Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration.

The report provides a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programme and other key projects since the final update report, with a focus on the fourth quarter of the year (January to March). It includes out-turn performance and financial data (where this is available) for the Portfolio, along with updates on the portfolio savings programme.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to:-

·         Consider the Annual Portfolio Performance and Resource Report;  

·         Review the progress against delivering key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2017/18;

·         Highlight key areas of and responsibility for taking forward corrective action to address any performance or resource issues;

·         Highlight any significant issues or changes to be fed back to the Cabinet alongside the Corporate Performance and Resource Report;

·         Identify how areas of strong performance and good practice can be shared in other services.

Officer contact: Alan Lawson on 0161 474 5397 or email: alan.lawson@stockport.gov.uk

Officer contact: Kora Yohannan on 0161 474 4032 or email: kora.yohannan@stockport.gov.uk

The Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programme and other key projects since the final update report, with a focus on the fourth quarter of the year (January to March).  The report included out-turn performance and financial data (where this was available) for the Portfolio, along with updates on the portfolio savings programme.

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Housing (Councillor Sheila Bailey) attended the meeting to present the report and respond to councillors’ questions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         The action by the police and council to address issues of anti-social behaviour in the Hazel Grove area was welcomed.

·         It was noted that Islington Council had won a case in the High Court in relation to the challenge of a viability assessment which had been used to justify a level of affordable housing in a proposed development which fell below the Council’s target. 

·         In response to a comment that that physical measures to prevent the spread of fire within tower blocks, such as compartmentalisation, should be addressed prior to the installation of expensive sprinkler systems, it was stated that works such as compartmentalisation, testing of cladding and the fitting of new fire doors had already been completed.  It was further stated that while it was expensive to fit sprinklers all of the available evidence suggested that sprinklers were the single most valuable safety feature in the event of a fire and that the associated cost was insignificant when balanced against the potential for them to save lives.

·         In relation to the information provided on the level of dog fouling in the Borough, it was commented that it would be useful to provide additional information on the level of associated prosecutions.

·         The increased take up of the Disabled Facilities Grant was welcomed as it represented more people receiving adaptations to be able to live in their own homes for longer periods of time.

·         It was commented that the work of former councillor Maureen Rowles to secure a new leisure facility for Brinnington had been recognised through the naming of the community room at the new Brinnington Park Leisure Complex the ‘Maureen Rowles Community Room’.  It was stated that the facility had contributed significantly to the regeneration of Brinnington.

·         Councillors were encouraged to report incidents of nuisance caused by the use of off-road bikes as this would allow the Council to build a case for the allocation of resources from Greater Manchester Police’s off-road bike unit.

·         Further information was requested in relation to the response of the Council to those food retailers who secured fewer than three stars on the Food Standards Agency’s Food Hygiene Rating Scheme.

·         It was commented that an unforeseen consequence of the removal of the waste recycling ‘bring’ sites had been that there were now a number of residents that didn’t have ready access to recycling facilities.  In response it was stated that people living in houses should have access to the kerbside recycling service through the provision of wheelie bins and flats had alternative provision.  However, if there were specific issues with the service, then these could be raised with the local recycling officer who would visit residents to discuss options with them.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.