UPDATED: When Wirral Council introduces car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, will 3 hours free parking end for a further 423 New Brighton spaces?

UPDATED 29/6/2015: The public notice advertising the changes to introduce charges to the Fort Perch Rock Car Park is included below.

UPDATED 23/12/2014: The Cabinet Member Cllr Stuart Whittingham has decided on a resident’s parking scheme for the roads to the rear of the Floral Pavilion in New Brighton.

I’ll start this piece by declaring an interest. My wife is in receipt of a Blue Badge.

The pages below are from the lease between Wirral Borough Council & Neptune Wirral Limited & Neptune Developments Limited & Neptune Projects Limited dated 20th June 2011.

Wirral Council lease Neptune Wirral Limited Neptune Developments Limited Neptune Projects Limited 20th June 2011 for New Brighton Phase II draft car parking management plan page 1 of 2

NEW BRIGHTON PHASE II – DRAFT CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN

CAR PARKING ZONES

Car parking within the New Brighton Phase 2 development will be divided into the following 4 zones.

The Hotel Zone – comprising approximately [60] spaces.

The Supermarket Controlled Zone – comprising approximately [423] spaces.

The Health and Fitness Club Controlled Zone – comprising approximately [100] spaces.

The Uncontrolled Zone – comprising approximately [151] spaces.

CAR PARKING ZONE DEMISES

The Supermarket Controlled Zone and the Uncontrolled Zone will be demised to the supermarket operator.

The Health and Fitness Controlled Zone will be demised to the Health and Fitness Club Operator.

The Hotel Zone will be demised to the Hotel operator.

CAR PARK OPENING HOURS

The intention is that the car park will be open 24 hours a day. However good estate management practice may mean that it could become necessary to physically close the Supermarket Controlled and Uncontrolled Zones. On Mondays to Saturdays the car park zones may only be closed 15 minutes after the last commercial use within the development closes for business and shall re-open 30 minutes before the Supermarket opens for trade. On Sundays and Bank Holidays the car park shall remain open from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. as a minimum.

With regard to the Health and Fitness Controlled Zone, on Mondays to Saturdays the car park may only be closed 15 minutes after the facility closes for business and shall be re-opened 30 minutes before the facility opens for use by members of the public. On Sundays and Bank Holidays, the car park shall remain open from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. as a minimum.

Opening hours of the Hotel Zone shall be at the absolute discretion of the Hotel Operator.

In the event of a flood warning the operators of all Zones will be entitled to close the Car Park.

LIMITATION ON FREE PARKING

Within the Supermarket and Health & Fitness Controlled Zones, free parking will be limited to 3 hours between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. It should be noted that disabled parking spaces will not be subject to this limitation.

Users of the Floral Pavilion Conference Facility will not be subject to the time restriction when using the Supermarket Controlled Zone. The mechanism by which such users are

g:cvm6711182new brighton phase II drafal car parking management plan.doc

identified will need to be agreed by the supermarket operator acting reasonably but it likely to involve the issuing of passes for display within the vehicles. The mechanism will be administered by the operator of the Floral Pavilion Conference Facility. It should be noted that the exemption on time limit will not apply to users of the Theatre.

Enforcement of the time limit will be by means of foot patrol or number plate recognition systems. The uses of clamping will not be permissible. Details of the enforcement method to be adopted shall be submitted to the Council for approval such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CAR PARKING STRATEGY

The Supermarket and Health & Fitness Club operators may submit proposals for amending or refining the Car Parking Management Plan from time to time. WBC will give such proposals appropriate consideration and will, at its absolute discretion, determined their acceptability and notify the operator(s) accordingly.

However, if the Council introduced on street car parking charges and/or charges for the Fort Perch Rock car park, then the Supermarket and Health & Fitness Club operators will be permitted to amend the Car Parking Management Plan relating to the introduction of charges and/or revisions to reduction in the 3 hour free parking time provided to introduce similar changes to those introduced by the Council. The proposed revisions shall be submitted to the Council for approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

g:cvm6711182new brighton phase II drafal car parking management plan.doc

So in other words, when Wirral Council start charging for parking in the Fort Perch Rock car park (which has already been agreed), it could mean an end to the 3 hours free car parking in the 423 space Supermarket Controlled Zone Car Park & 100 space Health and Fitness Club Controlled Zone car park. It could also lead to charges for these car parks as high as what Wirral Council is charging for Fort Perch Rock.

Of course when the Future Council Budget consultation was happening earlier this year, I don’t think this was spelt out to the public in the option, but let’s face it would Wirral Council go to the bother of checking what’s in one of its own leases before issuing it as a budget option? After all the budget options were issued in the name of the Chief Executive and it’s not him, but the Assistant Chief Executive that has responsibility for land/leasing matters.

Here’s what the option stated:

=======================================================================================================

FUTURE COUNCIL

Chief Executive’s Budget Proposal

Option: Car Parking – Fort Perch Rock

2015/16	2016/17	TOTAL
£000s	£000s	£000s
25	10	35

SUMMARY OF OPTION

This option would introduce pay and display parking charges into the Fort Perch Rock car park at New Brighton, where there are presently no charges. The option will generate income from a well utilised car park and requires some investment in providing cash payment ticket machines. There are currently traffic problems developing around the successful New Brighton redevelopment, which it is thought would be eased through this approach. Prior to implementing this option the Council would work closely with local businesses and traders.

Charging would allow the council to continue to offer public car parks into the future in a fair and sustainable manner, particularly given the financial strains on other areas.

IMPACT ON RESIDENTS

May lead to displaced parking into adjacent areas, and may have an adverse impact on visitor numbers and the local economy.

Disabled badge holders do not need to pay for parking as long as they display a valid disabled badge.

IMPACT ON PARTNERS

Prior to implementing this option the Council would work closely with local businesses and traders. Policy already exists for permits to be provided to traders for their employees, and these remove the inconvenience of using pay and display machines each day, and are provided at a small discount. Lead officers for regeneration programmes can brief business partners to this effect prior to the public consultation on budget options.

IMPACT ON COMMUNITY, VOLUNTARY AND FAITH SECTOR

No direct implications.

=======================================================================================================

Interestingly the proposed changes to charge for the Fort Perch Rock car park were opposed during the consultation at one of the overview and scrutiny committees by one of Labour’s councillors for New Brighton Cllr Rob Gregson.

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

Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) returns to Birkenhead County Court for Trial

The court case involving Wirral Council seeking a possession order for Fernbank Farm is listed for a fast track trial at Birkenhead County Court on the 13th February 2014 starting at 10 am in front of District Judge Woodburn.

The previous hearing in this case (Wirral Borough Council -v- Kane & Woodley case number 3BI05210) was reported as an exclusive by this blog in two parts. These are the links to the previous detailed blog posts on part 1 of the November hearing in Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley and part 2 of the November hearing in Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley.

To recap what happened at the previous hearing, Wirral Council was keen that the case moved ahead and as the defendants had run out of money to pay for legal representation, Cllr Ian Lewis offered to represent them both. The defendants were asked to file witness statements. As the case is now listed for trial and at that hearing the Deputy District Judge told the defendants that if they didn’t file witness statements that judgement would be entered in favour of Wirral Council, they must have done so.

The case is proceeding on the basis of it being a part 8 claim. The trial is expected to last two and half hours, with half an hour set aside for District Judge Woodburn to read through the case. At the end of the trial the issue of costs will be decided.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

Continues from EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 1.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he would include with the witness statements standard disclosure. Wirral Council asked if standard disclosure meant by list with a copy attached? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked them to take care with hidden documents.

Cllr Ian Lewis made a point about the missing correspondence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said it should still be in the list. Wirral Council said that they should all have a copy.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he wanted to set down how long the final hearing would be, with four witness statements, he suggested three hours. Wirral Council agreed with three hours.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth started dictating the text of his order, then changed his mind and decided to do it the other way round instead. He said that unless the defendants filed and served a defence, then their existing defence would be struck out and judgement entered for the Claimant (Wirral Council).

Wirral Council sad that they should be entitled to rely on the existing defence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said there would be no amended defence unless the defendants filed and served on the Claimant an amended defence by 4pm in twenty-one days? Cllr Ian Lewis agreed with “Yes, Sir.”

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said if the amended defence was not filed and served by the 12th December then the case would proceed on the basis of the defence already filed and served. For point two in the court order he wanted to move to standard disclosure. He wanted standard disclosure by list with documents attached that were referred to therein filed and served by 4pm on the 12th December.

For point three of his court order he wanted mutual exchange of witness statements by 4pm on a specific date, he pointed out at this point it would have to be well after the 12th December and he’d have to take into account the Christmas period and he suggested the 9th January 2014?

Wirral Council urged the Court to to tighten the timescales a little as the Claimant (Wirral Council) felt it was a relatively straight forward matter that wouldn’t wouldn’t take a great deal of time and could be relatively quick. Wirral Council said regarding the importance of the case it should be dealt with procedurally could the timescales be tightened up?

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked Wirral Council what they proposed? Wirral Council answered that they would like the timescales brought forward by a week, with a hearing soon after in the New Year. Cllr Ian Lewis said that to be practical, they wished to stick to the timescale for the first two dates.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated the timescales of 12th December 2013 and 9th January 2014 with an early listing thereafter. He asked then about the bundle?

Wirral Council said as it was their claim that they would produce a paginated and indexed bundle.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated and stated that the Claimant would prepare a paginated and indexed bundle in anticipation of the trial of this matter to be filed at court at least seven days before the trial date. He explained to the litigants-in-person that it was a principle that he didn’t want the judge hearing the case to be taken by surprise. A copy bundle would be sent to the defendants and everybody would be served a bundle with numbered pages, served and filed at the court at least seven days before the trial date.

Wirral Council asked about the allocation? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked if it was a part 8 claim that had been issued? Wirral Council said they were happy with it being dealt with as a part 8 claim. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that would mean it was given an immediate hearing date. He asked what they were looking for?

Wirral Council said in their opinion it was a fast track matter and said they don’t want to proceed with an allocation questionnaire as it would delay with the matter so that could be dispensed with as well.

Cllr Ian Lewis said he had no idea what an allocation questionnaire was. District Judge Grosscurth explained that the options were small claims, multi track or fast track but this was “definitely fast track” as it was not a small claim matter so it would be allocated to the fast track. He said they would be dispensing with the directions questionnaire.

Wirral Council said they would be amalgamated. District Judge Grosscurth said it had been changed in April. Now there was a directions questionnaire and a listing questionnaire and that it would be listed for a final hearing at the next available date after the week to deal with the statements, which was the 16th January 2014. He asked what the estimated length of the final hearing would be?

Wirral Council answered three hours. District Judge Grosscurth said he would change that, as whoever was hearing it on the day needed knowledge of the case. He suggested half an hour of reading time and a two and a half hours for the hearing to split it up.

District Judge Grosscurth asked if there was anything else? Wirral Council said that they “don’t think so” but asked about costs? District Judge Grosscurth said that costs would be sorted out at the end of the day and that there are cost implications which the parties needed to be aware of. He suggested the defendants seek advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau. He made part six of his order about costs in the case and said that the parties knew what they had got to do. Cllr Ian Lewis thanked him, Wirral Council thanked him.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 1

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm)

I was at Birkenhead County Court for an application hearing in the case of Wirral Borough Council v Kane and Woodley heard in front of Deputy District Judge Grosscurth starting at 3pm.

Kane and Woodley are the defendants in the case where Wirral Council is seeking a possession order for Fernbank Farm. Although the defendants had previously been represented earlier in the case by Kirwans, they were no longer represented by Kirwans and had chosen Cllr Ian Lewis to represent them.

Representing Wirral Council was a man called Ali Noman Bayatti (who is a solicitor working for Wirral Council). I refer to him by the party he was representing (Wirral Council).

In the minutes before the case was heard Wirral Council made an offer to the defendants to agree to a possession order which wouldn’t be implemented for a further eighteen months. However the defendants rejected this offer.

The defendants and Wirral Council went to the Judge’s chambers first for a few minutes. Then the press and some other interested parties (who were not parties to the case but were interested in its outcome) were invited into the Judge’s Chamber.

There were less seats than people so a number of people had to stand. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth started by saying that they were “limited on seats”. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he no objections to Cllr Ian Lewis speaking during the case, he asked if the form had been signed? Cllr Ian Lewis said it required the defendants’ signatures. The defendants signed the form. The Deputy District Judge pointed out that Cllr Ian Lewis would speak for both defendants (Kane and Woodley).

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he had a “couple of items to tidy up” which dated back to an order made in September to do with permission to change a defence. Cllr Ian Lewis explained that the defendants had previously been represented by Kirwans but that as costs had spiralled this had led to the defendants dispensing with Kirwans’ services as their legal representative.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked if they intended to submit an amended defence? Cllr Ian Lewis said that their intention was to engage a different solicitor to do so or do it themselves. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth pointed out that they were supposed to file by the 21st August and that it would look like an extension.

Wirral Council said that there had been an application for a further extension to the date for the provision of a defence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he had not seen it. He referred to an order of a different judge and the fact that it should have been filed no later than the 14th October which had now expired. He said that the application to further extend the date for the provision of a defence referred to by Wirral Council was not in the case file.

Wirral Council said, “I might be mistaken” and gave their agreement as long as it didn’t delay things too much. Wirral Council referred to the overriding principles in the Civil Procedure Rules and said that the case needed to move ahead.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he would not alter the draft, but that since the 1st April that the time limits had been tightened up. He pointed out that everybody was deemed to know the law and the rules that guide all cases. He referred to a recent Court of Appeal case and said that the needs of litigants-in-person can be accommodated but that the Court couldn’t rewrite the rule book. He asked if Wirral Council had any further objections. Wirral Council answered “No”.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he would agree to extending the time for filing an amended defence. His next point was that he gathered the three people present (apart from the press, parties to the case and Cllr Ian Lewis) were users of the stable land but not technically parties to the hearing, just observers. He said to them to appreciate that they had “nothing to do with this matter” as the Council had made an application for possession of the land and it was up to them how they dealt with “your issues”.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he looking for an “early trial” and asked how long they expected it to take? Wirral Council replied that they had filed a witness statement of a David Dickenson, but that they might add a supplementary statement. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked how many witness statements the defendants would be submitting? Cllr Ian Lewis answered, “Three, Sir.”

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth pointed out that the Civil Procedure Rules were on the internet and that the defendants and Cllr Lewis could search for them in Google. He pointed that that the Civil Procedure Rules stated the form that witness statements should take and they needed to also include a statement of truth and that they would have to “look into that”. He asked how much time they would need to get prepared and serve their witness statements?

One of the two defendants asked if they could use the ones prepared by Kirwans? Cllr Ian Lewis answered (to Deputy District Judge Grosscurth’s question) three weeks. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he couldn’t see there being many documents. Wirral Council answered that he didn’t think there were any relevant documents to be disclosed apart from the witness statements.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he they should include in the witness statements anything they wish to rely on. If there was extra information brought up at the final hearing then it would either be ignored or the case would be adjourned (with costs awarded to Wirral Council if the case was deferred because of the defendants). He said he was ever conscious with litigants in person that there were no outstanding issues and that the person hearing the case would “not be ambushed”. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked for any documents to be included in the witness statements. He asked if there were any points to be raised?

One of the two defendants said that they had not received any correspondence from Wirral Council since July 2012 except for something last August. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he would include in Mr. Dickenson’s statement as it was relevant. He said any documentation has “got to be disclosed” and under the rules of disclosure they had to disclose everything whether it was in favour of their case or not.

Wirral Council asked for standard disclosure.

Continues at EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2.

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

UPDATED: When Wirral Council introduces car parking charges at Fort Perch Rock, will 3 hours free parking end for a further 423 New Brighton spaces?

Share this:

Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) returns to Birkenhead County Court for Trial

Share this:

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

Share this:

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm)

Share this: