Opposition councillors request meeting to review Wirral Council’s Cabinet decision to increase car parking charges by 20 pence and introduce new car parking charges in country parks

Opposition councillors request meeting to review Wirral Council’s Cabinet decision to increase car parking charges by 20 pence and introduce new car parking charges in country parks

Opposition councillors request meeting to review Wirral Council’s Cabinet decision to increase car parking charges by 20 pence and introduce new car parking charges in country parks

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 19th June 2017 L Cllr Stuart Whittingham R Cllr George Davies Traffic Regulation Order
Cabinet (Wirral Council) 19th June 2017 | Left Cllr Stuart Whittingham | Right Cllr George Davies | Agenda Item Car Parking Charges Traffic Regulation Order – Consideration of Further Representations

One of the decisions made by councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet, I’ve been meaning to write about since the Cabinet met last month was a decision to increase car parking charges (which has since been put on hold).

On the 19th June 2017, Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed (see video below starting at 33:31 and photo above) to increase charges for parking at Council car parks on the Wirral by twenty pence and to introduce charges for parking where there had been no charges before (50p for an hour, £1 for 2 hours and £2 for all day) at Arrowe Country Park, Royden Country Park, Eastham Country Park and Thurstaston Country Park.

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.

Cabinet (Wirral Council) 19th June 2017 (agenda item
Car Parking Charges Traffic Regulation Order – Consideration of Further Representations starts at 33:31)

However for the country parks only, in a modification to the original proposals households could pay for a £50 annual permit instead of paying charges when they parked in the country parks.

There’s a long 21-page draft traffic regulation order that goes into all the details.

The Cabinet minutes were published and opposition councillors had five days in which the decision could be called in for review.

Six (or more) opposition councillors on Wirral Council “called in” the decision, so it now it won’t be implemented immediately but put on hold until the Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee meets.

There will be a special public meeting of the cross-party Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee starting at 4.00 pm on the 18th July 2017 in Committee Room 1 at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe, CH44 8ED.

The Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee is composed of 9 Labour councillors, 5 Conservative councillors and 1 Liberal Democrat councillor on it.

There’s a long history to the parking charges issues and an earlier stage in the same decision was called in and was reviewed in March 2017. You can watch video of that meeting 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.

Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Wirral Council) 13th March 2017

Usually after representations are made during the consultation period, a cross-party advisory panel called the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meets in public and makes a recommendation to the Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee then makes a recommendation onwards to the Cabinet (or Cabinet Member) for a decision.

As the Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee met for the first time yesterday evening since the Claughton by-election (when it decided the councillors to appoint to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel), when the Cabinet had made the decision on the 19th June 2017, there were no councillors at that point appointed to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel to consider the objections made during the consultation.

Increases to parking charges are on hold till at least the 18th July 2017. The Business and Overview and Scrutiny Committee can choose at that meeting to either:

a) uphold the Cabinet decision made on the 19th June 2017 (in which case the decision is implemented),

b) refer the matter back to Cabinet for reconsideration,

or

c) refer the matter to Council.

At the call-in meeting of the Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 13th March 2017, councillors voted at the end of that meeting. 8 councillors voted in favour (Labour) and 6 councillors (Conservative and Liberal Democrat) voted against. So the decision taken by Cllr Phil Davies (Leader of the Council) at an earlier stage was upheld on a 8:6 vote.

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

Wirral’s councillors will tonight discuss changes to Council meetings, call ins and how decisions are made

Wirral’s councillors will tonight discuss changes to Council meetings, call ins and how decisions are made

                                                                      

Council (Wirral Council) 19th November 2015 One of the meetings that would change if proposals are agreed tonight
Council (Wirral Council) 19th November 2015 One of the meetings that would change if proposals are agreed tonight

Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee will discuss proposals tonight to change the way Wirral Council makes decisions.

If these proposals are agreed by councillors, then in future unless objections to traffic regulation orders reach a threshold of fifteen objections or a petition of twenty-five or more different households, then it won’t be discussed at a public meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. However ward councillors for the area that the proposed traffic regulation order relates to, will be able to request that the matter is decided by councillors even if the number of objections don’t reach the threshold. If the objections don’t reach the new threshold and a ward councillor doesn’t ask that councillors on the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel make a recommendation on it, then the decision will instead be made by the Head of Service for Environment and Regulation after consulting with the Cabinet Member for Highways.

Changes are proposed to the way meetings to decide on call-ins of decisions are dealt with. Instead of a committee of fifteen councillors deciding on call-ins, there will be a panel of nine councillors (5 Labour councillors, 3 Conservative councillors and 1 Lib Dem councillor). An earlier start time of 4.00 pm for call in meetings is suggested. Adjournments will only be allowed for seven working days and if this is not possible the call-in will be re-heard from the beginning.

Proposals affecting Council meetings are also on the agenda. The start time will be brought forward to 6.00 pm and the guillotine put back to 9.15 pm. The time for questions to councillors who are chairs of committees or on the Cabinet will be reduced from an hour and a half to thirty minutes. This is to allow more time during Council meetings for councillors to debate notices of motion. Further details on the changes and the reasons behind them (including some I haven’t mentioned here) can be found on Wirral Council’s website. If agreed tonight, the changes will be recommended for approval at the Council meeting on the 14th December 2015.

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

What was the reason for Cabinet’s decision to U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car park charges?

What was the reason for Cabinet’s decision to U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car park charges?

What was the reason for Cabinet’s decision to U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car park charges?

                                            

Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015 Photo 1 of 3
Fort Perch Rock car park 29th June 2015

To very little fanfare, last Friday Wirral Council’s Cabinet Member for Governance, Commissioning and Improvement (and Deputy Leader of the Council) Cllr Ann McLachlan made a delegated decision to abandon plans to charge for car parking at Fort Perch Rock car park in New Brighton.

The decision states “That the Leader of the Council” and is not signed by Cllr Phil Davies, one can only presume that when Wirral Council put in a press release Council Leader Phil Davies has announced he has blocked proposals to charge for parking in New Brighton, what was actually meant was Cllr Phil Davies asked for a report blocking proposals to charge to parking in New Brighton, but when it was decided he was unavailable so left instructions for his deputy to decide to block the proposals.

However that minor quibble aside, what does this decision mean? Firstly the current traffic regulation order consultation process is “discontinued”. This means the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel will now not meet in September to make a recommendation on it.

The decision also states “that the approved proposal to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, New Brighton not be implemented”.

Interestingly the decision also states in the reasons for the decision (paragraph 2.5 refers to the report that accompanies the decision) “As described at paragraph 2.5 above, factors which were not known by Cabinet at the time of the approval of the budget proposal have become known during the Traffic Regulation Order consultation process.”

The report that accompanies the decision goes into more detail.

“2.3 As part of the 2015/16 Budget Proposal, Cabinet and Council also agreed to review car parking charges across the Borough to help support business needs.

2.4 In order to implement the parking charge at Fort Perch Rock, the Council has been undertaking consultation as part of the required Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process. Whilst it is not considered that there are any objections or other representations received which would prevent the TRO proposal being implemented, there are objections relating to traffic regulation which would require consideration of the outcomes of the consultation regarding the TRO by the Highways and Transportation Representations Panel.

2.5 However, it has recently come to light that the legal agreement which was signed between the Council and Neptune Development as part of the Marine Point Development included a clause which stated that should the Council introduce on street car parking charges in New Brighton and/or charges for the Fort Perch Rock Car Park, then the other car parks which formed part of the Marine Point Development could also not unreasonably be prevented from introducing car parking charges.

2.6 The wider introduction of car parking charges to New Brighton could potentially have an impact on visitors and businesses in the area. Given the outcome and budget decision regarding reducing car parking charges throughout Wirral in order to support businesses, this could potentially have a conflicting impact.

2.7 It is therefore proposed that the work to undertake a TRO be halted and that the proposal to introduce car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, New Brighton, not be implemented.”

The legal agreement referred to above means the lease. Maybe it’s only recently come to light to the author of the report, but I published the three pages of the lease on December 22nd 2014 so it’s hardly recently come to light has it? However as Wirral Council is the landlord for this lease isn’t this a prime example of “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing” or to put it another way silo working.

So how are the books now going to balance? Well the report states that for this year “income for off-street parking is forecast to be greater than budgeted.” and “The overall budget saving of £35,000 will be included in the planned budget for 2016/17, from further efficiencies which will be identified during the current year.”

The decision to not charge at the Fort Perch Rock car park will take effect from the 8th August 2015 (assuming that the decision isn’t called in which is highly unlikely).

UPDATED 18:56 3/8/15 As the TRO process has been discontinued, I’ve made this FOI request to Wirral Council for the number of objections and what was in them.

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

Wirral Council: It's time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making

Wirral Council: It’s time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making

Wirral Council: It’s time for change on Lyndale, consultation and decision making

Councillor Tony Smith at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Lyndzay Roberts

Well Emma Rigby has beaten me to it by about six to seven hours about the special Cabinet meeting on the 17th December 2014 is to decide on the future of Lyndale School.

The special Cabinet meeting to discuss the future of Lyndale School is now down to meet in Committee Room 1 in Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe starting at 6.15pm. It’s a public meeting so anyone can attend. The agenda should be available around the 10th December. However many of the reports that will be on the agenda have already been published either as part of the consultation or for previous Cabinet meetings on this subject.

I’m glad it isn’t the other special meeting of Cabinet next week which will be about something else.

I’ve done a bit of thinking about the consultation, officer advice and councillor decision-making on the subject of disability issues ahead of Friday’s meeting of the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel.

The constitution of Wirral Council states that councillors have to take on board the responses to a consultation and officer advice when making decisions.

What used to happen was a consultation would be agreed. It would run for x weeks or xx weeks, then there’d be a further public meeting at which all the consultation responses were published and the matter discussed.

Now what seems to happen at Wirral Council is this (not just over Lyndale but other matters).

A consultation on whatever change or policy issue is held running from date x to date y.

Following the end of the consultation (date y) Wirral Council employees read through the consultation responses. They then pick out the bits out of the responses they want to and put them in a report. In fact, as the ideas expressed in this report won’t be attributed back to the consultation respondees in academia it would be classed as plagiarism.

Once they’ve cherry picked the bits of the consultation they want to respond to, they’ll include a summary of them in the report, but alter the responses by including a response from officers.

Often these responses will state how the people responding (although they raise valid points) are somehow wrong and the recommendation consulted on should just be agreed (by councillors).

Councillors never see the consultation responses, nor do the public. Some consultation responses people with publishing capabilities (for instance individual councillors or political parties) are published during the consultation.

So what eventually happens is politicians just see a one-sided report written by officers, with brief references to the consultation responses but with more in the report stating officer’s advice than the actual consultation responses.

Naturally anything inconvenient brought up in the consultation, or points raised that officers don’t have a clever answer to gets left out of the public report.

Those who responded to the consultation (if they’re lucky) turn up to the public meeting where this is decided. If by some minor miracle one of the people responding to the consultation actually gets permission to speak at the meeting from the Chair.

Usually they are told they can’t speak as Article 21 although signed up to by Wirral Council was never implemented in their constitution. Although people do have a legal right (in the Human Rights Act 1998 c. 42) to freedom of expression, they will be told they can’t speak either. In an authority that gets annoyed with the press for filming public meetings what do you expect?

In my opinion, it’s a terrible, terrible way to run local democracy and make decisions. It leads to widespread resentment of certain politicians (and Wirral Council employees) and makes people think it’s terribly unfair. Maybe it suits some people though.

It means you have a two tier system. Those with the education, resources and/or connections can get their voice heard on any issue they want. Everyone else (even if they’ve responded to a consultation) just gets lost in the crowd.

It’s something I find personally very wrong about Wirral Council democracy and needs to change as a matter of urgency.

Take both Liverpool City Council and Chester West and Chester as examples. In both cases people can table questions at certain public meetings and speak at public meetings even if they’re not councillors or employees of the organisation.

On Wirral, especially since the abolition of the Area Forums, the public seem to have been written out of the political process. OK they get a vote (or two votes next year), but that’s about it. In many places people know their vote won’t make a difference to the outcome leading to apathy.

The rest of the time (outside of elections) the public are politely ignored by politicians who know they only need to get a minimum of 42% of the votes of the people who do vote to get re-elected under the first past the post system. It’s led to a situation where senior Wirral Council officers and senior politicians have too much power and the checks and balances just aren’t even there or ain’t working.

When the checks and balances are used (such as call in) councillors are just accused of playing party politics for actually holding other politicians to account!

Nothing will change unless the people demand it. Even then the politicians will probably get excuses from the employees as to why changes can’t be made. Even the unions seem to be having a hard time.

I despair of Wirral Council politics at times, I really do! The fallout from what’s going on affects my workplace too. However it’s time to come up with a plan to bring about change and to carry it out. I know the press from a balance perspective aren’t really supposed to have an opinion on matters other than freedom of speech/freedom of expression/the media.

However it’s time to point out that although there are always the elections in May 2015 that the fundamental nature of how Wirral Council makes decisions is either broken, fundamentally flawed or being routinely abused by those with vested interests in maintaining their power base.

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

The many reasons I’m objecting to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road

The many reasons I’m objecting to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road

The many reasons I’m objecting to the proposed traffic regulation order for Birkenhead Market Service Road

                                                   

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

I’d better point out than along with Leonora we are both objectors to this proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This is about item three (OBJECTION: PROPOSED WAITING & LOADING RESTRICTIONS – BIRKENHEAD MARKET SERVICE ROAD, BIRKENHEAD). The report and map is already on Wirral Council’s website.

Previous articles on this matter can be read at:

Objection to Traffic Regulation Order (KO) for Birkenhead Market Service Road (25/9/14).

http://johnbrace.com/2014/09/17/a-meeting-with-2-wirral-council-officers-about-parking-behind-birkenhead-market-and-disability-issues/ (17/9/14)

The shocking tale of Wirral Council trying to scapegoat the disabled and forcing them to pay more £s for parking (8/8/14)

Below is my submission (in the interests of openness and transparency) to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel that meets on the 21st November 2014 starting at 9.30am.

CC:
Cllr Michael Sullivan
Cllr Steve Williams
Cllr Dave Mitchell
Mark Smith
Ken Abraham
Vicky Rainsford

Subject: Agenda item 3 (OBJECTION: PROPOSED WAITING & LOADING RESTRICTIONS – BIRKENHEAD MARKET SERVICE ROAD, BIRKENHEAD) Highways and Traffic Representation Panel Friday 21st November 2014

Dear all,

As one of two objectors to the proposed TRO for Birkenhead Market Service Road, I am announcing my intention to speak at this meeting.

I have received a letter through the post detailing the date and time of the meeting. I’m also (although you may have guessed this) going to film agenda items 1, 2 and 3.

Leonora (the other objector) may wish to speak too. However as I have had time to read the report, published yesterday there were some points I wish to raise in advance of the meeting in order that officers (and councillors) are given appropriate advance notice of the points I will raise.

I refer to the original numbering of the report.

3.4 “objector’s” should read “objectors'” as there are two of us.

3.5 Although access to Birkenhead Market Service Road can travel through Birkenhead Bus Station, as you can see from the map this is one of two ways vehicles can access the Birkenhead Market Service Road. Therefore it’s misleading to imply that people in the Birkenhead Market Service Road must have come through the Birkenhead Bus Station.

It would be useful if officers could clarify which designated bays they are referring to and what specific longer observation periods they are referring to.

3.6 Both The Grange and The Pyramids (except on a Sunday) charge for parking.

Here is the detail of blue badge spaces at the other car parks referred to (total number of spaces in brackets):

Europa Square 14 blue badge (150)
Oliver Street 6 blue badge (16)
Conway Street (on street) ~6 (6)
Burlington Street unknown

Policy SPD4 (which I’m sure councillors who are currently or have been previously on Planning Committee are familiar with) state minimum numbers of spaces for vehicles carrying disabled people as follows:

1 in the first 10 spaces should be allocated for disabled people. Thereafter 1 in every 20 spaces or 6% of the total (whichever is greater).

Applied to the Europa Square car park of 150 spaces using Class A1 – Retail this is:

first ten spaces: one space
other 140 spaces: seven spaces
Total: eight

However 6% is the greater. Depending on how you calculate the 6% (whether 6% of 150 or (6% of 140)+1) it either comes out as either 9 spaces or 9.4 spaces (rounded up to 10).

However the number of blue badges issued to the Wirral population (visitors can also use their blue badges) is higher than 6% putting pressure on existing spaces in Europa Park. On the day of the site visit with officers, there were no free Blue Badge spaces available in the Europa Park car park (out of 14) and this is pretty typical of how it is during the times the shops are open.

I quote:

“Officers consider there are sufficient parking spaces within existing Council and privately owned car parks in close proximity to the Market Hall to accommodate any overspill of blue badge holder parking from Birkenhead Market Service Road.”

In order to know that you’d have to do a traffic survey of how many spaces are free in car parks in close proximity to the Market Hall, how many of those spaces are blue badge spaces and actually know how many park in the Birkenhead Market Service Road currently with a blue badge. As far as I know (although I may be wrong) this is merely based on an opinion of officers without doing a survey. Many of the “sufficient parking spaces” are unsuitable for those with disability as disabled people if they parked in the regular spaces would not have enough room around their vehicle (especially if parked adjacent to a car) to safely get in and out of their vehicle.

3.7 Of course the Birkenhead Market Hall isn’t going to object to a traffic regulation order it’s actually funding half of the cost of. Individual traders were told by officers at the site visit that the proposals wouldn’t affect their customers unloading and loading, just parking. The traders haven’t been individually consulted and unless they read the notice on the lamppost, or found out by other means they just won’t be aware of this proposed TRO. Even if they did object, they might not know how to go about it. Bear in mind the proposals weren’t available to view in the Conway Street One Stop Shop just across the road, but were a considerable distance away at Wallasey Town Hall, Seacombe.

3.8 There are various points in the Birkenhead Market Service Road (as you can see on the plan) that are much narrower than others. Cars (or other vehicles) parked there or near there (unlawfully) can be causing an obstruction to the free flow of traffic. Although Wirral’s CEOs do not have powers to remove vehicles, the police do. Wirral’s CEOs can issue tickets (which hopefully act as a deterrent).

3.9 This is an acknowledgement by officers that the draft TRO (as consulted on) cannot be decided by the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.

It is unclear from what is put in the report exactly what modifications officers are proposing to the proposed TRO. However what is clear is that only the original TRO has been consulted on (twice) and not the modified TRO.

The requirements in regulation 9 cause a public inquiry held by an inspector to be held if the requirements in regulations 9(3) to 9(5) are met.

To summarise these are (subject to paragraphs 4 and 5) for orders if:

(3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), this paragraph applies to an order if—

(a) its effect is to prohibit the loading or unloading of vehicles or vehicles of any class in a road on any day of the week–

(i) at all times;
(ii) before 07.00 hours;
(iii) between 10.00 and 16.00 hours; or
(iv) after 19.00 hours,

and an objection has been made to the order (other than one which the order making authority is satisfied is frivolous or irrelevant) and not withdrawn; or

(b) its effect is to prohibit or restrict the passage of public service vehicles along a road and an objection has been made to the order in accordance with regulation 8–
(i) in the case of a road outside Greater London, by the operator of a local service the route of which includes that road; or
(ii) in the case of a road in Greater London, by the operator of a London bus service the route of which includes that road or by London Regional Transport.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph 3(a), an order shall not be taken to have the effect of prohibiting loading at any time to the extent that it—
(a) authorises the use of part of a road as a parking place, or designates a parking place on a road, for the use of a disabled person’s vehicle as defined by section 142(1) of the 1984 Act;
(b) relates to a length of the side of a road extending 15 metres in either direction from the point where one road joins the side of another road,

unless the effect of the order taken with prohibitions already imposed is to prohibit loading and unloading by vehicles of any class at the time in question for a total distance of more than 30 metres out of 50 metres on one side of any length of road.

(5) Paragraph (3) does not apply to an order —

(a) if it is an experimental order;
(b) made under section 84 of the 1984 Act (speed limits on roads other than restricted roads); or
(c) to the extent that it relates to a road which forms part of a priority route designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 50 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (designation of priority routes in London).

(6) In this regulation “public service vehicle” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

As you can see from the above, even if the loading bays in the proposed TRO are modified to apply to all vehicles and not just goods vehicles, it’s the stretches it restricts of >30m in 50m stretches around the Birkenhead Market Services Road that are the problem. Without these being also taken out of the proposed TRO the requirement for a public inquiry by an inspector still applies.

Neither the TRO consulted on, nor the changed TRO can be decided by the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel because of Regulation 9.

3.10
The exceptions referred to in officer comments in relation to vehicles driven other than by the blue badge holder for the purposes of picking up the blue badge holder don’t as far as I can see form part of the consulted on TRO.

4.1
Even if in theory a TRO was granted, without enforcement it wouldn’t result in any change. There are plenty of loading bays and plenty of time deliveries will happen and there will be a goods vehicle already in the space they wish to load or unload. Whereas it can be inconvenient for drivers of large lorries to try and drive down the Birkenhead Market Service Road, the vast majority of vehicles there are connected to the market stalls or the Pyramids/Grange. Going one way to the Birkenhead Market Service Road, the Birkenhead Bus Station provides greater challenges to the drivers of goods vehicles than the Birkenhead Market Service Road itself in my opinion.

5.1
There are options that have not been considered these are:

A) Consulting on the modified TRO. In fact consultation is a requirement of Regulation 8 (Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996). The new proposals would also have to be published in a local newspaper (Regulation 7) and there would have to be a period for objections.

What’s interesting is the modified TRO officers propose hasn’t been consulted on, therefore can’t be decided by the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel.

B) Having a public inquiry chaired by an inspector on the proposed TRO (Regulation 9, 10 & 11). Again this would require a notice in a local newspaper and 21 days notice.

Lastly I would like to request that item 3 (which is this item on the agenda) it taken ahead of item 2 as both Leonora and I planned to attend the meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority starting at 11.00am.

In order to get to that meeting, we will be able to stay at a meeting of the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel no later than 10.15am. Therefore it is important that the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel starts promptly at 9.30am and that is part of the reason why I am submitting this information in advance so that agenda item 3 can be dealt with quickly.

I realise this may inconvenience the objector to agenda item 2, however I cannot see it as being possible to deal with both agenda items in 45 minutes based on previous experience of Highways and Traffic Representation Panel meetings.

Thank you for reading this,

John Brace

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