Labour councillors vote to close Girtrell Court

Labour councillors vote to close Girtrell Court                                                            It is hard to know where to begin when writing about last night’s Council meeting of Wirral Council at Wallasey Town Hall to decide on the budget. Above is a photo of the demonstration outside the main entrance to Wallasey Town Hall protesting about Girtrell Court being … Continue reading “Labour councillors vote to close Girtrell Court”

Labour councillors vote to close Girtrell Court

                                                          

Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall about Girtrell Court 3rd March 2016 thumbnail
Protest outside Wallasey Town Hall about Girtrell Court 3rd March 2016 thumbnail

It is hard to know where to begin when writing about last night’s Council meeting of Wirral Council at Wallasey Town Hall to decide on the budget. Above is a photo of the demonstration outside the main entrance to Wallasey Town Hall protesting about Girtrell Court being closed.

Realising that councillors were bypassing this entrance and using the door by Committee Room 3, there was another protest outside that way in too.

The meeting started and within the first few minutes the petition item was reached. The Mayor asked Bernard Halley (pictured below with his son David) to present his petitions opposing the closure of Girtrell Court. His e-petition had 1,200 signatures (of those nearly a thousand were Wirral residents). There was also a linked paper petition with over six hundred signatories opposed too.

Bernard Halley said, “Both petitions begged this Council to keep Girtrell Court running until proper alternatives are established, costed, evaluated, consulted upon and proven to be adequate.”

Bernard Halley and his son David present a petition opposing the closure of Girtrell Court to a budget meeting of Wirral Council 3rd March 2016
Bernard Halley and his son David present a petition opposing the closure of Girtrell Court to a budget meeting of Wirral Council 3rd March 2016

There was a larger petition opposing the closure of Girtrell Court of 3,054 signatures. As this petition was of over 3,000 signatures, it gave the lead petitioner Paddy Cleary of UNISON five minutes to speak.

He gave a similar speech to the one he had made at the Cabinet meeting. Mr Cleary felt closing Girtrell Court was contrary to one of the 2020 pledges to protect the vulnerable and his opinion was that the proposed saving through closure would not save Wirral Council money but cost more money. Reference was also made by him to a proposal in 2011 proposed by Cllr Steve Foulkes and seconded by Cllr Phil Davies to stop the closure of Council-run care homes.

He expressed concern about the quality of care in the private sector and added, “At a time when users, their families, the public and staff see press stories of the frivolous use of taxpayers’ money, we implore you to look in the mirror, look into the eyes of those people in the balcony upstairs and tell them hand on heart how there is better provision out there.

We know you can’t do that and as such we urge you to fully drop this proposal. Thank you for your time.”

Although petitions of over 3,000 signatures can be debated for fifteen minutes, a decision was made to debate Girtrell Court during the budget debate instead.

Each of the political parties on Wirral Council with more than one councillor had a slightly different policy in their budget about Girtrell Court.

The Labour budget proposed closing it, subject to a later decision of the Cabinet Member Cllr Chris Jones and Director of Adult Social Services Graham Hodkinson.

The Conservative budget removed the need to close Girtrell Court by finding savings elsewhere instead. Three of the proposed areas for savings (amongst others) the Conservatives proposed were removing the free taxi service for councillors to and from the Town Hall, deleting the Executive Support Officer post held by Martin Liptrot and reducing the Council’s press, marketing and destination management team from fourteen posts to eleven and a half.

The Lib Dem budget stated this on Girtrell Court, “Council believes that the closure of the Lyndale School and the anguished debate about the re-provision of services at Girtrell Court underline the need to work closely with service users and their families. Council has a duty of care to ensure their concerns are fully addressed.

In the case of Girtrell Court, Council requests that the Director of Adult Social Services and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health produce regular reports to Members. These must set out how a range of sufficient quality alternative services is to be achieved. Members would be failing in their duty if they were not to seek assurance about the quality, availability and capacity of the
alternatives.”

You can read each party’s budget in the supplementary agenda (Labour’s is pages 12-24, Conservative’s is pages 25-35 and the Lib Dem budget is pages 37-40).

Around three hours after the meeting had started, despite many heartfelt pleas about reversing their proposed closure of Girtrell Court, there was a vote on Labour’s budget and the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems.

The amendments proposed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems were lost (due to Labour councillors voting against them). The Labour budget was agreed (due to the majority of Labour councillors on Wirral Council).

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

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

                                                          

Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014
Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014

On the right of the photo above is Peter Rushton. He’s chairing a public consultation meeting in Greasby last year, one of the public meetings held to consult with the public on the closure of West Kirby and Upton stations and a replacement fire station at Greasby. It’s a still from this video I took of the public consultation meeting.

He introduces himself as “I’m Peter Rushton from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service”. What I don’t think the public knew then (or perhaps know now) is that Peter Rushton had a contract with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority through his service company Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited.

His contract has a secrecy clause which states:

"Publicity

10.8 Neither the Authority nor the Supplier shall publicise in any media or public announcement information regarding the terms of the Contract, or the Service supplied, without the prior written consent of the other party in either case such consent not to be unreasonably withheld."

 

However I’m skipping ahead a little here and I’d like to briefly make a point about how this contract was awarded. The contract originally for six months (although it was later extended for a further six months) was for a value of £12,500 and started on the 8th April 2014.

Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited was only incorporated a fortnight before being awarded the contract. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution at the time required that for contracts of this value that two written quotations had to be obtained first. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution required there to be a report if this isn’t the case and 3.3 of their contract standing orders detailed the procedure to be followed:

"For procurement projects under £172,514 for Goods and Services and £4,322,012 for Works, the Head of Procurement or their nominated deputy, and a Director must approve any exemption, prior to any commitment being given by the Authority to any supplier. The Chief Fire Officer will keep a register of exemptions granted detailing the nature and value of the contract, the circumstances justifying the exemption and the name of the contractor awarded the contract."

 

However what was the contract actually for? That’s detailed in an attachment to the contract. A day was defined earlier in the contract as meaning 7 hours of work.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 1

SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES

Background

  1. MFRA is in the process of merging 8 fire stations into 4 as part of a major service reengineering exercise to deliver large scale savings. This will necessitate a large programme of internal and external consultancy.

Project Scope/Deliverables

The service required is to deliver professional communications expertise, a communications strategy and support to the following people during the process:-

  • CFO and Exec team
  • Director of Strategy and Performance who leads the restructured corporate communications team in house

It will include devising and over-seeing the implementation of a comprehensive communication strategy with all stakeholders to effectively help deliver 4 fire station mergers.

The work will require (but is not limited to) attendance at the following meetings which may take place outside normal office hours:-

  • Internal PO briefings
  • Public consultation meetings both open and facilitated
  • To chair open public consultation meetings
  • Briefings with stakeholders in the area including MPs, councillors
  • IRMP meetings

The services will also provide for the following:-

  • Play a leading role in delivering two events
  • Long Service & Bravery Awards
  • The official opening of the Joint Control Centre
  • Assist Principle Officers on all PO Briefings
  • Provide strategic communication advice to Principle Officers

Plus any other duties in relation to the station merger programmes as requested by the Director of Strategy and Performance.

Timescales and fees

Timescales
The Services will be provided over a maximum of 8 days per a calendar month for a period of six months from the commencement date with an option to extend on the same or different terms which would be agreed between the parties prior to any extension period.

Times, days and hours of the service to be agreed between the parties in advance of any attendance.

Fees

  1. The daily rate for the provision of the Services is £250 plus any pre-agreed expenses.
  2. Total fee is £12,000 + expenses.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 2

FEES AND INVOICING SCHEDULE

  1. Peter Rushton will undertake the activities as per the Specification in Attachment 1 during the period 8th April 2014 to 7th October 2014 based on a commitment of 8 days per a calendar month. For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority shall only be charged for days actually undertaken by the Supplier.
  2. 48 days will be undertaken during the six month period at the standard day rate of £250. The total value of this contract (including any pre-agreed expenses) is therefore £12,000.

  3. The Authority will apply a ceiling to the Travel & Accommodation Expenses Rates payable to the Supplier of £500 for the six month period. Expenses must be approved by the Authority in advance of being incurred and shall be payable at the Authority’s approved rates in force at the time of Contract award. The Supplier will be required to provide copies of relevant accommodation and travel receipts.

  4. Consolidated invoices shall be presented every 4 weeks clearly detailing the dates on which activities were undertaken and itemising any expenses claimed which were incurred during the same 4 week period.

  5. The Authority shall pay the Supplier the sums due under the Contract, on 30 day payment terms, from receipt of a true and valid invoice.

All invoices should be submitted to:

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Exchequer Services Department
Bridle Road
Bootle
Merseyside
L30 4YD

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

AS WITNESS the hands of the parties

Signed by and on behalf of the Authority (In Caps): MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY JANET HENSHAW

Signature: (Janet Henshaw’s signature)

Date: 08/04/2014

Signed by the Supplier (In Caps): PETER RUSHTON CONSULTANCY LIMITED
Signature: (Peter Rushton’s signature)
Date: 08.04.2014


The six month contract was then extended for a further six months (see below).

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2

Finally, the last report to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on the outcome of the consultation to close Upton and West Kirby fire stations with a new fire station at Saughall Massie mentioned many of the expenses that related to the consultation, but nothing was in that report about this contract. If the cost of this contract had been included in the report, there should’ve been an extra £6,250 mentioned in the report (£25,000 divided by four is £6,250).

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

Why weren't Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service "open and transparent" about the estimated £0.5 million they could receive from the sale of Upton and West Kirby fire stations?

Why weren’t Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service “open and transparent” about the estimated £0.5 million they could receive from the sale of Upton and West Kirby fire stations?

Why weren’t Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service “open and transparent” about the estimated £0.5 million they could receive from the sale of Upton and West Kirby fire stations?

                                                                   

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 30th June 2015 L to R Kieran Timmins (Deputy Chief Executive), Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Cllr Byrom (Vice-Chair), Janet Henshaw (Monitoring Officer)
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 30th June 2015 L to R Kieran Timmins (Deputy Chief Executive), Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Cllr Byrom (Vice-Chair), Janet Henshaw (Monitoring Officer)

So surprised was Cllr Byrom (above) by heckling that he forgot to propose a resolution keeping details out of the public domain about how much they’d receive for Upton and West Kirby fire stations if they sold them.

On the 14th June 2015 I made a Freedom of Information Act request to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service for two unpublished reports to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on “the costs of any new build station, together with an estimate of the potential income from the sale of the buildings and land at Upton and West Kirby.” You can read my original request on the whatdotheyknow website.

On the 15th June 2015 I received an acknowledgement of my request stating that the request would be responded to either under the Freedom of Information legislation or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 within 20 working days.

On the 8th July 2015 Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service refused the request referring to two regulations in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as justification:

Regulation 12 (5) (d) Confidentiality of public authority proceedings when covered by law.

Regulation 12 (5) (e) Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, when protected by law to cover legitimate economic interest.

Below is my (admittedly rather cross) response seeking the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 equivalent of an internal review which is referred to in the legislation as a representation and reconsideration.

Dear Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s handling of my FOI request ‘Reports on Upton & West Kirby fire stations’.

Thank you for your response (dated 8th July 2015) to my request dated 14th June 2015.

Firstly I wish to contest the sentences which state “As the information you have requested does not contain environmental information we have processed your request under Freedom of Information legislation. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2004 this letter acts as a Public Interest Refusal Notice. “

As stated in my request the information requested contains “the costs of any new build station, together with an estimate of the potential income from the sale of the buildings and land at Upton
and West Kirby”
.

“Environmental information” is defined in Regulation 2 of the Environmental Information Regulations as:

“the same meaning as in Article 2(1) of the Directive, namely any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on—

(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;

(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);

(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements;

(d) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;

(e) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and

(f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c);”

As you can see from the above, the information requested would fall under (c) and (e) above.

There is no such thing as the Freedom of Information Act 2004.

If you are referring to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, then your refusal notice does not contain the information required by law. Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 c.36 requires a refusal notice to specify the exemption (or exemptions) in question and why they apply.

The two you refer to (regulations 12(5)(d) and 12(5)(e)) are not part of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but part of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

However, considering that you wrote “Freedom of Information Act 2004” when you meant to write “Environmental Information Regulations 2004” and when you wrote “does not contain environmental information” must have meant “does contain environmental information” (otherwise why quote reasons for refusal referring to regulations that are part of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, please class this as a representation (see regulation 11 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004) for reconsideration.

I would also like to point out that regulation 11 of the Environmental Information Regulations requires a further decision to be made on this request following this representation within 40 working days.

I will first deal with Regulation 12(5)(d) which states:

“(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect—

….

(d)the confidentiality of the proceedings of that or any other public authority where such confidentiality is provided by law;”

You further state “These exemptions apply because the two documents you have requested are exempt items by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and therefore cannot be disclosed. ”

I am aware that at the public meetings of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority held on the 2nd October 2014 and 29th January 2015 that a resolution at each meeting (based on the recommendation of
officer/s) was agreed by councillors.

The same information that I requested in this request formed Appendix B to agenda item 8 (Operational Response Savings Option) of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s meeting of the 30th June 2015.

Although a recommendation was made by officers that councillors at that meeting pass a resolution excluding this information from the public domain, no such resolution was agreed at that meeting.

Such matters are dealt with as the first item on the agenda which the agenda of the meeting of the 30th June 2015 specified thus:

“1. Preliminary Matters
The Authority is requested to consider the identification of:

a) declarations of interest by individual Members in relation to any item of business on the Agenda

b) any additional items of business which the Chair has determined should be considered as matters of urgency; and

c) items of business which may require the exclusion of the press and public during consideration thereof because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information.”

You can watch a video recording of this part of the meeting here (see below)

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.

, but for the purposes of this reconsideration I include a transcript of that items 1 & 2 of that meeting below:

Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): You may start recording from this moment if you like. Moving to preliminary matters, we have two minutes of the previous meetings.

Member of public: Excuse me, could you introduce yourselves so we know who you are?

Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): We don’t normally do that. We don’t normally do that, everybody has their…

Member of public: Well I can’t see who you are from here!

Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): I’m going to press on with the meeting and if I may say you know I’m assuming that everybody is going to be respectful and follow the normal procedures for meetings. I don’t think like Barack Obama we’re going to have to sing to bring order back again.

We will proceed with the meeting, I’m chairing the meeting and we’ll carry on if you don’t mind. So we move on to minutes of the previous meeting, those are on pages seven to twenty. Are they agreed?

Councillors: Agreed.

Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): There is an issue about declarations of interest, do Members have any declarations of interest?

Is there any suggestions about the changes in the agenda and the items of business? Councillor Rennie?

Cllr Lesley Rennie (Lead Member for Operational Preparedness): Chair, could I ask because there are so many members of the public and obviously ward councillors for the items on the agenda 7 and 8 in relation to Saughall Massie, would you errm be willing to perhaps rearrange the order of business in order to facilitate them for an early getaway or is there a reason perhaps why that may not be possible?

Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): We have had some discussions about this. There are a number of items and they won’t be long I don’t think that relate to the financial background to the Authority which I think would be helpful to the members of the public to understand the context against which we’re making some discussions.

There are also proposals for changes and amalgamations in err St Helens, and I think again I don’t think it’ll be a long item, but I think for the public who are here to look at decisions further down the agenda it would be useful and interesting to see, you know that it’s not just in isolation, there are other items on the agenda as well.

So if you don’t mind, I think we could, we will…

Member of the public: You can’t do that.

Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority): Would you give order please? Errm, we will proceed with the agenda as it’s printed if that’s alright, but if it gets lengthy, if it get’s lengthy we’ll look at that because I’ll know the public have got some distance to travel, but we’ll sit with the agenda as printed if you don’t mind. So we’ll move on to item 3 on the agenda, that’s pages 21-30 and that is the petition concerning the merger of Upton and West Kirby fire stations.”

As you can see from the above no resolution was agreed by councillors at that meeting keeping the report on capital costs out of the public domain. That decision (made on the 30th June 2015) was made before your decision on my request (made on the 8th July 2015).

Section 100C of the Local Government Act 1972 states (please note in the definitions in 100J(1)(f) “principal council” also refers to fire and rescue authorities such as the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, therefore this report is open to public inspection as no resolution was passed:

“(1) After a meeting of a principal council the following documents shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the offices of the council until the expiration of the period of six years beginning with the date of the meeting, namely—

(a) the minutes, or a copy of the minutes, of the meeting, excluding so much of the minutes of proceedings during which the meeting was not open to the public as discloses exempt information;

(b) where applicable, a summary under subsection (2) below;

(c) a copy of the agenda for the meeting; and

(d) a copy of so much of any report for the meeting as relates to any item during which the meeting was open to the public.

(2) Where, in consequence of the exclusion of parts of the minutes which disclose exempt information, the document open to inspection under subsection (1)(a) above does not provide members of the public with a reasonably fair and coherent record of the whole or part of the proceedings, the proper officer shall make a written summary of the proceedings or the part, as the case may be, which provides such a record without disclosing the exempt information.”

I would also like to draw your attention to Regulation 8 and Regulation 10 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2095/contents/made .

Decisions and background papers to be made available to the public

“8.—(1) The written record, together with any background papers, must as soon as reasonably practicable after the record is made, be made available for inspection by members of the public—

(a) at all reasonable hours, at the offices of the relevant local government body;
(b) on the website of the relevant local government body, if it has one; and,
(c) by such other means that the relevant local government body considers appropriate.
(2) On request and on receipt of payment of postage, copying or other necessary charge for transmission, the relevant local government body must provide to the person who has made the request and paid the appropriate charges—

(a) a copy of the written record;
(b) a copy of any background papers.
(3) The written record must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of six years beginning with the date on which the decision, to which the record relates, was made.

(4) Any background papers must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of four years beginning with the date on which the decision, to which the background papers relate, was made.

(5) In this regulation “written record” means the record required to be made by regulation 7(1) or the record referred to in regulation 7(4), as the case may be.”

Offences

10.—(1) A person who has custody of a document which is required by regulation 8 to be available for inspection by members of the public commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person—

(a) intentionally obstructs any person exercising a right conferred under this Part in relation to inspecting written records and background papers; or
(b) refuses any request under this Part to provide written records or background papers.
(2) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.”

As no resolution was passed at the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s meeting of the 30th June 2015 to exclude this information from the public domain, the above regulations required it to be published “as soon as practicable” on your website (which hasn’t happened).

As this request was refused after the decision made by councillors on the 30th June 2015 that this information should be in the public domain, the fact it’s not been published on your website since is arguably a breach of regulation 8(1)(b) of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 and refusal of this request could be interpreted as a criminal offence (see regulation 10).

Dealing with your refusal under Regulation 12(5)(e) “Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, when protected by law to cover legitimate economic interest”, obviously if you agree with me on the above points refusal on this ground is a moot point.

Earlier this year I made a request to Wirral Council for the address of land they had purchased. Like yourselves, the request was refused with reference to regulation 12(5)(e) at internal review.

However when I appealed it to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the information was provided, see decision notice FS50576394 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2015/1431882/fs_50576394.pdf.

In your response you state “The reason why the public interest favours withholding the information is because the information contained within these documents is deemed to be commercially sensitive and the disclosure of such information is not deemed to be in the public interest as it may jeopardise the Authority’s position with regards to any future negotiations concerning the sites in question. As a Public Authority Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority have a duty to negotiate the best possible financial deal to protect the public purse which in course enable’s the authority to provide the best possible service.”

At the moment, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have not got planning permission for a new fire station on the Saughall Massie site. This is a process that could take as long as six months (or longer if permission is refused then appealed to the Planning Inspectorate). During that time it is highly likely that land & property prices in the areas of Saughall Massie, Upton and West Kirby will change, it is also possible that planning permission for the Saughall Massie site will be refused. Therefore if Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority make a decision in the future to sell those sites, a further up to date valuation would have to be done to prove considerations of best value to its auditors and taxpayers on Merseyside.

There is a presumption in favour of disclosure in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I consider that the arguments I have made here in representations in favour of disclosure in relation to your refusal on grounds in Regulation 12(5)(d), including pointing out why following the meeting of the 30th June 2015 this information (seemingly in breach of regulation 8 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014) hasn’t been published on your website and the issue of whether refusal of this request constitutes a criminal offence (regulations 8/10 of the Local
Government Bodies Regulations 2014
) means that this information should be disclosed as a matter of urgency.

As pointed out in the decision notice I refer to (FS50576394), you have a legal duty to provide such information within a 20 working day timescale of the original request (made on the 14th June 2015).

I hope having considered this representation carefully you will reconsider your decision and provide the requested information.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reports_on_upton_west_kirby_fire.

Yours faithfully,

John Brace


Finally (although I didn’t mention this in the request above) Dan Stephens the Chief Fire Officer/Chief Executive of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stated in an email recently to me:

“I would hope you recognise that we have been open and transparent throughout the Greasby and Saughall Massie consultation processes and that it is very important to us that this is maintained throughout.”

So does anyone think that the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority are being “open and transparent” about the matter referred to above?

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

Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton

Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton

Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton

                                                  

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015). Kieran Timmins (Deputy Chief Executive) is on the right.
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)

There are four agenda items on the agenda of next week’s Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority public meeting that relate to the decision about the future of West Kirby Fire Station and Upton Fire Station.

First (item 3) is a petition asking for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority to “Stop the building of the Fire Station in Saughall Massie and the destruction of precious green belt land”. At the time of writing this petition on the change.org website has 321 signatures. The comments of the signatories can be read here.

According to section 11.3 of the constitution for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority:

“The presentation of a petition shall be limited to not more than 5 minutes and shall be confined to reading out or summarising the subject of the petition indicating the number and description of the signatories, and making such further supporting remarks relevant to the petition as the person presenting it shall think fit.”

Item 4 is a “deputation in relation to the merger of Upton and West Kirby fire stations”. This is described on the agenda as “To consider a deputation of Wirral residents and Councillors concerning the proposed merger of Upton and West Kirby Fire Stations at the site identified in Saughall Massie.”

Section 11.4 to 11.7 of the constitution deal with the procedure for deputations:

“11.4 Any person likely to be affected by a matter in relation to which the Authority has functions, (other than employees in relation to matters of conditions of service) may ask that a deputation should be received by a meeting of the Authority. Such a request shall be made to the Proper Officer at least seven working days before the meeting to which it relates. The person making the request shall indicate the matter to which the request relates, the number (which shall not be more than five names and addresses of the persons who will form the deputation, and the member or members of the deputation who will speak for them).

11.5 On being called by the Person Presiding, the person or persons speaking for the deputation may make, during a period not exceeding five minutes, such remarks as she/he or they think fit, providing that the remarks shall relate to the matter indicated.

11.6 The Members of the Authority may, during a further period not exceeding five minutes for each deputation, ask questions of the members of the deputation. Such questions shall be asked and
answered without discussion.

11.7 Petitions shall be presented, and deputations received in the order in which notice of them is received by the Proper Officer, without making any distinction between petitions and deputations.”

Agenda item 7 is titled Wirral West Fire Cover Consultation 2 outcomes. The reports for this agenda item come to 236 pages!

Finally agenda item 8 (operational response savings options for Wirral) is the agenda item when an actual decision will be made.

This agenda item comprises of a report detailing the Chief Fire Officer’s recommendations to councillors (the following is quoted from the report and is the Chief Fire Officer’s recommendation (Wirral MBC stands for Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and fire appliance means fire engine):

“a. approve the merger of Upton and West Kirby fire stations at a new station on Saughall Massie Road, subject to agreement from Wirral MBC to transfer ownership of the land to the Authority and the granting of planning permission;

b. approve the relocation of the West Kirby fire appliance to Upton to be crewed wholetime retained as an interim measure prior to the construction of the new station

c. amend the capital programme to incorporate the Saughall Massie fire station scheme; and

d. give delegated authority to the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) to continue discussions with partners, including Merseyside Police and North West Ambulance Service, with a view to sharing the new building.”

There are of course other options that are in theory available to councillors (but I’ll make it clear these are options which the Chief Fire Officer doesn’t recommend). These other options include the outright closure of West Kirby Fire Station and the relocation of the West Kirby fire engine to Upton Fire Station.

Due to the sheer volume of responses to this consultation, whatever I write below is going to leave something out. However I will do my best to summarise some of the responses to the consultation.

I had better also declare an interest at this point, as in the report on press articles/letters to the press on page 4 Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have included the blog post I wrote on the 20th April 2015 headlined Public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie on proposed new fire station (along with three comments written by Alan Dransfield, keef666 and Jean).

The people of Saughall Massie are opposed to a fire station being built at the proposed site (currently owned by Wirral Council) on Saughall Massie Road. There are a variety of reasons given ranging from traffic, green belt issues, noise/disturbance and concerns that building on the Saughall Massie Road site is inadvisable due to regular flooding.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid Opinion Research Services £19,195.00 (a spin out company of Swansea University) to do a report for the consultation. Their 49 page report details the results of a range of polling techniques including focus groups, a forum and a postal residents survey.

The deliberative forum for Saughall Massie found opposition to a new fire station there. Most of the group they asked from Upton were also opposed to the use of a greenbelt site at Saughall Massie, but at the same time supported a new fire station in the Saughall Massie area. The West Kirby group & the all Wirral forum were in favour of the Saughall Massie site being used for a new fire station. However ORS does state “deliberative forums cannot be certified as statistically representative samples of public opinion”.

A postal questionnaire was also sent out by ORS to 10,000 households (5,000 to the West Kirby Fire Station area and 5,000 to the Upton Fire Station area). Out of the 1,351 postal questionnaires that were returned a majority in both Upton (51%) and West Kirby (70%) areas went for option one (merging Upton and West Kirby fire stations by building a new fire station in Saughall Massie).

However these findings come with caveats as ORS also state:

“However, consultation is not a numbers game, in which the majority view necessarily prevails (like in a referendum), so the Fire Authority will wish to consider carefully all the arguments, evidence and considerations relevant to this case before taking its decision based upon its assessment of the public good.”

Here are some quotes from the members of the public that responded to the consultation and a link to the full 40 page document:

“As a resident of West Kirby and a mother of three young children I object to the proposals to close West Kirby fire station.

This is a ridiculous and dangerous proposal and directly increases the risk of death, from a house fire, to my family.”

“Also please provide a credible reason as to why, in a democratic and fair society, the residents of Saughall Massie’s overwhelming feelings of resistance to this proposed fire station are being overridden by the local Labour Council when equal or lesser feelings of resistance by those in Greasby were considered in full and their request to reject the proposed building of this facility (on a brown field site) was granted.”

“I live next to Saughall Massie Road and during the morning and evening “rush hours” it’s very heavily congested to a far greater extent than other local roads at these times. ”

“I object to the proposed fire station in Saughall Massie because:-

  • lives could be lost as Saughall Massie Road is already congested. Between 8am and 9.30am Mon-Fri – severe congestion
  • no open space for dogs & horses to run free
  • our properties will de-value
  • damage to wildlife habitats”

“Re Fire Station Saughall Massie Road

I would like to register my disapproval at the above. Building on Greenbelt land is out of order.”

“I would hope that you agree that Monday night’s fiasco did not satisfy the criteria as a meaningful consultation exercise. Having said that, you must be aware that the overwhelming views of the residents, both inside and on the pavement outside, was that this development does not take place at all within our precious ‘Green Belt’.”

Proposal for a fire station, Saughall Massie, Wirral

I am writing to express my concerns over the proposal to build a fire station on the greenbelt land at Saughall Massie. I live directly opposite the suggested site and am disappointed to learn of this proposal which I personally use at least twice a day to both exercise my dog and meet up with other local residents. There is also a great deal of wildlife and the beautiful Jenny’s Wood. There are water voles, bats, owls to name a few and I am sure that many of these beautiful creatures will be affected by this build if it goes ahead.

I wish to register that I am totally opposed to the build and wish my feelings to be noted.”

The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority will make a decision on the future of the fire stations at Upton and West Kirby at a public meeting starting at 1.00pm on Tuesday 30th June 2015 in the Liverpool Suite, ground floor, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters, Bridle Road, Bootle, L30 4YD. The agenda and reports for that meeting can be found on their website.

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

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015

                                               

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015). Kieran Timmins (Deputy Chief Executive) is on the right.
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)

Information revealed through a recent Freedom of Information Act request shows that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid a firm of chartered surveyors to value both Upton and West Kirby fire stations in March 2015.

Upton Fire Station was valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million (with a Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation of £590,000) with West Kirby Fire Station insurance purposes value was £1.085 million (with a Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation of £685,000).

The valuation also revealed that Upton Fire Station has an estimated economic lifespan of ten years and West Kirby Fire Station of fifteen years. In a letter accompanying the response to the Freedom of Information Act request Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stated “Please note the attached Valuations are not market values but Depreciated replacement cost (DRC) valuations, only obtained for insurance purposes, we do not hold information about market values. The valuations have been provided in accordance with the RICS valuation – Professional Standards 2014 (“the Red Book”)”.

Despite Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stating “we do not hold information about market values” of Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station a report to councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in January 2015 stated “The costs of any new build station are referenced in Appendix F, together with an estimate of the potential income from the sale of the buildings and land at Upton and West Kirby.”

Councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have passed resolutions in October 2014 and January 2015 to keep the estimated capital costs of building a new fire station (along with estimates of what they would receive from a sale of Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station) out of the public domain.

A report on the recent consultation will be published tomorrow. Councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority will meet next week and decide what happens next.

Out of the eighteen councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, the four councillors representing Wirral Council are Councillor Lesley Rennie, Councillor Denise Roberts, Councillor Jean Stapleton and Councillor Steve Niblock.

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