For The Small Price Of A Lightbulb

For The Small Price Of A Lightbulb

For The Small Price Of A Lightbulb

Bam Nuttall contract drawings of one of the twenty different designs for wiring for one of Wirral Council's streetlights thumbnail
Bam Nuttall contract drawings of one of the twenty different designs for wiring for one of Wirral Council’s streetlights thumbnail

One of my favourite authors, Isaac Asimov when editing books of science fiction stories (or even his own stories) used to add an introduction to each story. This is an introduction to a piece by a guest blogger (in future these introductions will probably be shorter).

Many moons ago, I started and ran a video games website (single-handed) that had more readers each month than the Wirral Globe has now. Just in case anyone considers that a “hobby”, I was paid for it, just as I earn money from writing this blog.

Visitors to that website used to submit content (there was a forum too) and believe me having to edit a submission from a teenager who completely ignores any of the rules of grammar and doesn’t use full stops was a stretch.

For a while I’ve been thinking of a new feature on this blog similar to the letters page of the newspapers where users can submit content. After all (apart from a submission by Leonora who I’ve tried to gently encourage to write again) readers of this blog have had to put up with me for the last five years!

I have asked a number of people to write a guest post, however Nick Lauro has been the first to thankfully say yes!

Compared to the experience above, editing Nick Lauro’s submission has been a dream by comparison. I have only made one very minor edit!

His piece is about something that I’ll refer to as a “bread and butter” issue of political activists or a politician and reminds me of a similar problem I tried to sort out once on the Beechwood estate. Writing any more than that about it would spoil the surprise.


By Nick Lauro

Is it really too much to ask? It’s not as though I’m asking for the air fare and the accommodation costs for a trip to China, it’s just a couple of street lamps that need fixing! So began my speculation, as I pondered in the dark about exactly how much of Wirral council taxpayers’ money it costs to send a van and a couple of engineers out to repair a street lamp or two.

It all started around the end of September when unusually, my little cul­-de-­sac was plunged into darkness by the simultaneous failure of not one, but two lamp posts. Not the end of the world, maybe a bit on the Victor Meldrew side of petty but nevertheless, a valid security risk to my fellow neighbours whose houses sit next to the shrouded, wooded scrubland that provides an obvious getaway/hiding place, for even the most feckless burglar. It’s not the first time a street light has failed over the 11 years I’ve lived in the road, and has always been an easy problem to rectify; contact council, report faulty light, wait a few days, light fixed.

Reporting a faulty street light is as simple as visiting the Wirral council website and filling in an online form that rewards you with a message of acknowledgement ­much preferable to hanging on the end of a telephone waiting to speak to an overworked, underpaid, first­ line support employee from an understaffed department. After you’ve completed the reporting process, you sit and wait for the lights to come back on again ­or in this case, not… four ­plus weeks and two ignored Tweets later, darkness still prevails when the sun goes down and my train of thought drifts toward ideas of austerity, cuts and a local authority so fiscally challenged, they can no longer provide the same level of service for our most basic of urban requirements. But wait; there is much talk in the local press about my locality being saved from oblivion by the universal panacea for all cash­ strapped local authorities ­a ‘Golf Resort’. We have a white knight upon his steed, bringing us promise of regeneration and our council coffers once again, overflowing with bullion ­surely enough to restore Wirral’s street ­furniture to working order for years to come?

Alas, our saviour and two of his executive salaried colleagues have departed in what looks to be a strategically planned exit, taking between them, some £500,000 of council taxpayers’ money in remunerations. Who will save us now, from further fiscal disaster? Who can keep the dream alive for ‘Wirral Waters’? Will the money to fix two dodgy street lamps down my road ever be found?

Seriously folks, when an organisation funded by money from the public purse ­our money ­can seemingly see fit to play the sort of boardroom games more in keeping with the style of premier league football managers, it is easy to feel bitterly short-changed. The recent monetary machinations carried out by our most highly paid public servants, only serves to cast suspicion and doubt on their ability to even find the money to change a light bulb.

© Nick Lauro 2015

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

EXCLUSIVE: 10 more invoices paid by Wirral Council including £3,203.88 for budget setting and £15,667.25 for a special guardianship order

EXCLUSIVE: 10 more invoices paid by Wirral Council including £3,203.88 for budget setting and £15,667.25 for a special guardianship order

EXCLUSIVE: 10 more invoices paid by Wirral Council including £3,203.88 for budget setting and £15,667.25 for a special guardianship order

                                                           

Below this are ten invoices paid for by Wirral Council during the 2013/14 financial year. The first is for £15,276.96 from Eversheds for the ever cryptic “governance and employment issues”. As it’s paid for by Wirral Council’s HR department it’ll be for employment issues and the Wirral Council reference is down as “Jim Wilkie”. This in itself is a bit odd as it’s for work done in February 2013, as Jim Wilkie retired on the 7th June 2012.

Next is an invoice from Eversheds, but for £3,203.88 for “Budget setting”. Again this is odd as the Wirral Council reference is down as “Bill Norman” and it is for work done in February 2013. Bill Norman however was made redundant by Wirral Council on the 30th September 2012 (through a compromise contract costing Wirral Council £151,416). So Bill Norman wouldn’t have had anything to do with the setting of the budget in February 2013.

The third and fourth invoices are from Weightmans for £4,976.64 & £4,482. I think this are for legal advice about Birkenhead regeneration connected to the plans that Wirral Council’s Cabinet recently agreed to consult on involving Neptune Developments Limited.

Moving to another regeneration project, the fifth invoice is for £8,133.90 for legal advice around a section 106 agreement connected to the Wirral Waters planning application. I’m puzzled about why this invoice was sent directly to Peel and the confusing VAT which was added to the total amount, then taken off it!

Invoice six is another Weightmans invoice for £1,668 for EU procurement advice. The next invoice is from Eversheds and is for £1,720.68 of employment advice. Eversheds also submitted another invoice for £4,811.74 for advice in March 2013 on “governance and employment issues“. As the HR department paid the invoice I think it can safely be assumed it was for an employment issue.

The ninth invoice from Seatons Solicitors is for work on a special guardianship order and is for £15,667.25. The last invoice for £1,660.80 is from DMM Psychology Limited for a cognitive functioning report and psychological reports (although this is for a quarter of the total amount as its being split four ways).

Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £15276.96 15th March 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £15276.96 15th March 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £3203.88 15th March 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £3203.88 15th March 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £4976.64 27th Match 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £4976.64 27th Match 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £4482 2nd April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £4482 2nd April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £8133.90 15th April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £8133.90 15th April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £1668 28th February 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £1668 28th February 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £1720.68 5th April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £1720.68 5th April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £4811.74 8th April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Eversheds £4811.74 8th April 2013
Wirral Council invoice Seatons £15667.65 25th March 2013
Wirral Council invoice Seatons £15667.65 25th March 2013
Wirral Council invoice DMM Psychology Ltd £6643.20 8th May 2013
Wirral Council invoice DMM Psychology Ltd £6643.20 8th May 2013

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

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

3 Organisations will jointly sign “Memorandum of Understanding” with Peel for transport planning on Wirral Waters project

3 Organisations will jointly sign “Memorandum of Understanding” with Peel for transport planning on Wirral Waters project A report on Merseytravel’s General Purposes Committee meeting of the 5th September 2013

3 Organisations will jointly sign “Memorandum of Understanding” with Peel for transport planning on Wirral Waters project

                                                                           

Councillors on Merseytravel’s General Purposes Committee today agreed to Merseytravel’s Chief Executive David Brown signing a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited about transport planning for the Wirral Waters project.

The Memorandum of Understanding will (subject to future approval) be signed by Wirral Council and the Highways Agency too. The agreement is for twenty-five years and is set to be reviewed annually by the Transport Steering Group. It covers the areas of any necessary public transport improvements, monitoring the effect of Wirral Waters related traffic on the local road network as well as the effect of construction traffic. Wirral Council will be leading the Transport Steering Group as it’s the local Planning Authority for the Wirral Waters scheme.

Chair of Merseytravel Cllr Liam Robinson (Labour) said, “Thanks for that Jeff, can I just say I’m absolutely delighted we’ve had this report brought through, because I think I would echo everyone in this chamber by saying that Wirral Waters is one of the most exciting proposed developments, not just in our part of the world but the whole of the country, dare I say Europe and I know from Merseytravel’s perspective we are all fully committed to provide the very best sustainable transport option for what is going to be hopefully a very, very exciting and prosperous development for the City Region. So the fact that we’ve got this report before this before we’ve signed the memorandum of understanding that gives us an opportunity to look at all of those options that are out there to provide the very transport solution for Wirral Waters which is welcomed from the development of this organisation. So that’s just really just what I wanted to say, so if anyone wants to add to that at all? Les?

Cllr Les Rowlands (Conservative spokesperson) said, “I just want to reiterate those great words. It is a very, very important project, I know it’s over a long period of time but we need to be getting in at the very early stages which is why as you know I’m very interested in what is going on there because I think we need to be starting to think about the memorandum at a very early stage to get the document in place, I very much welcome this report”.

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

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority – Minutes (30th January 2012) Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets

Minutes of the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority meeting of the 30th January 2012 and links to Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12 report

On the 29th March 2012, Wirral Council’s Cabinet received a report on the outcome of the Tender Exercise. Merseytravel had changed their minds about bidding on the 1st February (two days after the meeting that these are the minutes for). The reason/s behind this are partly in the resolution and in the papers and resolutions at its meeting of the 9th February 2012 as between 30th January 2012 and the 1st February 2012 Merseytravel realised how difficult a financial situation they were in, following the papers being published for the 9th February 2012 Budget meeting on the 1st February 2012.

Note: below is the official minutes of the meeting (not my own notes) from the 30/1/2012 meeting and were approved at its meeting on 9th February 2012. I wish I’d discovered that Merseytravel had started putting the minutes on a website before typing it up! Links to he report about the Wirral Tramway and Appendices on Merseytravel’s website are below.

Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12

Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12 Appendix 1

Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets CX/16/12 Appendix 2

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

30 January 2012

Present: Councillor M Dowd, Chair
Councillor A Dean, Deputy Chair

Councillors R Abbey, C Blakeley, G Friel, S Glover,
J Hanson, A Makinson, K McGlashan, M Murphy,
M Quinn, M Rasmussen, L Robinson, L Rowlands,
P Walton

Also Attended

Councillor S Foulkes – Leader Wirral Metropolitan
Borough Council,
Councillor R Round Leader Knowsley Metropolitan
Borough Council and
Councillor B Grunewald Deputy Leader St Helens
Metropolitan Borough Council

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Apologies for absence were submitted by
Councillors J Dodd, B Griffiths, J Salter, D Callan, T Elwood
C Roberts, Councillor J Anderson (Leader, Liverpool City Council)
and Councillor P Dowd (Leader, Sefton Metropolitan Borough
Council)

——————————————————————————————

78.   Local Transport Plan Delivery, Bus and Merseytram Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the Local Transport Plan Delivery, Bus and Merseytram Committee held on the 8 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

79.   People, Organisational Development and Governance Delivery
          Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the People, Organisational Development and Governance Delivery Committee held on the 10 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

80.   Tunnels, Ferries and Visitor Economy Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Tunnels, Ferries and Visitor Economy Committee held on the 12 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

81.   Corporate Social Responsibility Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee held on the 12 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

82.   Rail Services Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Rail Services Committee held on the 11 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

83.   Policy and Delivery – Review Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Delivery – Review Committee held on the 19 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

84.   Strategy and Finance Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee held on the 19 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

85.   Urgency Sub – Committee

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Urgency Sub – Committee held on the 12 January 2012 be approved insofar as they require the approval of the Authority.

86.   Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associates Assets
(CX/16/12)

———————————————————————————————————————-
Councillors R Abbey, C Blakeley and L Rowlands together with Councillor S Foulkes (visiting Wirral Metropolitan Council Leader) all declared a personal interest as members of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
———————————————————————————————————————-

The Authority considered a report of the Director of Resources regarding the Acquisition of Wirral Tramway and Associated Assets. Together with presentations from Mr Richard Mawdsley (The Peel Group) and Mr Scott McIntosh (Mott McDonald) and a verbal update from Mr. Steve Cook (Merseytravel’s Forward Planning Officer) (copies attached to these minutes).

Mr. R Mawdsley in his presentation gave a brief background history to The Peel Group as a company; its development around Salford Quays and the vision for Wirral Waters; The Mersey Waters Enterprise Zone and Peel International Trade Centre and its goal to redress the balance around local investment on both sides of the River Mersey. This was the hope that from the investment, especially with the Trade Centre, 700 jobs will be created. The Wirral Waters projects was seen as a 30 year initiative that the time line of which could not be specified however Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters were seen as sister projects. The tramway was envisaged an exemplar part of the scheme supported by the Government which it was envisaged would assist in increasing patronage to the Rail and Ferry services as well as a Visitor Economy for the Merseytravel attractions.

Mr. Steven Cook outlined to the Authority the transport planning all aspects for the Wirral Waters and how officers from relevant departments of Merseytravel were

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

working together to achieve this Section 106 Agreement. The Agreement was for 25 years however the project had a number of variables and timescales were not set, therefore it was a challenge and a Steering Group consisting of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Officers, Peel, the Highways Agency and Merseytravel had been established.

There had been agreement on rail infrastructure development; bus service links from Birkenhead to Seacombe; park and ride; protection of railway line and a figure of £15.4 million had been reached to ensure the East Float area was sustainable. Due to the lack of a timescale the agreement was based on a time if arrangement, so as they were built monies were released.
The Authority then received a presentation by Scott Macintosh and from Mott McDonald. (Copy of presentation attached to these minutes). The key message from the presentation was that it was considered a one off business opportunity, the tram industry were excited by the prospects and there was a lot of interest, including offers of assistance of second hand equipment and some European tramway operators. The Government too were interested in the project.

Cllr Dowd thanked those who had presented and opened the floor to Members and invited Leaders for questions and comments.

Cllr Ann Murphy commented on the ‘deja vu’ aspect of the debate and previous aspirations have been dashed, disciplinary was also expressed at the lack of reference to the whole of Merseyside in the benefits of the projects as all would be contributing to the finance.

Cllr A Makinson enquired that as the current and tender was for the Heritage Tramway and the suggestion was to develop to a commuter service it must be acknowledged that the heritage trams would not meet commercial, environmental or statutory standards, so what would be the implications and the extra costs.

The Director of Resources confirmed that Officers would ensure that the trams met statutory requirements.

Councillor R Abbey commented that the previous scheme had been let down politically and a Merseywide approach

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

had always been taken by the Authority as shown by the support for the Liverpool/Knowsley tram project. However before commitment to the project it had been proven to be deliverable on sound financial reasoning.

Councillors G Friel welcomed the presentation however he felt it did not answer his concerns. If Government supported as suggested how did this reconcile with the reduced funding for Local Authorities, the impact of which was cuts to vital services together with the reduced finance to the Transport authorities.

Councillor J Hanson thanked those presenting and commented that Merseytravel wanted to do what it could to support Wirral and Liverpool Waters but expressed concern at the lack of timescales. There could be a 10 year buy in but nothing happening due to the 20 – 30 year nature of the project. It will be £2.5 million with nothing to show and money that Merseytravel and the District Authorities would need to find at a very challenging time. The amount was not a real issue to all lecture members. There were also a number of concerns with regard to finance and revenue commitment. More information was required he felt before any commitment or bid could be considered.

Councillor A Dean also wished to thank the presenters and felt the report came a little closer to the issues but once again fell short of all the information required before any real decision could be made. There seemed to be a change in emphasis to the Wirral Waters project. Councillor Dean had real concerns around the rolling stock and the continuing ‘make do’ for Merseytravel with someone else’s ‘cast offs’. If project does get approval the stock must be of quality he did not want hidden charges arrangements of maintenance or obsolete kit. If the tram was so key to the Wirral Waters project why was it not included in the section 106 agreement. The District were picking up the bill for the last tram project which had political support withdrawn.

The costs needed to be properly detailed and clarity was required that it was a lot of money £2.5 million pounds which the District Councils and Merseytravel could use in other areas, a decision could not be made on potential costs. Some of the comments in the presentation, re patronage had no evidence base and a failure to meet predictions would add further to the cost, he felt clarity was required.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

Councillor M Quinn welcomed the report, it was a lot clearer than previous but did raise concerns. The Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP 3) was the aspirational wishes for transport, this scheme was not within the plan, if cannot match aspiration how can the authority be expected to take on new projects. From previous experience costs can escalate, more financial clarity was required. With regard to all of the offers, why? And would they be available to other bidders, so what was the value. The previous projects £70 million was still being paid for and the present scheme had no reference to revenue cost. The money may be better spent supporting the bus network and getting people to work.

Cllr L Robinson echoed Members thanks and expressed full commitment to a World Class region and world class service but signficant concerns with the business plan. There was a concerns around people having to change modes of transport, from personal experience of working the industry commuters want a point to point system and Salford to Manchester City tram patronage referred to was not great.

Councillor K. McGlashan supported Councillor J Hanson’s comments but all sat as Members of the Integrated Transport Authority and must view projects in a fresh light with the regional perspective. The Authority wished to provide a good transport system for all the people on Merseyside including trams if appropriate but needed to have the full information before any ‘leap of faith’.

Councillor L Rowlands supported Councillor K McGlashan’s comments and felt the presentation filled some of the information not previously received, however drew Members’ attention to the fact that Merseytravel had not reached its current position without being visionary and being able to take a 30 year view. It was acknowledged that more information was required however support for this project would not only be support for Wirral Waters but also Liverpool Waters. The vision could help the patronage levels for the Ferries and other Merseytravel attractions. Councillor Rowlands felt a decision should not be made until the Authority had the full details but Members should not forget how to look to the future.

Councillor C Blakeley thanked those presenting supported the comments are looking at the project with the ‘vision’ shown previously by the Authority and felt it

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

was sustainable and would add to the region not just Wirral Waters. Although no recommendation in the report reading the conclusion Officers would welcome opportunity to bid however all were aware that business case and cost need further work. Councilor Blakeley did not at this time wish to close the door on the opportunity to bid.

The Director of Resources confirmed that the business case did require more work it was out of date and needed testing and he would suggest than an external firm be commissioned as he did not currently have the staff resources.

Councillor S Glover drew Members attention back to the core business of the Authority to concentrate on transport. Tourism was an ‘add on’ but if appropriate then any time project should be a first class 21st century system, with new 21st century kit. If all was second hand then it followed that there would be an impact on reliability. The business case had not been completed and therefore he felt it could not go forward. However if the Authority wished to progress with the project it should have new stock and equipment; a proper business plan; commitment from national level and provide of service fit for this century. Once in place then all could look to get similar provision for the other side of the river.

Councillor B Grunewald, Deputy Leader, St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, thanked the meeting for the invite and acknowledged that Merseytravel had a long history of taking strategic decisions, but any ‘leap of faith’ could not be taken without hard facts and on reading the papers there was amazement that Members were being asked to make decisions without all the facts and figures. Support would be difficult in light of the lack of clarity.

The District Leaders and representatives were invited if they wish to, to make comments by the Authorities.

Councillor S Foulkes, Leader Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council also thanked the Authority for the invite. Wirral welcomed all bids and recognised that the waterfronts were linked and it was customers who set their own boundaries. All were aware of Merseytravel’s bad experience in the past and the the City Region had not been recognized as one which could achieve the big projects however with the success of Liverpool One this perception had to change. There was a need to be brave

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

and visionary, the future job prospects of the waterfront developments were for all of Merseyside. Merseytravel did have the experience and skill set said to be a bidder. It was accepted that Members may be wary especially in these challenging times. The project sat well with Merseytravel’s other attractions at Woodside and Merseytravel was used to partnership working. Councillor Foulkes encourage the Authority to submit a bid of think big.

Councillor R Round, Leader of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, also thanked the Authority for the invite and opportunity to add his comments to those of the other representatives. Councillor Round had seen Peels presentations on a number of occasions and was still impressed by the project, he appreciated that the Authority was going through the same financial challenges and considerations as the District Councils. He accepted that the previous experience of Government support had been very disappointing however felt that the City Region needed to think big too and commented he would like to see the tram run the full length of the river.

It was a very difficult decision but through bidding Councillor Round felt that the Authority would show support to the regeneration of both sides of the river it would show vision, as he was sure that if successful Merseytravel would operate it well and would provide employment opportunities. Therefore he would wish to encourage the Authority to put in a bid.

The Director of Resources confirm that the Authority were already supported Wirral Waters through the Section 106 Agreement however Members needed to be confident in the business plan, good governance would require something more robust than currently available.

With regard to timescales for the bid, it was confirmed that all bids had to be submitted by 3rd of February, 2012.

Councillor M Dowd once again confirmed that Authority were totally supportive of the Wirral and Liverpool Waters schemes and it was good to hear that the project had Government support. The Authority did not want to shut doors and if the Government were serious then it may be productive to send an all party delegation to see if funding was forthcoming.

Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority

Councillor A Dean once again urged caution as there was still detail missing from the report, the business case needed to be revisited.

Region Mawdsley, Peel Holdings offered financial support of 50% towards the costs of the business case, in light of the financial challenges and Scott McIntosh, Mott McDonald, offered his personal time if required.

The Authority thanked all for their time and contribution to date.

It was felt that without the business case a bid could not be submitted at this time however so as not to shut the door completely the Chair moved the following motion viz:-

Motion by Councillor M Dowd seconded by councillor A Dean.

‘That

(a) the Authority give its in principle support to a bid subject however to a more rigorous assessment of the business case by an external firm of accountants such assessment to take into account the reservations and concerns expressed at this meeting;

(b) the offer from Peel to fund 50% of the cost, for this assessment be welcomed and accepted;

(c) the cost of any such assessment be capped at £50,000;

(d) the results of this assessment be reported if necessary to a special meeting of the Authority as soon as possible;

(e) subject to all of the above an all party delegation to government be approved to seek contributory funding for any bid which is submitted.’

The Motion was then put and carried unanimously and was Resolved Accordingly.

CHAIR