Tag: David Ball

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor Phil Davies agrees to pay extra £113,189 to Hoylake Golf Resort consultants based on secret report

                     

Yesterday Councillor Phil Davies agreed that consultants on the Hoylake Golf Resort project would be paid an extra £113,189 based on a report in the name of Kevin Adderley, the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment. David Ball, Wirral Council’s Head of Regeneration (davidball@wirral.gov.uk/0151 691 8395) had a role in preparing the report.

The report on which Councillor Phil Davies made his decision has not been made available to the public on grounds that it has “commercial sensitive information”. However the surprising decision would seem to not to comply with The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. The decision is a key decision however:

  • A document detailing that they wish to make a key decision was not published 28 clear days by Wirral Council before making the decision (see Regulation 9 (Publicity in connection with key decisions).

  • A notice was not published five days before the decision detailing agreement of the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee that it was an urgent decision and could not be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 10 (General Exception).

  • A notice wasn’t published claiming special urgency and detailing agreement of either the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee, Mayor or Deputy Mayor that it was urgent and couldn’t be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 11 (Cases of special urgency).

  • It’s a legal requirement that an annual report (see Regulation 19) is brought by the Leader to a meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about decisions where a case of special urgency is used since the last report. Despite this being a legal requirement since the 10th September 2012, to my recollection no such report has ever been brought to a Council meeting.

Councillor Phil Davies’s decision could still be called in by councillors as a call-in deadline of 24th April 2014 has not yet passed. The reason for the urgency was given as “to allow the OJEU Competitive Dialogue process to be finalised and a preferred developer for the Hoylake Golf Resort project to be selected and announced prior to the Open Golf Championship at Royal Liverpool in July 2014.” At least one Conservative councillor has previously asked at a public meeting about when the public will be consulted on Wirral Council’s Hoylake Golf Resort plans.

UPDATED: The extra £113,189 paid to David Langdon (AECOM) is in addition to £123,823 already agreed by Cabinet last year who also agreed to £55,000 of legal advice from Pinsent Masons LLP.
A report on Wirral Council’s website from last year details what the Hoylake Golf Resort is about.

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

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

                               

Halfway through November after having attended (instead of going to one of the fireworks displays across the Borough) a Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee at Wirral Council on Guy Fawkes’ Night I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council for the briefing note that officers promised councillors about the effect of Peel’s dredging of the River Mersey on Wirral’s beaches.

The first reply stated I would have it by the 3rd December, then a further one by the 10th December, then on the 12th December they said they didn’t have one (making me think that was an end to it). On the 20th December I received an email telling me that the briefing note had gone out to councillors the day before. A copy of the briefing note was attached.

As it’s in the form of a Word document file, it doesn’t display in HTML correctly on the whatdotheyknow.com website, so I’ve included the briefing note below.

Briefing note requested by Members of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on 5 November 2013

1 Introduction

At the above meeting Members asked for a briefing note on dredging of the River Mersey and the Liverpool 2 proposals. This information is now provided in the narrative below and by reference to the documents which are available on the Marine Maritime Organisation’s web site. If any further information is required then please do not hesitate to let me know.

2 Dredging and Liverpool 2

In response to formal consultation from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) during September 2012, the Council noted that it’s own Coastal Strategy proposes continued maintenance of coastal protection infrastructure in the New Brighton/Egremont area and went to conclude based on the evidence provided, Wirral Council was satisfied that the proposed development will align satisfactorily with its terrestrial and marine plans and projects (see page 45 at: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/public_register/cases/documents/liverpool2/consultation_responses.pdf). The application to the MMO was approved on 12 December 2012.  

Consequently, the Council has not raised any objection to the arrangements for dealing with the dredging that would arise from the Liverpool 2 project, which have been subject to environmental assessment (see pages 3 and 8 at: http://www.eib.europa.eu/attachments/pipeline/20120101_nts_en.pdf) .

David Ball

Head of Regeneration and Planning

19 December 2013

The first document linked to explains that in order to make the channel deep enough for “post-Panamax container vessels” that the depth of the channel will be increased from 6.9m to 8.0m to “enlarge the tidal window through which vessels will be able to access the quay” and the dredging was expected to “commence in late 2013” lasting six to nine months.

The dredging is being done using the rather wonderfully named “trailer suction hopper dredgers, cutter suction dredgers and backhoes”. Wirral Council’s response to the consultation on this is below.

Wirral Borough Council (WBC)
Further to your email, the following sets out the position in relation to the three questions in your email;

How does the development impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough?
ANSWER The consultation material submitted with the MMO Licence application draws heavily on the Environmental Statement submitted with the original Harbour Revision Order application and Wirral Council is satisfied that the information provided, and subsequent discussions with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning on the placement of monitoring equipment, give sufficient comfort to Wirral that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough.

How does the proposed development align with any existing Wirral Borough Council plans or projects
ANSWER There are no terrestrial projects that would be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The Council is supportive of the principle of the Seaforth Dock expansion given the strategic importance of the Port of Liverpool for Merseyside and the North West and the need to secure it’s long term competitive position in the face of competition from ports elsewhere in the UK and Europe and support objectives. Wirral Council is preparing a Core Strategy for the Borough and no proposals within the Core Strategy will be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The Strategic importance of the port is also recognised within the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West. The Council is also consulting on a Coastal Strategy that proposes continued maintenance of coastal protection infrastructure in the New Brighton/Egremont area. From the evidence provided and the monitoring strategy proposed, Wirral Council is satisfied that the proposed development will align satisfactorily with its terrestrial and marine plans and projects.
The reports to the Council’s Cabinet/Select Committee previously emailed to you provide further context and detail, if required.

Any other comments on the proposed development
ANSWER Whilst not constituting an objection to the MMO Licence application, Neil Thomas’ email of 2nd November referred to the fact that Wirral Council is not satisfied with the initially proposed location of wave and current monitoring equipment. However, the Council is in discussion with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning with regard to re-locating monitoring equipment closer to the coastal defences at New Brighton, within the Mersey Estuary, with the intention of providing a more effective means of monitoring the impact of the development on Wirral’s coastal defences and navigation within the Mersey Estuary.

What’s interesting in Wirral Council’s response to the consultation is that they state both “that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough” but also “the Council is in discussion with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning with regard to re-locating monitoring equipment closer to the coastal defences at New Brighton, within the Mersey Estuary, with the intention of providing a more effective means of monitoring the impact of the development on Wirral’s coastal defences”.

So what does the environmental report state about the likely impact of this dredging on New Brighton? On page 16 it clearly states “The proposed scheme is predicted to have a minor adverse impact on tides and waves at New Brighton, MHDC have agreed to place a wave/current meter to monitor any changes in parameters which could affect this frontage. This measure forms part of a Deed of Agreement between MDHC and Natural England.”

All this of course leads to a number of questions (and I hope someone who knows more about this topic will leave a comment in answer to them).

1. Considering the above, was the recent flooding at New Brighton made worse by this dredging considering the “minor adverse impact on tides and waves at New Brighton” in the environmental report?

2. Why when the environmental report was available at the time of the consultation, did Wirral Council state in its response to the consultation “Wirral Council is satisfied that the information provided, and subsequent discussions with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning on the placement of monitoring equipment, give sufficient comfort to Wirral that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough.” and that considering what Wirral Council knew about the vulnerability of Marine Point to flooding that “There are no terrestrial projects that would be adversely impacted by the proposed development.”?

3. Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

4. Which reports to Wirral Council’s Cabinet and committees were “previously emailed”?

5. Was the above known when planning consent was given for Marine Point and did the design of Marine Point take the above into account when considering flood risk?

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

Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee 7th November 2011 Part 14 Housing Market Renewal Initiative

Cllr Realey said she was new on this committee, but pointed out that councillors meet a lot of people that might be entitled to investment and could staff come to a future meeting and give a talk on this?

David Ball said he would make the information available and Paula was available already to businesses. He said they cold come to each meeting and signpost councillors.

The Chair said he had added an item to the work program that day, which was an update on the Housing Market Renewal Initiative by Ian. Ian said a decision was imminent, there was a transition fund but they had been left in limbo.

Cllr Niblock said he lived in a Housing Market Renewal Initiative area, declared a prejudicial interest and left the room.

Ian said a decision was imminent, he had spoken to the Homes and Communities Agency. They had advised him that by January 2012 a decision should be made.

The Chair, Cllr Johnston said the next meeting on the 16th January was on his 40th birthday. He thanked the officers.

Cllr Gerry Ellis queried why the committee had to go into closed session for the last item regeneration update, surely Wirral Council should be open with the public? The Chair Cllr Johnson replied that it was because of commercially sensitive information and the press and public were asked to leave.

Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee 7th November 2011 Part 13 Performance and Financial Review, Business Start program

The Chair said the question had been asked by Stuart that officers were not equipped to answer. He moved his motion and called for a councillor to second his motion. Cllr Pat Hackett seconded the motion.

Four councillors voted for, four councillors voted against.

The Chair had a casting vote, the Chair, Cllr Johnston decided to keep the extra information there.

David Ball gave an update on future plans for the Business Start Programme. He said that the plan had been to continue until March 2012, however the winding up of the North West Development Agency by the end of December meant that intensive start-up help would end by the 31st December. They had served notice on Enterprise Solutions of this. They would try to develop future options and Kevin would bring a report to a future meeting in the New Year. There would be support under the new Enterprise Allowance, which was a government-funded scheme to support unemployed people funded by the Department of Work and Pensions. He would circulate a briefing note with the technicalities but this program would help certain sections and not be the universal service they had at the present time.

Cllr Wittingham asked if Wirral Biz would be gone? David Ball said that Wirral Biz was the trading name and would go with the demise of the agency.

Cllr Mountney asked when they were instructed to wind up, would they lose money? David Ball said following the move from the North West Development Agency there may be instructions from central government, but they had expected the money till 2012, it was just ending sooner than anticipated. Cllr Wittingham said it was the “government’s fault”.

Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee 7th November 2011 Part 10 Department for Work and Pensions Work Programme

The Chair asked if there were any questions on the Department for Work and Pensions Work Programme.

Cllr Wittingham said there may be movement on Department of Work and Pensions rules which stated they couldn’t share statistics them externally. Eventually he hoped this would change and the statistics would be made available to councillors.

David Ball said he was concerned with the work program as they can’t check or understand the effect of interventions on the labour market. There had been discussions that they may release them on a confidential basis, if it was helpful they could be shared with councillors once officers had been informed. He said it was important to understand what was going on and tackle a number of issues on the worklessness agenda.

The Chair said he wanted it minuted and invited any other questions. There were no more so the report was noted.

The Chair asked for questions or concerns on the second quarter performance and financial review.

Cllr Wittingham in reference to the table on page 63, asked if they had enough capacity of smaller homes to meet their social housing target? Ian answered that in terms of numbers, looking at the occupation strategy of existing users, registered social landlords and housing association would work with tenants to find opportunities within the existing housing stock. They would be encouraged to move into smaller accommodation, which was difficult for the elderly and could get emotional if they felt they were being forced out. His view on future supply was that the Welfare Reform Bill would lead to existing tenants moving to smaller properties that would free up units for larger families.