Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Cabinet Members on any matters within the powers and duties of the Cabinet, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice. (Questions must be submitted no later than 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting on the card provided. These are available at the meeting. You can also submit via the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions)
Minutes:
Members of the public were invited to submit questions to the Cabinet on any matters within its powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Eight questions were submitted.
(i) The first question referred to the Council’s application to the Government for funding toward the cost of the A6-M60 Relief Road Scheme and the suggestion in it that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) would be expected to contribute 15% (£70m) toward the cost. The Cabinet were asked whether this was in accord with the Cabinet’s policy of the road being funded from national resources; whether this money could be better spent on public transport; whether GMCA or TfGM had agreed to this funding and it not when a decision was likely to be made.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration began by stating that one of his key aims in his new role was to prioritise investment into public transport and develop walking and cycling options. He further clarified that the application made to Transport for the North was not seeking funding nor approval to build the road but for additional resources to fund feasibility work to determine whether the scheme was viable, and that no decisions had been taken in relation to how contributions to any future costs would be met.
(ii) The second question referred to the Council’s application for funding for the A6-M60 feasibility work and queried why there was no mention in the 12 page submission that the scheme route passed through the Goyt and Poise Brook Valleys; little mention was made of the environmental impact of the scheme, and it presented a timetable that would leave no time for an environmental assessment nor adequate time for the planning process. The question also asked whether the Cabinet agreed that this reflected poorly on the Council’s approach to the environment and whether it would consider withdrawing the application.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded by stating that the application referred to had been completed prior to him taking up his post, but that he understood the concerns the questioner was expressing about the environmental impact. He stressed again that no decisions had been made to progress the scheme and that none would be taken without all appropriate environmental assessments having been undertaken. He also emphasised the commitment of the Cabinet to the environment in recently agreeing ambitious clean air measures, carbon neutrality and in developing its Active Community and Walking and Cycling strategies.
(iii) The third question asked whether the Council had appointed a ‘director-level officer’ with responsibility for reducing carbon emissions from Council activity and what progress had been made in these efforts.
The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Stockport confirmed that the Director for Place Management led the Council’s response to the climate change emergency. The Cabinet Member commented that responding to the challenges of climate change would take time but that work was already underway and a full report on that would be submitted the relevant scrutiny committee in the Autumn.
(iv) The fourth question referred to a Council Motion agreed in April 2019 and asked whether the Cabinet had written to the Prime Minister in relation to the Council’s declaration of a climate change emergency and what the response had been.
The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Stockport reiterated her support for the motion in question but explained that due to the subsequent Local Election, European Election, change in Council leadership and changes to cabinet portfolios a letter had not been sent, and now the imminent replacement of the Prime Minister and cabinet meant that it was prudent to wait until these matters had been resolved before a letter was sent.
(v) The fifth question was submitted on behalf of WalkRide Greater Manchester asking whether in light of the Council signing up to Chris Boardman’s ‘Made to Move’ plan the Cabinet would consider abandoning plans for the A6-M60 Relief Road and consider investing the £477m on public transport and walking and cycling provision.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded by clarifying that the Council did not have access to the £477m quoted in the question. He further stated that transport funding was often accessed from a series of smaller sources of funding and the Council was actively exploring those funds, including through Chris Boardman’s cycling initiatives. The Council was also leading on the refresh of SEMMS (South East Manchester Multi-Modal Strategy) that had a strong emphasis on sustainable forms of transport.
The Cabinet Member stated that the whole Council had agreed to pursue funding for the feasibility work for the A6-M60 but that this was part of a range of measures being developed to improve access and transport in Stockport, including walking and cycling. The Cabinet Member reiterated his earlier stated commitment to prioritising public transport, walking and cycling investment.
(vi) The sixth question referred to recent press coverage of Stockport Together and previous statements from the Council that it had withdrawn from arrangements for sharing money and risk, and the apparent contradiction with recent statements that the Council was committed to Stockport Together. Clarification was sought on how the public was to understand the impact of the Council choosing to withdraw from the arrangements and what impact there had been to services and Council staff who had been transferred.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance clarified that the decision taken in February 2019 was for the Council to not engage in an additional one year risk share arrangement, the rationale for which was articulated in several documents and meetings at the time. The Cabinet Member stated that the Council had not withdrawn from Stockport Together, which was the alliance agreement with health partners, and this was continuing.
The Cabinet Member reiterated the long term benefits of working with partners to reduce demand on services through early interventions and prevention to improve outcomes for residents, and the Council and partners were committed to that and continued to explore the best ways to achieve that end.
Specifically in relation to any changes referred to the in question, the Cabinet Member stated that since the Council was not withdrawing from the Alliance there were no changes the public would perceive, but that partners would continue to review regularly how and the type of services provided in order to improve and maximise population health and outcomes for residents.
It was also clarified that no Council staff had been transferred to any other organisation, but rather worked in integrated, multi-agency teams, while remaining Council employees. It was also clarified that there had been no further changes to the delivery of health and social care services as a result of recent decisions.
(vii) The seventh question sought an answer to a GDPR request submitted to the Council in November 2018 and an explanation as to why no response had been received within the stipulated timeframe.
The Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance undertook to provide a written response to address the detail in the question.