Stalled by Structure – How Wirral’s Regeneration Engine Keeps Stuttering

—and What We Learned by Reading Every Committee Minute Ourselves

✍️ Author’s Note

This article is the result of a close reading of over 40 published minutes and addenda from Wirral Council’s Economy, Regeneration & Housing Committee (2020–2025). 

The review was prompted by public interest in transparency, delivery, and accountability—particularly around the wave of regeneration projects promised in central Birkenhead and beyond. 

AI tools were used to extract, summarise and categorise information from PDF documents. These tools helped identify patterns and structure the data more efficiently, but all interpretation, framing, and conclusions are my own.

The purpose is not to target individuals or parties, but to understand why regeneration outcomes have fallen so far short of expectations—and why, as members of the public, we are left mostly in the dark. —Rory Wilmer, New Brighton, June 2025
.

📄 Background: From Vision to Vagueness

In the last five years, few words have appeared more often in Wirral Council's public communications than “regeneration.” And few places have been promised more transformation than Birkenhead. The Levelling Up Fund, Town Deal, Birkenhead 2040 Framework, and the Local Plan are just a few of the grand mechanisms set in motion.

But when it comes to tangible delivery, the picture is murkier.

Mass demolition in the town centre. Key sites still boarded up. Major cultural landmarks (like Birkenhead Market) left in limbo. And crucially, no single source for the public to understand who made what decisions—or why those decisions changed.

So, as with our previous article on the Environment & Transport Committee, we turned to the meeting minutes. This time, from the committee charged with shaping the borough’s physical, economic, and community future.

🔍 Methodology

Minutes of the Economy, Regeneration & Housing Committee

Over 40 PDFs were collected, including every available meeting minute, addendum, and supplementary report from the Economy, Regeneration & Housing Committee between 2020 and 2025.

Documents were analysed for:

• Key project milestones and decision points

• Instances of stalling, deferrals, or reversals

• Mentions of named votes or councillor-level decision records

• Recurring procedural language that obscures accountability

• Public engagement outcomes and how they were handled

The result is a timeline of aspiration, delay, and strategic ambiguity.

🧭 The Project Timeline: Big Ideas, Sluggish Delivery

Here’s what we found when we mapped the regeneration topics discussed across five years:

Project / Area	First Mention	Key Actions	Latest Status (2025)	Transparency Issues
Birkenhead Market	July 2021	Relocation proposed to St. Werburghs Sq.	Still unresolved. Site abandoned. New plan awaited.	No named votes. Public opposition repeatedly ignored.
Hind Street Urban Village	Oct 2021	Land acquisition. Masterplan.	Delays due to infrastructure/funding gaps.	Subject to “further site investigations.”
Wirral Waters (Peel)	Recurring (2020–2025)	Approvals and framework alignment.	Progress unclear. No tracking of outcomes in minutes.	Highly procedural updates, little scrutiny.
Grange Precinct & Europa Pools Redevelopment	March 2022	Town Deal-funded masterplan.	Slipped. Public engagement reported, but action deferred.	“Pending further consultation.”
Housing Delivery on Council-Owned Land	Multiple sites	Disposal strategies reviewed.	Ongoing but slow. Little clarity on which sites progressed.	Discussion often deferred to “exempt” sessions.
Town Centre Public Realm	2021–2024	Several phases “noted.”	Implementation remains piecemeal.	Budget shifts not always linked to decisions.
Levelling Up Fund Bids (Rounds 1–3)	2021–2023	Bid approvals.	Mixed outcomes. Some successful, others unclear.	Outcomes discussed retroactively.

This isn’t a comprehensive list—but these are the most frequently recurring topics across the minutes. Most have been discussed for years, often multiple times, with few clear decisions logged or milestones met.

🕰️ The Language of Delay Returns

As with the Transport Committee, the minutes are drenched in procedural vagueness:

• “Subject to funding confirmation”

• “Deferred for further report”

• “Pending full business case”

• “Awaiting officer update”

• “To be determined following consultation”

This language appears so consistently it functions as its own form of governance. Projects are advanced “in principle,” but rarely reach firm commitments. Even when motions pass, they are heavily caveated. Scrutiny, meanwhile, is usually parked—either awaiting a future paper, or hidden behind “Part 2” exclusions.

🏛️ Birkenhead Market: A Case Study in Confusion

Wirral Council visions for Birkenhead market. Credit: via Stantec

Few regeneration efforts better reflect Wirral’s procedural opacity than the long-running saga of Birkenhead Market.

• 2021: A proposal is floated to relocate the market to a new-build site at St. Werburgh's Square, near the town centre.

• 2022: The plan is approved in principle by the council, pending site investigations and viability work. Early concerns from traders focus on space, visibility, and disruption.

• 2023: Following cost assessments and a critical public consultation, the St. Werburgh’s proposal is quietly shelved. In its place, the council suggests housing the market in the former Argos unit at Grange Precinct. Traders react strongly, calling the space unfit for a functioning market. Consultation feedback echoes these concerns, but the plan continues to progress through internal channels.

• 2024: An alternative idea—relocating the market to the former House of Fraser site—is discussed informally but fails to reach committee-level approval. By late 2024, the Argos unit is reaffirmed as the council’s preferred location, despite sustained public opposition and a lack of clear endorsement from market traders.

• 2025: As of the most recent committee minutes, the Argos site is officially approved as the preferred option. However, actual delivery remains subject to further budget sign-off, internal officer review, and future reports. No firm timeline is attached.

Despite being discussed across multiple years, the Market’s fate has never been subject to a clear, named vote. Public feedback is acknowledged but rarely influences outcomes. Consultation results are noted, then largely bypassed in officer-led reports. Councillors tend to defer, with little sign of challenge, amendment, or engagement from the floor.

In a process meant to reflect the town’s future identity, the loudest voices—those of existing market traders—have consistently been the easiest to ignore.

🤐 What’s Missing from the Minutes?

Just like in the transport committee, no structured voting data is available. The public cannot easily determine who voted for or against major plans—like the St. Werburgh's Market proposal—or who challenged the decisions.

There are no amendment motions recorded across most meetings. Few dissenting statements. Even fewer named councillor positions. We can infer from silence that these were consensus-led—or more likely, party group–directed—outcomes.

In effect, decision-making is either hidden or pre-determined. The minutes confirm what’s already been decided, not how that decision came to be.

🧍 So Who Is Holding Anyone Accountable?

Again, as with transport: the pressure and challenge almost never come from councillors.

• Public deputations raise legitimate objections.

• Questions from residents highlight issues of affordability, inclusion, and delay.

• Petitions appear in several meetings, often with detailed arguments.

But the council response is predictable:

“Noted with thanks.”“To be responded to by officers.”“Referred to future report.”

Almost no resident intervention materially shifts the committee’s decisions. Councillors rarely follow up, propose changes, or use these inputs to question the process.

🔁 Structural Opacity by Design?

From this analysis, a pattern emerges:

• Projects are introduced with urgency and ambition.

• Then slowly deferred, reshaped, and watered down.

• Public and councillor scrutiny is minimal.

• Decisions are executed with officer-led reporting and little political accountability.

And all of it is buried in a swamp of PDFs, each written in careful bureaucratic neutrality—just enough to meet legal thresholds, but nowhere near the standard of modern transparency.

🧾 Who Proposes, Who Seconds—And What That Tells Us

If you read enough committee minutes, patterns start to emerge—not just in the topics discussed, but in how motions are handled procedurally. In Wirral’s Economy, Regeneration and Housing Committee, a consistent flow appears:

• The Chair or a Cabinet-aligned councillor (usually Labour) proposes the recommendation or officer’s report.

• It is then seconded almost immediately by another Labour member or an allied voice.

• The item proceeds to a vote—often noted simply as “carried,” “agreed,” or “unanimously approved.”

What’s missing?

• Amendments are rare.

• Debate is minimal.

• Named objections are virtually non-existent.

• Seconders seldom challenge or expand upon the proposal—they act as procedural anchors, not critical participants.

This pattern suggests a tightly stage-managed process. Most proposals originate from within the dominant political group, are seconded by their own, and pass with little visible dissent or deviation. In many cases, the same individuals appear repeatedly as proposer and seconder across multiple meetings and topics.

💡 What does this imply?

While perfectly legal, this procedural choreography gives the impression that debate is not encouraged—or even expected. The flow of decisions feels predetermined. The formal act of proposing and seconding motions serves more as rubber-stamping than genuine scrutiny.

It’s also notable that backbenchers, minority party councillors, and independents are rarely seen proposing motions themselves. When they do speak, it is often to raise questions rather than shape outcomes.

In a well-functioning committee system, proposing and seconding are opportunities to champion policy, steer strategy, and test alternatives. In Wirral, they too often resemble ritual—not governance.

🧾 Conclusion: The Mechanics of Delay

The problem isn’t just stalling. It’s that the stalling is structural. It’s embedded into how the committee functions, how minutes are written, and how councillors behave.

Even as millions of pounds are moved around in regeneration budgets, there is no mechanism for the public to follow the money, track outcomes, or assess who shaped those decisions.

There are some moments of genuine ambition in these minutes. But they are lost in a sea of caveats, postponements, and opacity. In many cases, it feels like decisions are made elsewhere—before meetings, beyond minutes, and out of sight.

⚖️ Legal Compliance Is Not Democratic Legibility

The council, again, meets its legal duties by publishing minutes and agenda. But the structure of these meetings, and the lack of named decisions, makes them functionally impenetrable to the public.

Without machine-readable voting records, without transparent audit trails, and without clear outcomes—it’s impossible to measure whether regeneration is working, or failing, and why.

🧭 The Path Forward

Other councils do this better. They:

• Publish decisions as datasets, not PDFs.

• Track project progress openly.

• Require named votes as standard.

• Treat minutes as a tool for public scrutiny, not just compliance.

If Wirral is serious about regeneration, it must also be serious about transparency. Because right now, it’s hard to tell where the delays end and the dysfunction begins.

💬 A New Chapter?

On 21 May 2025, Cllr Paula Basnett was elected leader of Wirral Council, promising to “deliver regeneration that truly benefits local people” and pledging “no more delays and no more excuses.”

Her remarks seem to acknowledge exactly the type of dysfunction this review has laid bare: schemes that remain stuck, communities that don’t feel the benefit, and a democratic process that too often favours paper-passing over progress.

Basnett has also committed to an independent review of all major regeneration projects. If this review is made public, clearly benchmarked, and leads to a more open planning process, it could be a critical moment of reset for the borough.

Time will tell whether this signals a genuine change in direction—or becomes just another well-worded footnote in the minutes.

🧠 Why Use AI for This?

The volume of material involved—over 40 dense PDFs—makes it extremely difficult for most residents to piece together a coherent view of what’s been happening. AI tools helped group topics, extract timelines, and flag recurring phrases. But this isn’t automation. It’s augmentation. The patterns and insights here were shaped by human review, experience, and context.

📜 Transparency Statement

This article is based on over 40 publicly available Wirral Council committee minutes (2020–2025). AI tools were used to analyse document structure, patterns, and language. Every observation is drawn from those primary documents. No councillor is accused of wrongdoing. All interpretations are my own. This work is intended to help residents better understand how regeneration decisions are made—and to advocate for greater transparency and accountability. The use of AI was limited to textual analysis and information organisation. All conclusions reflect human interpretation and are open to challenge or refinement based on further evidence. Given the fragmented and inconsistent nature of publicly available records, some errors or omissions may occur. If you spot something inaccurate or can help clarify the record, I’m happy to update and correct it publicly. Please feel free to contact me directly.

Because if we can’t talk openly—and correct our course—how can we ever move forward?