Issue - meetings

Within this report and appendix, we provide a further update on our strategic approach in responding to the review of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). This follows on from the report presented at the cabinet meeting on the 19 September 2023  and scrutiny committees during October 2023, November 2023 and January 2024. It includes our final change proposals within the appendix following consultation and scrutiny comment ahead of the Budget Council meeting in February.

1This report outlines the budget proposals being considered by the cabinet to address our financial challenges and balance the rising cost of delivering services to the people in our communities who need it most. The report sits alongside a suite of budget papers presented elsewhere on this agenda.

The Cabinet is recommended to:

(1) Note the further development of proposals and the feedback received from the engagement and consultation to date.

(2) Approve the proposals for inclusion within the budget papers for Budget Council.

Officer contact: Gill Lawton on 0161 474 3014 or email gill.lawton@stockport.gov.uk

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Mark Hunter) and the Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources (Councillor Jilly Julian) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an update on the strategic approach in responding to the review of the Medium Term Financial Plan and including the budget proposals being considered by the cabinet to address the financial challenges and balance the rising cost of delivering services to the people in Stockport’s communities who needed it most.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Local government continued to face sustained financial pressure, however the Council remained in a robust position.

·         It was stated that the Council would continue to live within its means, but it did not remain immune to the challenges imposed by the cost-of-living crisis and the ongoing expectation that local authorities must continue to do more with less resources.

·         There needed to be a fundamental reset of local government financing.

·         There has been an increase in the response rate to the consultation on the budget proposals, albeit on a low base rate, but the commentary from these responses showed broad support and an understanding of the position the Council found itself in.

RESOLVED - (1) That the further development of proposals and the feedback received from the engagement and consultation to date be noted.

(2) That approval be given to the proposals for inclusion within the budget papers for Budget Council.

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care.

Following the October and November meetings of the Scrutiny Committee, the report provides further detail on the budget change proposals, taking into consideration the feedback received to date.

The appendix to the report outlines the budget proposals being considered by the Cabinet to address financial and rising demand challenges, enable longer term transformation, and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to consider and comment on the report and proposals presented that are relevant to the Committee’s remit.

Officer contact: Gill Lawton on 0161 474 3686 or email: gill.lawton@stockport.gov.uk

The Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing further detail on the budget change proposals, taking into consideration the feedback received to date. This followed on from the report presented at the Cabinet meeting on 19 September 2023 and Scrutiny Committees during October and November 2023.

The appendix to the report outlined the budget proposals being considered by Cabinet to address financial and rising demand challenges, enable longer term transformation, and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care (Councillor Keith Holloway) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         It was noted that a large proportion of the efficiencies and savings centred around continuing to care for people in their own homes and whilst this was conducive with the preference of the majority of residents, it was commented that a small minority of older people would prefer the company and support that residential care offered.

·         In relation to patient choice, it was queried whether residential care was an option for residents were this was their preference.

·         In response, it was commented that for these residents were there may be fears in relation to returning to their own homes around risk of falls and isolation, there would be an offer of intermediate care, step-down from hospital into a facility that would support them with their confidence to maximise their independence. It was stated that work was ongoing to offer a wider range of services at a neighbourhood level. It was noted that the Care Act required the service to look at individuals based on their individual need, there was a national criteria for health, care and support and a decision would be made with the individual based on meeting their needs in the best way for them.

·         Additional information was requested in relation to the benchmarking information reference in the report that Stockport had high fee rates compared to other Local Authorities.

·         In response, it was stated that this would feature as part of the Annual Residential/ Nursing Care, Home Care and other Care Management Fee Setting report was due to be considered at the February meeting of the Committee. It was noted that Stockport’s fee rates comparatively with the North West were quite high related to the range and number of provision, land value and level of residents who were self-funders and able to pay higher rates for care. It was noted that it was important to offer different types of provision and ways to support people to stay independent in their own homes because of the cost such as extra care housing.

·         It was queried whether any of the saving proposals included adopting shared services with other Local Authorities or agencies.

·         In response, it was commented that whilst there was nothing actively planned in terms of specific opportunities, a small number of proposals had been considered in the last year including a complex needs facility led by Tameside, however relating to the costs associated and appetite from other Local Authorities it was decided that the proposal would be reconsidered at a future date. It was noted that there were limitations in relation to shared facilities relating to the preference of individuals within their localities being closer to home, however there was potential for efficiencies around sharing back office costs and different models of commissioning.

·         It was noted that the local government financial settlement had been disappointing and there was unity across the council chamber in the response to Government around the inadequate resources that were available to the council.

·         In relation to the Equality Impact Assessment and the impact of the proposals, it was noted that the changes were likely to disproportionately affect residents who required council resources the most including older people, younger people, people with a disability, low income,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

To consider a joint report of the Cabinet Member for Climate Change & Environment and Cabinet Member for Economy, Regeneration & Housing.

Following the November meeting of the Scrutiny Committee, the report provides further detail on the budget change proposals, taking into consideration the Cabinet response.

The appendix to the report outlines the change proposals being considered by Cabinet to address financial and demand challenges, enable longer term transformation, and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to consider the report and proposals presented that are relevant to the committee’s remit.

Officer contact: Gill Lawton 0161 474 3686 | gill.lawton@stockport.gov.uk  

The Cabinet Members for Economy, Regeneration & Housing (Councillor Colin MacAlister) and Climate Change & Environment (Councillor Mark Roberts) submitted a joint report (copies of which had been circulated) providing further detail on the budget change proposals being considered by Cabinet to address financial and demand challenges, enable longer term transformation and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Cabinet Members were in attendance at the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/issues raised:

·         Following a suggestion by members of the Scrutiny Committee at their meeting held on 23 November 2023, members were pleased to note that caddy liners were now available to residents through the library service.

·         In response to a question as to the differential of the cost to the applicant for the submission of a larger development application as opposed to a householder application, it was advised that this was significant.

·         It was noted that there had been a low number of responses to the budget consultation, although this number had doubled from the consultation carried out last year. It was asked that further thought be given to increasing the level of response in the future. Ideas as to how to further increase engagement were welcomed.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education.

Following the October and November meetings of the Scrutiny Committee, the report provides further detail on the budget change proposals, taking into consideration the Cabinet response.

The appendix to the report outlines the budget proposals being considered by Cabinet to address financial and rising demand challenges, enable longer term transformation, and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to consider and comment on the report and proposals presented that are relevant to the committee’s remit.

Officer contact: Gill Lawton 0161 474 3014 | gill.lawton@stockport.gov.uk

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing further detail on the budget change proposals, taking into consideration the Cabinet response. This followed on from the report presented at the Cabinet meeting on 19 September 2023 and Scrutiny Committees during October and November 2023. In particular, the budget proposals being considered by Cabinet to address financial and rising demand challenges, enable longer term transformation, and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education (Councillor Wendy Meikle) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·       Concern was expressed relating to the low response rate to the public consultation and how it could be improved. In response, it was stated that across the various portfolios it was only about 76 responses for the children’s portfolio, however, all responses have to be taken into account. It was also noted that in response to the low rate it was proposed that changes to services needed to be co-produced which would encourage more engagement through the co-production model and charter.

·       Clarification was sought relating to the Independent Travel Training (ITT) shifting from the SEN Transport team to the Education & Health Care Plans team to manage and whether there was any capacity. It was noted that there had already been an increase in capacity within the teams and that there were currently no vacancies. It was also stated that the shift in teams would enable better coordination in the process.

·       Members enquired about the SEN Transport and whether parents/carers could assist with taking the children to school. In response, it was explained the ‘personal budgets’ was in place for that specific reason and would also be consulted upon in order to make it easier, encourage more parents to be a part of it.

·       It was commented that clarification was needed regarding the insurance situation having paid drivers with multiple children in the SEN transport and whether there was any concerns. In response, it was stated that it would be looked into and the information shared with the Committee.

·       Members sought clarification on the marriage and civil partnerships data and whether it was accurate. It was stated that it would be checked and reported back to the Committee.

·       Further information was requested relating to how personal budgets was acquired and was there capacity to meet demand. In response, it was stated that the additional detail relating to the personal budgets would be shared with the Committee, however, there are families who would like to have personal budgets, but was the incentive there, which was currently being looked at to make it worth their while. There was an administrative burden relating to doing things differently but there was increased capacity factored into the budget proposals.

·       It was commented that regarding the consultation the number of personal budgets would be useful information together with the growth in the numbers of the young people on EHCPs to better understand the process for those engaging in the consultation process.

RESOLVED – (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That the Director of Education, Works & Skills be asked to provide additional information relating to the following:-

·       how personal budgets was acquired and was there capacity to meet demand;

·       regarding the insurance situation having paid drivers with multiple children in the SEN transport; and

·       accurate data on the marriage and civil partnerships characteristics in Step 1: Establishing and developing the baseline referred to in the report.

To consider a joint report of the Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture & Sport and Cabinet Member for Parks, Highways & Transport Services.

Following the November meeting of the Scrutiny Committee, the report provides further detail on the budget change proposals, taking into consideration the Cabinet response.

The appendix to the report outlines the change proposals being considered by Cabinet to address financial and demand challenges, enable longer term transformation, and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to consider the report and proposals presented that are relevant to the committee’s remit.

Officer contact: Gill Lawton 0161 474 3686 | gill.lawton@stockport.gov.uk

The Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture & Sport and the Cabinet Member for Parks, Highways & Transport Services submitted a joint report (copies of which had been circulated) providing further detail on the budget change proposals, taking into consideration the Cabinet response.

The appendix to the report outlined the change proposals being considered by Cabinet to address financial and demand challenges, enable longer term transformation, and ensure the delivery of shared strategic partnership ambitions.

The Cabinet Member for Parks, Highways & Transport Services (Councillor Grace Baynham) and the Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture & Sport (Councillor Frankie Singleton) attended the meeting to respond to councillors’ questions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

Library Services

·         Members requested further detail related to the proposals to standardise staffing hours at libraries. It was noted that some libraries had longer staffed opening hours than others which might result in some libraries losing out on their staffed opening hours and others gaining hours.

·         In response it was stated that the intention of the proposal was to retain the status quo, whilst reducing staffing hours, and that further information would be given at a future meeting of this Committee.

·         It was noted that an extra day of Open+ would affect all libraries equally, losing an additional 52 days of staff time per year, equating to 676 days of library time lost at the 13 libraries which operate Open+ across the borough.

·         It was further noted that libraries in areas of high deprivation such as Brinnington, Reddish, Edgeley and Great Moor had longer staffed opening hours than libraries in areas with lower socio-economic need. Members sought reassurance that libraries in more deprived areas would not lose staffed opening hours, particularly in the light of the Equalities Statement which highlighted the importance of low socio-economic communities having local staffed library hours.

·         It was also noted that High Lane library was an outlier in terms of the number of staffed hours, being much lower than other libraries within the borough.

·         In response it was stated that further details on how the proposals related to library staffing hours were likely to affect library service provision would be provided to a future meeting of this Scrutiny Committee.

·         It was noted that library users were unable to use the full range of services during unstaffed, Open+ hours such as printing and paying fines, and the only option for paying cashless fines was at Stockport Central library.

·         In response it was stated that work was ongoing to enable remote printing and a digital offer which would operate in a non-staffed environment. Details of when these systems were likely to be in place would be provided at a future meeting.

·         It was noted that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had identified that those with socio-economic needs would be negatively impacted by a reduction in staffed library hours. Families in the most deprived areas of Stockport utilised library services for digital support and family hubs. Members queried whether any alternative approach to cutting staffed library hours had been considered.

·         In response it was stated that different proposals had been considered and that the proposal before the Scrutiny Committee was the best response to ensure that all libraries across the borough remained open. It was also stated that the council would ensure that library staff were well connected in terms of being able to signpost residents and provide additional advice.

·         A number of council libraries had worked with Stockport Homes in order to share costs and create efficiencies. The council was actively seeking further opportunities to work with other organisations to achieve similar economic efficiencies, one example being the shared facilities at Marple leisure centre and library.

·         Members expressed concern about the impact of those proposals upon library staff and asked whether the Council had engaged with unions and what, if any, scope there was for library staff to work flexibly under these proposals.

·         In response it was stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4