasoning.

Councillors G Friel welcomed the presentation however he felt it did not answer his concerns. If Government supported as suggested how did this reconcile with the reduced funding for Local Authorities, the impact of which was cuts to vital services together with the reduced finance to the Transport authorities.

Councillor J Hanson thanked those presenting and commented that Merseytravel wanted to do what it could to support Wirral and Liverpool Waters but expressed concern at the lack of timescales. There could be a 10 year buy in but nothing happening due to the 20 – 30 year nature of the project. It will be £2.5 million with nothing to show and money that Merseytravel and the District Authorities would need to find at a very challenging time. The amount was not a real issue to all lecture members. There were also a number of concerns with regard to finance and revenue commitment. More information was required he felt before any commitment or bid could be considered.

Councillor A Dean also wished to thank the presenters and felt the report came a little closer to the issues but once again fell short of all the information required before any real decision could be made. There seemed to be a change in emphasis to the Wirral Waters project. Councillor Dean had real concerns around the rolling stock and the continuing ‘make do’ for Merseytravel with someone else’s ‘cast offs’. If project does get approval the stock must be of quality he did not want hidden charges arrangements of maintenance or obsolete kit. If the tram was so key to the Wirral Waters project why was it not included in the section 106 agreement. The District were picking up the bill for the last tram project which had political support withdrawn.

The costs needed to be properly detailed and clarity was required that it was a lot of money £2.5 million pounds which the District Councils and Merseytravel could use in other areas, a decision could not be made on potential costs. Some of the comments in the presentation, re patronage had no evidence base and a failure to meet predictions would add further to the cost, he felt clarity was required.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

Councillor M Quinn welcomed the report, it was a lot clearer than previous but did raise concerns. The Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP 3) was the aspirational wishes for transport, this scheme was not within the plan, if cannot match aspiration how can the authority be expected to take on new projects. From previous experience costs can escalate, more financial clarity was required. With regard to all of the offers, why? And would they be available to other bidders, so what was the value. The previous projects £70 million was still being paid for and the present scheme had no reference to revenue cost. The money may be better spent supporting the bus network and getting people to work.

Cllr L Robinson echoed Members thanks and expressed full commitment to a World Class region and world class service but signficant concerns with the business plan. There was a concerns around people having to change modes of transport, from personal experience of working the industry commuters want a point to point system and Salford to Manchester City tram patronage referred to was not great.

Councillor K. McGlashan supported Councillor J Hanson’s comments but all sat as Members of the Integrated Transport Authority and must view projects in a fresh light with the regional perspective. The Authority wished to provide a good transport system for all the people on Merseyside including trams if appropriate but needed to have the full information before any ‘leap of faith’.

Councillor L Rowlands supported Councillor K McGlashan’s comments and felt the presentation filled some of the information not previously received, however drew Members’ attention to the fact that Merseytravel had not reached its current position without being visionary and being able to take a 30 year view. It was acknowledged that more information was required however support for this project would not only be support for Wirral Waters but also Liverpool Waters. The vision could help the patronage levels for the Ferries and other Merseytravel attractions. Councillor Rowlands felt a decision should not be made until the Authority had the full details but Members should not forget how to look to the future.

Councillor C Blakeley thanked those presenting supported the comments are looking at the project with the ‘vision’ shown previously by the Authority and felt it

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

was sustainable and would add to the region not just Wirral Waters. Although no recommendation in the report reading the conclusion Officers would welcome opportunity to bid however all were aware that business case and cost need further work. Councilor Blakeley did not at this time wish to close the door on the opportunity to bid.

The Director of Resources confirmed that the business case did require more work it was out of date and needed testing and he would suggest than an external firm be commissioned as he did not currently have the staff resources.

Councillor S Glover drew Members attention back to the core business of the Authority to concentrate on transport. Tourism was an ‘add on’ but if appropriate then any time project should be a first class 21st century system, with new 21st century kit. If all was second hand then it followed that there would be an impact on reliability. The business case had not been completed and therefore he felt it could not go forward. However if the Authority wished to progress with the project it should have new stock and equipment; a proper business plan; commitment from national level and provide of service fit for this century. Once in place then all could look to get similar provision for the other side of the river.

Councillor B Grunewald, Deputy Leader, St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, thanked the meeting for the invite and acknowledged that Merseytravel had a long history of taking strategic decisions, but any ‘leap of faith’ could not be taken without hard facts and on reading the papers there was amazement that Members were being asked to make decisions without all the facts and figures. Support would be difficult in light of the lack of clarity.

The District Leaders and representatives were invited if they wish to, to make comments by the Authorities.

Councillor S Foulkes, Leader Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council also thanked the Authority for the invite. Wirral welcomed all bids and recognised that the waterfronts were linked and it was customers who set their own boundaries. All were aware of Merseytravel’s bad experience in the past and the the City Region had not been recognized as one which could achieve the big projects however with the success of Liverpool One this perception had to change. There was a need to be brave

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

and visionary, the future job prospects of the waterfront developments were for all of Merseyside. Merseytravel did have the experience and skill set said to be a bidder. It was accepted that Members may be wary especially in these challenging times. The project sat well with Merseytravel’s other attractions at Woodside and Merseytravel was used to partnership working. Councillor Foulkes encourage the Authority to submit a bid of think big.

Councillor R Round, Leader of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, also thanked the Authority for the invite and opportunity to add his comments to those of the other representatives. Councillor Round had seen Peels presentations on a number of occasions and was still impressed by the project, he appreciated that the Authority was going through the same financial challenges and considerations as the District Councils. He accepted that the previous experience of Government support had been very disappointing however felt that the City Region needed to think big too and commented he would like to see the tram run the full length of the river.

It was a very difficult decision but through bidding Councillor Round felt that the Authority would show support to the regeneration of both sides of the river it would show vision, as he was sure that if successful Merseytravel would operate it well and would provide employment opportunities. Therefore he would wish to encourage the Authority to put in a bid.

The Director of Resources confirm that the Authority were already supported Wirral Waters through the Section 106 Agreement however Members needed to be confident in the business plan, good governance would require something more robust than currently available.

With regard to timescales for the bid, it was confirmed that all bids had to be submitted by 3rd of February, 2012.

Councillor M Dowd once again confirmed that Authority were totally supportive of the Wirral and Liverpool Waters schemes and it was good to hear that the project had Government support. The Authority did not want to shut doors and if the Government were serious then it may be productive to send an all party delegation to see if funding was forthcoming.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

Councillor A Dean once again urged caution as there was still detail missing from the report, the business case needed to be revisited.

Region Mawdsley, Peel Holdings offered financial support of 50% towards the costs of the business case, in light of the financial challenges and Scott McIntosh, Mott McDonald, offered his personal time if required.

The Authority thanked all for their time and contribution to date.

It was felt that without the business case a bid could not be submitted at this time however so as not to shut the door completely the Chair moved the following motion viz:-

Motion by Councillor M Dowd seconded by councillor A Dean.

‘That

(a) the Authority give its in principle support to a bid subject however to a more rigorous assessment of the business case by an external firm of accountants such assessment to take into account the reservations and concerns expressed at this meeting;

(b) the offer from Peel to fund 50% of the cost, for this assessment be welcomed and accepted;

(c) the cost of any such assessment be capped at £50,000;

(d) the results of this assessment be reported if necessary to a special meeting of the Authority as soon as possible;

(e) subject to all of the above an all party delegation to government be approved to seek contributory funding for any bid which is submitted.’

The Motion was then put and carried unanimously and was Resolved Accordingly.

CHAIR

Merseytravel 9/2/2012 2012/13 Budget Meeting Mersey Tunnels, Mersey Ferries Limited subsidy

Everyone was present, so the Chair Cllr Mark Dowd started the meeting at 2.30pm by wishing everyone a very pleasant time. He asked for declarations of interest. Cllr Chris Blakeley declared an interest as a Fast Tag holder and an interest in item 5 as a recipient of allowances from Merseytravel.

The Chair declared an interest for everyone else in item 5. He asked if the minutes were ok? They were and agreed. The Chair then wanted to move a recommendation c in respect of the item on the Mersey Tunnel tolls. Cllr Chris Blakeley said he wished to move an amendment (which is below).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

AMENDMENTS SHEET

MERSEYSIDE INTEGRATED TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Authority/Committee/Sub-Committee: Integrated Transport Authority Budget Meeting

Date: 09 February, 2012

Agenda Item/Minute No: Item 3 – Mersey Tunnel Tolls

Amendment moved by: Councillor Chris Blakeley. Seconded by: Cllr Les Rowlands

11 Recommendations

Accept all recommendations and add new clause (d)

(d) The Authority asks the Interim Director General / Director of Resources to investigate the cost implications, as well as any implications to the Tunnels Act 2004 of bring forward a further discount for Fast Tag users in order to reduce the burden of tolls on regular users of the Mersey Tunnels.      The results of that investigation to be brought back to an Authority meeting in October 2012 prior to the review of the Mersey Tunnel Tolls for 2013 as per the Tunnels Act 2004.

C/MISCELL / SR / DW

23rd July 1991

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
He said he “won’t keep us too long” as he was not calling for tunnel tolls to be removed. He was not going to shout for immediate reductions. He felt that the 2004 Act had taken away some of their powers, as they couldn’t vote against an increase, but they did have the power to discount. He had trouble with the Tunnels Act but was delighted that tolls would not increase. The small reduction he asked for Fast Tag users had been circulated.

The Chair said Cllr Blakeley’s motion was ” ill-conceived” as the Tunnels Act had been agreed by Merseytravel before going to the House of Lords. He said they should be doing this anyway, so why do what they should be doing?

Another councillor said wasn’t Cllr Blakeley up for election, therefore wasn’t this political?

Cllr Blakeley said he moved an amendment every year and there was nothing peculiar.

The Chair asked for a vote on the amendment. Five voted for the amendment (including Cllr Blakeley and Cllr Rowlands). The others voted against the amendment so the amendment was lost.

All councillors ten voted in favour of the original motion.

The Chair moved the meeting onto the 2012/13 Budget.

Jim Barclay introduced the report.

A councillor asked where the £2.985 million grant came from for the ferries?

The answer given was that Mersey Ferries Limited was a limited company, the subsidy was reduced in order to trade in line with its constitution. He was thanked.

Another councillor pointed out an error on page 31 in the 4th paragraph. Jim apologised for the error.

The councillors approved the 2012/13 Budget unanimously.

The last report on the agenda was the independent review of Members Allowances. The Chair welcomed Professor Hall and also circulated a recommendation from the Labour Group to not accept an increase in the Basic Allowance or Chair’s Allowance.

Cllr Chris Blakeley welcomed what had been moved, but asked for clarification. Were they accepting the other recommendations?

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other