Tag: traffic regulation order

FOI response details reasons why Fort Perch Rock car park charging plans were opposed

FOI response details reasons why Fort Perch Rock car park charging plans were opposed

FOI response details reasons why Fort Perch Rock car park charging plans were opposed

                                                 

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

After the U-turn last month on car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock car park, New Brighton I made a Freedom of Information request for the objections made during the consultation period.

In addition to a petition of objection which when the consultation finished had 876 signatures but now has 4,010 signatures there were nineteen written objections which included a thirteen page letter sent on behalf of the Wilkie Leisure Group.

Objectors referred to pay and display parking in Hamilton Square, Birkenhead and the reduction in visitors once charges for parking had started. Many objectors thought that car parking charges would put people off from visiting New Brighton. Some objectors thought that what charging would be unlawful. Others felt that Wirral Council ordering the pay and display ticket machines before the consultation on the proposed traffic regulation order started pre judged the outcome of the consultation.

The most detailed objection from Singleton Clamp & Partners Limited sent on behalf of the Wilkie Leisure Group stated:

The official reason for the U-turn given was the what was in the lease that meant that this could lead to parking charges elsewhere in New Brighton. Promenade Estates were quoted in a Liverpool Echo article by Liam Murphy that they would charge for parking at other car parks in New Brighton if charges at Fort Perch Rock car park were brought in.

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:

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:

Public notice for proposed changes to parking on Birkenhead Market Service Road (deadline 26th September 2014)

Public notice for proposed changes to parking on Birkenhead Market Service Road (deadline 26th September 2014)

Public notice for proposed changes to parking on Birkenhead Market Service Road (deadline 26th September 2014)

                                                

In an update to yesterday’s story about the proposed changes to parking behind Birkenhead Market, here is the public notice about it published in the 3rd September 2014 edition of the Wirral Globe. I’d better declare again that my wife Leonora Brace regularly parks in the Birkenhead Market Service Road with her Blue Badge and is someone that will be affected by the proposed Traffic Regulation Order.

This the public notice about the proposed traffic regulation order about the Birkenhead Market Service Road published on page 61 of the Wirral Globe on the 3rd September 2014.

The tale which explains why they’ve had to re-advertise this Traffic Regulation Order (I’m sure the Wirral Globe doesn’t mind the extra money as it’s now been advertised twice) for the second time in the Wirral Globe is covered in this story from August 8th 2014.

One does wonder why they don’t make the plans available at the nearby Birkenhead One Stop Shop in Conway Street? Perhaps Wirral Council still have somewhat of a “beware of the leopard” mentality when it comes to people actually viewing the proposals!

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – (BIRKENHEAD CONTROLLED PARKING ZONE) – (WAITING, LOADING & PARKING PLACES) ORDER 2008 – AMENDMENT NO 1, 2014

Notice is hereby given that Wirral Borough Council in exercise of its powers intends to make the above order under Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 32, 35 and 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and of all other enabling powers.

The general nature and effect of this order will be to amend the existing order Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, (Birkenhead Controlled Parking Zone) (Waiting, Loading & Parking Places) Order 2008 by prohibiting parking and loading along sections of Birkenhead Market Service Road and to allow loading and unloading for vehicles within designated bays. The effect of this order is to improve access for vehicles servicing the Market Hall and Grange Precinct.

A copy of this Notice, the proposed Order, map, the order proposed to be amended and a statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing to make the Order, may be seen during normal office hours at Cheshire Line Buildings, Canning Street, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 1ND and on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 9am to 5pm and Wednesday 10am to 5pm at the One Stop Shop, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Seacombe CH44 8ED.

Any objections to the Order, together with the grounds on which they are made, must be sent in writing to the undersigned (quoting reference KO) by Friday 26 September 2014.

Unless otherwise stated, all Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Public Notices are published by Surjit Tour, Head of Legal and Member Services, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Merseyside CH44 8ED and all notices are dated this 3rd day of September 2014.

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

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

A meeting with 2 Wirral Council officers about parking behind Birkenhead Market and disability issues

                                                                 

I had an interesting meeting with Leonora and two Wirral Council officers in Birkenhead about the proposed changes to parking at the back of Birkenhead Market as a result of a traffic regulation order that’s being consulted on. I will start by pointing out that my wife Leonora regularly parks in the Birkenhead Market Service Road and has a Blue Badge. I did ask for my concerns to be fed into the car parking review which is now happening as a task and finish group chaired by Councillor Paul Doughty.

One of my issues was to do with the fact that if they went ahead with this traffic regulation order it would prevent users with a Blue Badge parking in the Birkenhead Market Service Road. We started our survey of parking outside the One Stop Shop in Conway Street. The short 15 minute bays there were permanently in use. Each time someone moved another car came in within a few minutes. Interestingly G4S was also parked in the short stay bay there and had gone in to the One Stop Shop (G4S were the company the people were protesting about outside the Mayor of Liverpool’s house as reported in the Liverpool Echo recently).

We crossed the busy road and went past the Birkenhead Bus Station.

The blue badge bays in the car park next to Birkenhead Bus Station were (no surprise there) all in use. We then walked around the first half of the Birkenhead Market Service Roas talking on the way. The officers said that the Pyramids/Birkenhead Market were paying the costs of the traffic regulation order because of problems they had with antisocial parking blocking deliveries.

There were a number of cars and a van parked on that stretch of the Service Road but no loading or unloading was observed during the time we were there (late afternoon). What is interesting though is that the Pyramids (one of two bodies we were told would be paying for the traffic regulation order) currently charge people for parking in their multi-storey car park (apart from on a Sunday).

Leonora raised the issues she had about being (if the Traffic Regulation Order came into force at some future date) that she would be forced to park elsewhere. One of the market stall holders (who runs the flower stall) came over when he heard us talking. He was confused by what the Traffic Regulation Order was about as guess what no consultation had happened with the individual stall holders! He asked if it would it affect his customers picking up flowers? The Wirral Council officers assured him that it wouldn’t and explained it was aimed at blue badge users parking on the Birkenhead Market Service Road.

Technically if they’re only picking up prepaid flowers they were right, however if his customers were parking (rather than loading/unloading) with a blue badge it will affect them.

Wirral Council officers admitted to me that they had not consulted the individual market stall holders. Consultation problems seem to be a recurring theme with Wirral Council recently. Officers felt that consulting with the company that runs the market was enough as they so them as a representative body (even though there seemed to have been no clear communication or consultation with individualmstall holders).

What I did surprise them with though was a paper copy of Birkenhead Market Lease & sublease (which in a rather twisted irony in all this is with Wirral Council) which I received last Friday as part of the 2013/14 audit.

What’s interesting (and the detail of this was seemingly unknown to those Wirral Council officers who started asking me where I’d got the lease and sublease from the answer being Wirral Council itself) is that there is then a sublease with the market stall holders. Here are some quotes from it (which mention the Grange too):

“1.1 Right to use half width of access road

The full and free right for the owners and occupiers of the adjoining property known as the Grange Shopping Centre (“the Adjoining Land”) (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) at all times to pass and repass over and along that part of the access road situate on the Premises and shown coloured brown on the Plan with or without vehicles for the purpose of gaining access to or egress from the Adjoining Land but so that such right shall extend only to moving traffic whether pedestrian or vehicular PROVIDED that such right shall be exercised in one direction only such direction to be from the point marked X on the Plan to the point marked Y thereon or such other direction as shall be agreed from time to time between the Council the Tenant and the owner of the Adjoining Land and SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (5) of the Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer dated 1st October 1992 and made between The Council (1) and Legal & General Assurance Society Limited (2) (“the Transfer”)

1.2 Rights over Market Loading Bays

The full and free right for the owners or occupiers of the Adjoining Land (in common with the Council and all persons deriving title under the Council and all others entitled to a like right) to use at all times those parts of the Premises shown hatched red on the Plan for the purpose of parking motor vehicles loading or off-loading or waiting to load or off-load goods into and from the Adjoining Land or any part thereof and for no other purpose whatsoever PROVIDED that (save as mentioned in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer)(except in case of emergency) no motor vehicle shall be so parked for a period in excess of one hour at any one time nor in a manner as shall obstruct traffic on the said access road coloured brown and green on the Plan SUBJECT to the obligations of the Council but with the BENEFIT of the obligations of the owner of the Adjoining Land contained in paragraph (6) of Part ii of the First Schedule to the Transfer”

I presume as it mentions the side run by the Pyramid/Grange that there is something similar in their lease too. In other words what’s the point of a Traffic Regulation Order as Wirral Council is currently because of the contract they signed with the tenants (at least on the market side) supposed to be managing effectively the traffic in the Birkenhead Market Service Road through this clause in the contract already?

The fact that the two officers involved with the Traffic Regulation Order didn’t know about the clauses in the Birkenhead Market sublease until I brought it up is worrying in itself as surely the Asset Management side of Wirral Council has a copy of the lease and subleases for day to day management?

One of the two officers rather amusingly asked me “Do you know the budgetary pressures the Council is under?” (or words to that effect). I have a rather short reply to that as the press I was and tried not to smile too much at the question.

The point is, if someone is parked where they shouldn’t be and caused a nuisance or blocked that road it’s a police/traffic warden issue to deal with.

Much of the road can’t be currently parked in by blue badge holders as it’s even loading bays or double yellows with kerb blips.

The issue to do with traffic flow is also a civil matter too to do with how you enforce the lease. The fact the traffic side at Wirral Council doesn’t know what the asset side at Wirral Council is doing (and seemingly don’t talk to each other) is perhaps a rather worrying sign of a “silo mentality”.

The fact that the costs of the Traffic Regulation Order are being paid for by a company that will benefit from people paying an extra £2 at the expense of the disabled who will be prevented from parking for free here is again another worrying example of Wirral Council seemingly being on the side of commercial interests.

Officers did suggest as a compromise that if we dropped our objections to the proposed traffic regulation order that they would monitor the parking situation in a year’s time. This was not accepted. I also asked for these issues to be fed into the current car parking review and promised to email the relevant sections of the Birkenhead Market lease to them.

Sadly this is another tale where there has been lack of consultation with the individual market stallholders on an issue that will affect their trade. Wirral Council seem to take the “Beware of the Leopard” mentality of saying that they don’t have to consult with them and the plans were available and that it’s not their fault if people didn’t go and look at them.

Anyway the consultation on this proposed Traffic Regulation Order runs to Friday 26th September. If there are any unresolved objections after that it goes to the Highways and Traffic Representation Panel. The Highways and Traffic Representation Panel can then make recommendations to their parent committee.

However that’s just democracy for you. It seems however that Wirral Council once again are rubbing disabled people up the wrong way and who’s Wirral Council supposed to represent anyway, the people or “commercial interests”?

According to Wirral Council officers today (who aren’t going to just drop the plans because of these objections) the commercial interests of the people paying for the Traffic Regulation Order seem to (at the moment) carry more weight than the concerns of the people this will affect. Leonora did have a few things to say about the culture at Wirral Council, but I gather producing the lease & sublease (which came as a total surprise to them), shows there are existing contract obligations which as that covers most of the people using this road duplicates the purpose behind the Traffic Regulation Order.

Are they really going to go to the costs of possibly renegotiating the subleases with all market stall holders over this? Why do I ask that? Yes market traders have a specific badge on their car, but some of them will have Blue Badges and will park in the service road, which if the new Traffic Regulation Order comes into effect will mean they’d get (if a traffic warden was around) a ticket as market stall holders are limited to an hour maximum. Why can’t Wirral Council just deal with this as another other landlord/tenant issue? Words do fail me on this one really, but I could go on for a further thousand words on the thorny issue of parking and Wirral Council and still just be scratching the surface.

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