Tag: lease

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:

U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car parking charges and 2 other updates

U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car parking charges and 2 other updates

U-turn on Fort Perch Rock car parking charges and 2 other updates

                                          

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

There have been developments recently with a number of stories I’ve written about on this blog so I thought I would give an update for each story.

New Brighton Fort Perch Rock car parking charges

A week ago I wrote a story headlined Over 3,000 people have signed a petition against car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton but what happens next?

Personally I thought nothing further would happen on this story until the September meeting of Wirral Council’s Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. However, since writing that story Wirral Council have issued a press release that’s titled either “Resort parking plans quashed” (when it’s linked to from their homepage) or “Wirral Council leader says no to plans to charge for parking in New Brighton” from the press release.

There is a very interesting quote in the press release from Councillor Phil Davies that states “Cllr Pat Hackett, our Cabinet Member for the Economy, has been meeting with traders and business leaders in New Brighton to discuss the proposals, and they made a powerful case for not proceeding. When we looked at the plan and the possible impact on parking and tourism across the whole of the resort, I made the decision to stop the proposal”.

On the 22nd December 2014, I wrote on this blog When Wirral Council introduces car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, will 3 hours free parking end for a further 423 New Brighton spaces? (later updating it this year by including the public notice). I published the three pages of Wirral Council’s lease for the Marine Point development at New Brighton that detailed if Wirral Council introduced car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park, charges could be introduced at the supermarket car park and the “health and fitness” car park (originally Bubbles was going to be a gym but they couldn’t find a company that wanted to run it as a gym). This was plenty of time before the 2015/16 budget for Wirral Council was agreed on the 24th February 2015 for councillors to change their mind.

An article by Liam Murphy in the Liverpool Echo states “But Promenade Estates, who manage part of the successfully regenerated resort, say if the charges are imposed they would have little choice but to follow suit. This would mean parking charges on the car parks serving Morrisons, The Light Cinema, Bubbles play centre and other businesses.”

So it wasn’t just a “possible impact” but a “probable impact”. On the 9th December 2014, Councillor Phil Davies proposed and voted for this resolution at a Cabinet meeting, that was seconded and agreed by all councillors including Cllr Pat Hackett:

“We also feel that it is appropriate to introduce a modest charge for parking at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton up to 6 p.m.”

“67.We also feel it is appropriate that a modest charge for parking up to 6 pm. at Fort Perch Rock in New Brighton should be introduced.”

So Councillor Phil Davies U-turned on his own policy! However it begs the following question, if the reason for stopping the proposal is the impact on parking across the resort (as stated in the quote from Cllr Phil Davies), then why wasn’t he told about the impact on parking elsewhere in Marine Point by his own officers before Cabinet made the decision? As you can see below from the first page of the lease that has the clauses about parking, Wirral Council is the landlord for the Marine Point development.

New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd cover page
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd cover page

I’ll also draw readers attention to a leaflet from April 2015 from Tony Pritchard (the Conservative candidate for New Brighton ward and former councillor opposing parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park.

The mysteriously missing Employment Tribunal judgement

I wrote previously about my failed attempts to get a copy of an Employment Tribunal judgement in a case involving Wirral Council. I have since been told by a clerk to the Employment Tribunal that the case hasn’t concluded and that there will be a final hearing listed for November 2015. After the final hearing I can request a copy of the judgement.

Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority and DHA Communications

An earlier story headlined Why did Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority pay a PR agency £650 + VAT a day? which involved Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority paying a £1,625 monthly retainer has led to a statement from Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority which I will quote here:

“I confirm that the Authority no longer retains DHA Communications and the use of their services ceased as of March 31st 2015. The Authority recognises that some parts of its relationship with DHA Communications was not fully formalised in some time periods. The Authority has reviewed its practices in relation to this type of contract and has now put in additional measures and monitoring in place to ensure that an accurate audit trail is retained.”

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

What are the changes next year to the public's right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?

What are the changes next year to the public’s right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?

What are the changes next year to the public’s right to inspect documents of public bodies during the audit?

                                             

Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 2 of 2
Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 2 of 2

Above is one of the documents I requested under the 2013/14 audit last year, which is a page of a lease that Wirral Council have with Neptune that states that if Wirral Council introduce car parking in the Fort Perch Rock car park, then charges can be introduced in the free car parks part of the Marine Point development.

Each year for the past few years I have exercised a right you get to exercise only for three weeks each year, which is a right under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to inspect documents relating to the previous financial year (2014/15) during the audit.

This has in years gone past has been the only way to see such financial information and to give one example of a story that resulted in many interesting stories on this blog (ranging from councillor’s expenses and taxis to an unsigned contract for a million pounds worth of work).

This year I have exercised my s.15 right not just with Wirral Council, but with Liverpool City Council, Merseytravel, the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority.

A couple of weeks before the three-week period when the public can inspect these documents each of these bodies has to publish a public notice in a newspaper that circulates in the area covered by that body. The regulations also require each body to publish this notice on their website. Wirral Council’s notice can be found on their website here.

To save myself trekking off to Birkenhead Central library and spending an afternoon going through back issues of the local newspapers trying to find the public notices, I found this website that has a searchable database of all public notices published by the Trinity Mirror group.

All of the notices (apart from the Merseytravel one) had a name of someone at that public body who I wrote to (whether by letter or by email). In the case of Merseytravel I wrote to the Chief Executive, who passed my request on to the person at Merseytravel dealing with it.

So far the responses have been as follows:

Merseytravel – dates of Monday 27th July 2015/Tuesday 28th July 2015 agreed to come in and inspect the documents. They have a “paperless office”, but will be printing off copies of the invoices/contracts I requested so their legal department can redact parts of them.

Merseyside Waste and Recycling Authority – dates of Friday 24th July and Wednesday 29th July 2015 have been agreed to come in and inspect documents.

Liverpool City Council – email sent yesterday, no reply received yet

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority – email sent and acknowledged on the 15th July 2015, no further reply received since

Wirral Council – email sent with request for contracts & councillor expenses on 19th July 2015, reply received yesterday, list of invoices sent this morning, no reply received yet or date/s arranged

Next year, any right of access to invoices and contracts will be under the new section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

The main differences will be next year that a new ground of refusing a request on grounds of “commercial confidentiality” has been added in to the legislation unless there is an “overriding public interest in favour of its disclosure”.

This puts on a statutory footing the Veolia case, see [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 if you’re curious about what I mean.

The new section 26 also means that determinations about what is “personal information” on documents (therefore not open to inspection) will in future be made by the public body themselves and not the situation at present of the public body having to get agreement from their external auditor to this. It does make it crystal clear that the names of sole traders on invoices is not covered by the definition of “personal information” and defines “personal information” as “identifies a particular individual or enables a particular individual to be identified”. The restriction on information about the public body’s staff remains in section 26 next year.

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 Wirral Council receive £2 million from an off shore company based in the Isle of Man?

Why did Wirral Council receive £2 million from an off shore company based in the Isle of Man?

Why did Wirral Council receive £2 million from an off shore company based in the Isle of Man?

                                                          

Following on from yesterday’s blog post about how Wirral Council spent £16,412.04 on legal advice for regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre, you only have to look at the lease for New Brighton’s Marine Point to see why Wirral Council sees these sorts of deals with companies such as Neptune Wirral Limited/Neptune Developments Limited & Neptune Projects Limited as lucrative.

In return for a 250 year lease of New Brighton’s Marine Point between Wirral Council and Neptune Wirral Limited (an offshore company based in the Isle of Man), Wirral Council received a premium of £2 million (plus VAT). In addition to this £2 million Wirral Council also receives 6% of the rents paid by commercial tenants in the Marine Point development as the documents below show.

It’s highly likely that if Neptune’s plan to redevelop Birkenhead Town Centre goes ahead, that there will be some sort of similar lease between Neptune and Wirral Council.

New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd cover page
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd cover page
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral council Neptune Wirral Ltd index page
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral council Neptune Wirral Ltd index page
New Brighton Marine point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd £2 million premium
New Brighton Marine point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd £2 million premium
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 1
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 1
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 2
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 2
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 3
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 3
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 4
New Brighton Marine Point lease Wirral Council Neptune Wirral Ltd Additional Rent Page 4

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

£1800 invoice to Wirral Council for barrister Sarah O’Brien in Fernbank Farm matter (Kane & Woodley)

£1800 invoice to Wirral Council for barrister Sarah O’Brien in Fernbank Farm matter (Kane & Woodley)

£1800 invoice to Wirral Council for barrister Sarah O’Brien in Fernbank Farm matter (Kane & Woodley)

                                                        

Below is the invoice received for the services of a barrister called Miss Sarah O’Brien of Exchange Chambers to Wirral Council to do with the possession order for Fernbank Farm which was heard at the Birkenhead County Court earlier this year. I requested this as part of the 2013/14 audit.

I have added annotations in green which represent information that Wirral Council either incorrectly blacked out, or should’ve blacked out or information which was blacked out but is known to me from court reporting on the issue.

Detail of redactions 1: “Professional Fees of:”
Reason incorrect: Sarah O’Brien is not an employee of Wirral Council.
Unredacted text: Sarah O’Brien

Details of redaction 2: DX 708630
Reason incorrect: partial redaction as it was meant to redact next line, DX 708630 refers to Wirral Council’s document exchange number.
Unredacted text: DX 708630

Details of redaction 3: Mr Ali Bayatti
Reason correct: Redaction correct as person is Wirral Council employee, however due to earlier court hearing name of solicitor is known. Unredacted to aid in transparency as name said during open court hearing in Birkenhead County Court (2013). Also important to know which solicitor is instructing the barrister.
Unredacted text: Mr Ali Bayatti

Details of redaction 4: AB / H19 / 25650
Reason correct/incorrect: Redaction partially correct as AB refers to Ali Bayatti. However redaction done incompetently by drawing a line in pen through after the other redactions were added as an afterthought by an accountant.
Unredacted text: AB/ H19 / 25650

Details of redaction 5: METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – V – CAROL KANE & EILEEN WOODLEY
Reason incorrect: refers to parties’ names in court case.
Unredacted text: METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – V – CAROL KANE & EILEEN WOODLEY

Details of redaction 6: “Name/info”
Reason incorrect: refers to parties’ names in court case. Unredacted KANE. Rest is unknown.
Unredacted text: KANE

Details of redaction 7: “Init” (three handwritten initials)
Reason correct: Refers to initials of Wirral Council officer.
Unredacted text:

Details of redaction 8: “Certified Correct for payment” (signature)
Reason correct: signature of Wirral Council officer.
Unredacted text:

Details of redaction 9: “To Miss Sarah O’Brien”
Reason incorrect: refers to barrister of Exchange Chambers not Wirral Council officer.
Unredacted text: To Miss Sarah O’Brien

Details of redaction 10: “Sarah Rotheram”
Reason incorrect: Does not refer to Wirral Council employee.
Unredacted text: Sarah Rotherham

Original document is below, followed by the same document with my annotations in green (although it is possible Wirral Council’s legal department have gone too far with the black pen in places).

There is a related Freedom of Information Act request to this of Ian Lewis on the Whatdotheyknow website “Use of barrister in Wirral Borough Council v. Kane and Woodley” which provides a little more detail.

redacted invoice Fernbank Farm court case Carol Kane Eileen Woodley Metropolitan Borough of Wirral
redacted invoice Fernbank Farm court case Carol Kane Eileen Woodley Metropolitan Borough of Wirral
unredacted invoice Carol Kane Eilieen Woodley Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Birkenhead County Court invoice £1800
unredacted invoice Carol Kane Eilieen Woodley Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Birkenhead County Court invoice £1800

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