Cllr Phil Davies: “it’s our hope that we won’t have to ideally develop any part of the greenbelt”

Cllr Phil Davies: “it’s our hope that we won’t have to ideally develop any part of the greenbelt”

Cllr Phil Davies: “it’s our hope that we won’t have to ideally develop any part of the greenbelt”

                                 

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.

Cllr Phil Davies (Leader of Wirral Council) answering a question about the Local Plan at a public meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee 27th September 2018

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (27th September 2018) Cllr Phil Davies right answering a question on the Local Plan
Birkenhead Constituency Committee (27th September 2018) Cllr Phil Davies (right) answering a question on the Local Plan

Yesterday evening at a public meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee I asked the question below of Cllr Phil Davies (Leader of Wirral Council). I include Cllr Phil Davies’ answer below my question or you can watch him answer my question in the video above.
Continue reading “Cllr Phil Davies: “it’s our hope that we won’t have to ideally develop any part of the greenbelt””

3 invoices about the Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement with Peel which raises a VAT question?

3 invoices about the Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement with Peel which raises a VAT question?

3 invoices about the Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement with Peel which raises a VAT question?

                                                    

I’d better start this piece by declaring an interest in that I can see the Wirral Waters site from where I live as it’s not that far away.

Below are three invoices that however many times I look at them don’t make much sense to me. However maybe through writing about them I can make more sense of them. I may have this wrong, so if I have please leave a comment as elements from one invoice appear on the other ones so maybe I’m not counting things correctly.

All three are from Eversheds LLP (a firm of solicitors) with an office in Manchester. I’ll put them in chronological order:

20/2/13 Interim Invoice | Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement (to November 2012) | £10,000 + VAT £2,000 = £12,000 | £10,000 paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited | £2,000 paid by Wirral Council (VAT element)

15/4/13 Interim Invoice | Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement (to November 2012) | £8,133.90 + VAT £1,617.58 = £9,751.48 | £8,133.90 paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited | £1,617.58 to be paid by Wirral Council (VAT element)

29/4/13 Invoice | Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement (28 June 2011 to 31 July 2012) | £8,000 + VAT £1,577.20 = £9.577.20 | £8,000 paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited | £1,577.20 to be paid by Wirral Council (VAT element)

Total (across three invoices) paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited: £10,000 + £8,133.90 + £8,000 = £26,133.90
Total (across three invoices) paid by Wirral Council : £2,000 + £1,617.58 + £1,577.20 = £5,194,78

Which leads me to the obvious question about VAT. When a developer such as Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited have a legal firm (in this case Eversheds) to draw up a section 106 agreement between themselves (Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited) and Wirral Council, why does Wirral Council pay the VAT?

I’m not an accountant, so maybe somebody out there with a better understanding of the tax code and VAT issues can help me! Please leave a comment if you understand this better than me!

Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Wirral Council 20th February 2013 £12000
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Wirral Council 20th February 2013 £12000
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited 15th April 2013 £9751 48p
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited 15th April 2013 £9751 48p
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement invoice Wirral Council 29th April 2013 £9577 20p
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement invoice Wirral Council 29th April 2013 £9577 20p

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

Hoylake RNLI Open Day and the top 7 stories this week

Hoylake RNLI Open Day and the top 7 stories this week

Hoylake RNLI Open Day and the top 7 stories this week

                                    

It’s a Bank Holiday today and although I’ve been down to the Hoylake RNLI Open Day today and taken plenty of photos which is a story on that can wait till tomorrow. Three years ago I wrote about the Area Forum where the beginnings of what is now the Hoylake Lifeboat Museum were discussed, which is one of the buildings that is open as part of the Open Day.

Wirral Council’s interest in the car park next to the Hoylake Lifeboat Museum was as you can read from this story in the Wirral News from 2010 was originally going to be sold off along with where the museum is after a decision by former Cllr Simon Holbrook (who was then Cabinet Member for Corporate Resources) in November 2010. However the decision was “called in” by councillors and reconsidered in December 2010, a letter from Hylgar Properties Limited being one of the factors that led to a changed decision. Despite brief mentions about that call in meeting, here and here on this blog, it seems I never did get round to writing up a detailed account of what happened at that call in meeting back in December 2010, however the minutes of what happened at the call in are on Wirral Council’s website.

As it is a bank holiday today, I will just be writing briefly today about what has been popular on this blog in the last week and taking the rest of the day off. The last week (August is traditionally a quiet month for politics) has seen 551 visitors to this blog viewing 1,247 pages. The top seven stories in order of popularity the last week have been:

1) Why did Wirral Council spend an incredible £1,872 on a London barrister to prevent openness and transparency?

2) The incredible £754,783.18 that Wirral Council councillors cost (plus amounts for the Mayor & Deputy Mayor)

3) Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall “we’re not having straightforward consultation” (part 10)

4) Planning Committee on 8:5 vote approves plans for Tranmere Rovers training ground to move to Leasowe

5) Bidston Moss Retail Park: Five New Units Under Construction

6) Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

and

7) Government asks councils in England to bid for £16 million of money to tackle fraud

Note the Contact details for 66 Wirral Council councillors (2014) is in joint 7th place but as it is just for information I have not included it in the above list.

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

Cllr McGlashan “before you even get out of the airport you’ve got to change money to get a pound to put the bloody..”

Cllr McGlashan “before you even get out of the airport you’ve got to change money to get a pound to put the bloody..”

Cllr McGlashan “before you even get out of the airport you’ve got to change money to get a pound to put the bloody..”

                         

Merseytravel meeting of the 25th July 2014
Merseytravel meeting (25th July) Right Cllr Les Rowlands, centre background Cllr Steve Foulkes and Cllr Ron Abbey where councillors discussed Liverpool John Lennon Airport

Last Friday, as well as discussing the Open Golf and Mersey Gateway bridge tolls issue councillors on Merseytravel also discussed (which is rather topical as many people will be using Liverpool Airport at this time of year) a report titled “Liverpool John Lennon Airport Surface Access Delivery Plan July 2014” and its appendix which was a forty-three page draft plan.

In case the rather opaque title of the report means absolutely nothing to you (the officer who wrote it Peter Sandman summarised the report and draft plan for councillors at the meeting) it was about improving access to Liverpool John Lennon Airport by bus, improving marketing (which includes joint marketing of the airport by Merseytravel and the airport itself) and the customer experience (improved information & improved customer service as well as other areas). The review was started in September 2013 and the draft plan contains improvements to be carried out between now and 2016.

An example of some of the improvements in the plan are better signage to the bus stops at the airport, a cleaning regime for the bus stops and airport staff receiving WorldHost training (provided by Merseytravel). This is the same free training that was offered to Wirral’s taxi drivers ahead of the Open Golf Championship. The Northern Rail ticket machine has also been moved from the airport (which doesn’t have a rail connection and where there were poor ticket sales) to nearby Liverpool South Parkway train station.

Bus timetables are now available outside the main arrivals point and if Merseytravel get grant funding they plan to have an electronic departure board for buses in the airport’s arrivals hall and at the bus stops. Merseytravel is also in talks with bus operators that serve the airport to enhance the quality of the existing routes. Councillors will be receiving a quarterly report on progress. A number of councillors had things to say about the report and draft plan at Merseytravel’s meeting.

Cllr Ken McGlashan (Knowsley) said, “Thanks Chairman, thanks for that excellent report Pete, really good. It reports on the warts and all, if you look at 3.3, 3.3.1 “how to retain and grow local outbound marketing in the face of competition from other regional airports” and let’s be clear about it, if you’re not to go about it the wrong way, Liverpool John Lennon Airport have precisely done that.

I think from our house to Manchester is about twenty-eight minutes, it’s round about the same I know you’ve got to go to Huyton, it’s about the same to Liverpool Airport but then again if I was to go to Liverpool Airport now, I’ve got to pay to drop off! You know is this a good advert for anybody? I think also you’re charging for trollies as well, Manchester you don’t. You know it is a nonsense!

Imagine a transatlantic flight was diverted to Liverpool and some are trying to find quarters that don’t fit the pound machine. So before you even get out of the airport you’ve got to change money to get a pound to put the bloody… sorry about that, to put your luggage on, you know.

When they owned the airport, the authorities owned the airport, we sold it to Paul err Peel, because they were going to offer us a better service. They in turn put it onto these Canadians, who now seem to be doing everything they can to move everything to Manchester so you know I think the more influence we can have about this to get them to look at this the better.

The 500 service, Merseytravel initiated that, Arriva didn’t! Until it was making a profit, they just got in there and took it off us because it was making a profit.

Now, we’re travelling and I’ll say to them, that the officers have received complaints but they’re doing exactly the same with the trains. The train comes in on each side, the bus comes in at another time. You know, we’re talking about integration, meeting our people’s needs. I mean to do that, you say yourself, you put yourself out to meet passenger needs and unfortunately I don’t think they are at present. A bit of a rant Chair I’m sorry.”

Peter Sandman (Merseytravel’s Customer and Business Development Manager) said, “It’s a fair point, I think the point has been made to the Airport. I think one important thing we have done is started to have that regular dialogue to be perfectly honest with you.

I think the charging for parking, you could argue that it encourages use of the public transport network if I’m being honest with you. One thing the Airport have pledged to do is to really support basically not levy any parking charges to the bus operators who’ve actually started to think about how they are running the service commercially into and out of the airport to increase the provision of service and there is support there absolutely.

I think the other point is that with Peel now taking on the majority shareholding with the airports, the feedback from bodies it’s certainly they are much more focussed on strategic development and commercial development of the airport.

I mean that seems to travel my shift away from the way the previous owners, … felt towards the Airport. So hopefully through this process we have genuinely made those representations to answer your question, as you correctly say and then through this ongoing dialogue we’re starting to look at how those issues be resolved for the benefit of the customers who ultimately will sustain the Airport going forward.”

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

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

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

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

                               

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction

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

2 Dredging and Liverpool 2

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

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

David Ball

Head of Regeneration and Planning

19 December 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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