Liverpool City Council councillors hear about closures of 2 GP practices and falling vaccination rates
Liverpool City Council councillors hear about closures of 2 GP practices and falling vaccination rates
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.
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.
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest
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.
Below is a transcript of what was said at a public meeting yesterday of councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority about the station mergers project. Above is video for that item (with a subtitle track).
Acronyms MFRA Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority MFRS Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 25th May 2017
Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): Item 8 was the err update on the station merger, mergers, Phil?
Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017
Err and I’ll keep this relatively brief because the content of the err update is contained within, other than to say work has commenced at Prescot, err I’ll draw to your attention to paragraph nine which says, “All foundations and ground beams have been laid and the concrete errm slab has now been poured as of the 26th of April 2017. The retaining walls for the approach road are in place and steel work has started and has been put in place through the period of May.” and we are looking at now a completion date for the new Prescot site which as clearly Members will be aware is a fire station, police station colocated and that work is looking to be completed March 2018 and that is on schedule.
Err as part and parcel of that application we sort of err sort of addressed some of the concerns that were raised, err through the refusal of the initial planning permission and as a result of that we have reduced the overall size of the fire station by some 30%, err sorry, yeah by 30%, the overall size of the site, the fire station itself by some 10% and realigned some elements of the building itself so it’s simply smaller. We’ve also significantly improved some of the errm, the layout of the site and the landscaping associated with some of the concerns that were raised.That planning submission that we believe is going to Planning Committee on the 22nd of June errm where it will be considered and we’ll inform Members subsequently with options available to us to refer it to the Secretary of State, if we’re unsuccessful through that process but as Elected Members will be aware, we are hopeful that that planning application will be successful and we’ll be able to build a new fire station in Saughall Massie, which will be able to serve as part of the Wirral, which may be affected should we not be able to be afforded that opportunity. With regards to Saint Helens, err and a number of conversations that we’ve had with Pilkingtons who own the site at Canal Street.
Subsequently, the site, or the initial site that was proposed has been withdrawn by Pilkingtons, however Pilkingtons have offered us a further site, which is not you know too far away from the original site, at Watson Street. When we’ve looked at the analysis in regards to our operational response, from Watson Street as opposed to Canal Street, it’s actually a more preferable err base from which to respond. So again, those conversations have been had and discussions are progressing, err nicely. We’ve also extended those discussions as part of our collaborative err duty to Merseyside Police and North West Ambulance Service and then so this was really some conversation with Saint Helens err Council.
As a result of those conversations, Merseyside Police have made it clear that they’re not necessarily in a position at this moment in time to progress around a collaborative endeavor there. However North West Ambulance Service would seem a little keener, but they have yet to come back to us and we’re expecting a response from them err within the next seven days when they can potentially seek to put a make ready facility at St Helens colocated with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, but again that is yet to be determined.
Irrespective of those matters, we will be on site relatively shortly at Watson Street in Saint Helens to do some basic sampling of the land there to establish any remediation you know that will be required as part and parcel of the build. Again, you know our relationship with Pilkington was very good, Saint Helens Metropolitan Borough Council is very good and we are keen to progress to build a new station er as described at Watson Street in Saint Helens.
Other than that Members will probably the rest of the detail is contained within the report itself but I’m happy to take any questions on any particular issues.
Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): OK, thanks for that report.
Unknown councillor (MFRA): Thanks Chair, yes could I just ask Phil about this err thirty percent decrease on the Saughall Massie site and the building? I mean that’s a significant decrease and yet you’d still got to get everything still in there, the kit and the engines. How’s it going to work out practically?
Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): Yeah, it’s the overall site that we’ve reduced by thirty percent, the station by around ten percent, so it is reduced in size, let’s be absolutely clear about that and some of the kind of the training facilities would be compromised as a result of that, as will some of the facilities that we provide from, from the operational crews. But we’re trying to kind of have, you know manage the footprint of the building, the aesthetics in relation to the kind of responses that we’ve received from the Planning Committee and equally we’ve took on board some of the kind of recommendations from the planners themselves to say, well actually this might be more aesthetically pleasing if you did this, if we moved some things like the car park over, which was you know adjacent to some of the housing in that location, that we’ve moved that to the back. We’ve moved some of the general spacing and so on and so forth, we’re trying to be as flexible as we possibly can be to some of the kind of concerns that were raised in the first instance, without preventing it being an operational base from which to function from.
Err but to be reflective of the comments that have been made, up to this point because it’s really important to get you know a response base from err the Saughall Massie area in terms of West Kirby and Hoylake. Thank you.
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): And just to add to that, I too have serious reservations about this. However you shouldn’t underestimate the need for this fire station to maintain response times into west Wirral. Hence, why against my better judgement, I’ve arrived at this. Which is why, we pursued this route instead of the going straight to the Secretary of State which would’ve been the route that we err, could’ve taken.
But err credit to Phil [Garrigan] and Colin Schofield, who really have err, they have done everything they possibly can do to address those err the issues that were raised at the err Planning Committee. Well as I say, and I’ll say again for the record, I have some err quite serious reservations about the extent to which we are compromising the functionality of that err that fire station.
But again, we’re going to have to do that, because we err, because we need it to maintain response times.
Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): OK, errm this is just an update report and we’ll have further reports as we go on with the err, with the schemes and obviously the outcome of the Planning Committee when it meets on the 22nd June, so hopefully we’ll be successful. We’ll wait and see. Errm, so that concludes the business. Errm could I just ask Members just to stay for just and officers for just a couple of minutes, because the Chief wants to give us just a brief update of obviously the events of err what happened in Manchester on Monday and obviously how err as an employer on Merseyside, we have to do that in closed session unfortunately? So if any members of the public, press or public can I just ask to leave? Peter? Err.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result 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?
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 Ref: RFQ/15/14
ATTACHMENT 1
SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES
Background
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
The daily rate for the provision of the Services is £250 plus any pre-agreed expenses.
Total fee is £12,000 + expenses.
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12
Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14
ATTACHMENT 2
FEES AND INVOICING SCHEDULE
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 2Contract 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?
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”.
“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.
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.
“(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;”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
“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.
