Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 1 December 2016.

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting of the Council held on 1 December 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

To report any urgent action taken under the Constitution since the last meeting of the Council.

No urgent decisions were reported.

To receive announcements from the Mayor.

The Mayor announced that in advance of Christmas he had attended 19 carol services and on 6 January 2017 had attended a Coptic Christmas service.

The Mayor further announced that he had attended the ‘Cheshire Best Kept Station Awards’ at which two stations in Stockport won awards including Reddish South Station which won the community award and the Transport for Greater Manchester award was won by Rose Hill Station.

Finally, the Mayor announced that on 18 January 2017 the Council had hosted the presentation by the French Consul of the Legion d’Honneur to Stockport residents, Mr Alfred Barlow for his role in the Normandy campaign in 1944.

Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they may have in any of the items on the Summons for the meeting.

Councillors and officers were invited to delcare any interests which they had in any of the items on the Summons for the meeting.

The following interest was declared:-

Disclosable Pecuniary Interest

To receive any questions from and provide answers to the public in relation to matters relevant to the Council’s activities.

Members of the public were invited to put questions to the Mayor and Councillors on matters within the powers and duties of the Council.

Five public questions were submitted as follows:-

·         Relating to why, in the light of evidence that enhancing community services and better integration between health and social care would not reduce the need for hospital beds and that the pressure on inpatient facilities has reached dangerous levels, did the council present the Stockport Together business case, which involves reduction in beds at Stepping Hill Hospital, as improving care.

The Executive Councillor for Health (Councillor Tom McGee) responded that hospital services were under a great deal of strain nationally but that Stockport had not suffered as badly as other areas where they were under a ‘code black’ emergency and that it needed to be recognised that Stockport’s systems had coped well over the last eight weeks in the circumstances.  However, Councillor McGee stated that taking no action would not improve matters and that the continue to do things as they were would mean a requirement for another £120m which was not available.  Councillor McGee further stated that there were many circumstances in which people would prefer to go home rather than stay in hospital, particularly around end of life care.

·         Relating to the difficulties experienced by Stepping Hill Hospital over the holiday period and whether a full and efficient accident and emergency service could now be guaranteed with full staffing.

The Executive Councillor for Health (Councillor Tom McGee) responded that for several weeks leading up to Christmas, there had been lost of planning to ensure that there was sufficient flexibility to provide sufficient staffing capacity with the right services in the right place, and that some non-essential elective surgery was cancelled to free up staffing resources.  However, it was stated that during that period there was an unexpected large admittance of people with respiratory diseases; and further a higher than expected number of staff were taken ill.  It was commented that services and staffing were now returning to normal.

·         Relating to whether Councillor Smart was still in favour of building a motorway through the Goyt Valley and whether she fully supported the building of the A6 Relief Road and whether in the light of this the stance of the Liberal Democrats on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework was hypocrisy.

Councillor Lisa Smart responded that it was correct to say that the Liberal Democrats had long supported the building of the road between the A6 and the M60.  It was stated that the feasibility study in respect of this section of the relief road had been released this week which confirmed that there was a strong case for the development of this route.  Councillor Smart confirmed that she supported the development of the road as it was needed by local residents and would therefore continue to press for the road to be built.  Councillor Smart also confirmed that she would work to ensure that any environmental impact of the road would be minimised and appropriately mitigated.

·         Relating to a statement previously made by Councillor Christine Corris relating to building on Reddish Vale Country Park that ‘Brinnington itself was built on green fields’ and that ‘it was sad that we have to build on this small part of country park, but it’s a price work paying’.  In the light of this statement, why was it appropriate to build on the green belt in Brinnington but not in High Lane.

Councillor Lisa Smart responded that she was unable to speak for another member or on an issue that took place prior to her election to the Council.  It was further stated that the development in question was part of a wider masterplan that had broad support from residents with support from local councillors which represented a key difference.  With regard to the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework it was stated that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.(i)

To receive petitions, and by prior arrangement, receive delegations and presentations from members of the public, community groups or partnership organisations.

There were no petitions or presentations.

The following councillors to answer questions (if any) on the business of the joint authorities:-

(b)       Greater Manchester Police and Crime Panel

Councillor Alex Ganotis to answer questions (if any) on the business of the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Panel.

(c)        Greater Manchester Combined Authority

The following councillors to answer questions (if any) on the business of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee:-

 (d)      GMCA/AGMA Scrutiny Pool

The following councillors to answer questions (if any) on the business of the GMCA/AGMA Scrutiny Pool:-

(a)       Section 41 Spokespersons

There were no questions in relation to the business of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority or the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority.

(b)       Greater Manchester Police and Crime Panel

There were no questions in relation to the business of the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Panel.

(c)       Greater Manchester Combined Authority

There were no questions in relation to the business of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority or the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee.

(d)       GMCA/AGMA Scrutiny Pool

There were no questions on the business of the GMCA/AGMA Scrutiny Pool.

The Leader of the Council to report.

RESOLVED – (1) That Councillor Linda Holt be invited to allow her name to be submitted to the Annual Council Meeting for election to the Office of Mayor for the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport for the year 2017/2018.

(2) That Councillor Walter Brett be invited to allow his name to be submitted to the Annual Council Meeting for the appointment to the Office of Deputy Mayor for the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport for the year 2017/2018.

To consider a report of the Executive Councillor (Children & Family Services).

The Executive Councillor (Children & Family Services) (Councillor Colin Foster) submitted the Youth Justice Plan for 2016/17 (copies of which had been circulated)

RESOLVED – That the Youth Justice Plan be approved and adopted.

To consider a report of the Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance).

The Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance) (Councillor David Sedgwick) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing outcome of the review the local Discounts and Exemptions which would be available in respect of Business Rates and Council Tax for 2017/18.

RESOLVED – That approval be given to the following in respect of Council Tax and Business Rates Discounts and Exemptions:-

(1) That the Community Amateur Sports Club Top-up scheme be continued for the year 2017/18, enabling Community Amateur Sports Clubs to achieve 100% relief from Non-Domestic Rates, provided they meet the qualifying criteria at Appendix 2.

(2) That Charity Relief remains limited to the 80% Mandatory Relief for the year 2017/18.

(3) That the 50% discount and qualifying criteria for Not for Profit organisations be maintained for the year 2017/18.

(4) That the local scheme for the Town and District Centres as outlined above and at Appendix 4 be continued for 2017/18.

(5) That the local scheme for large businesses which are new to the Borough or those undergoing significant expansion in the Borough be continued for 2017/18.

(6) That the continuation of a case by case approach for Business Rates discounts where exceptional circumstances exist be continued for 2017/18. It is unlikely that Exceptional Circumstances Relief would be awarded to an organisation which was in receipt of support from the Council, either grant funded or commissioned.

(7) That relief for Children’s Nurseries is limited to Mandatory Relief for 2017/18. Any additional discount can be considered under the wider discretionary discount scheme outlined at para 3.10.

(8) That Option 4 be adopted as the Council Tax Discount Scheme in respect of empty properties for 2017/18.

(9) That the wording of the Council Tax Support scheme be amended to clarify the treatment of Universal Credit and the housing element when calculating CTS for 2017/18.

(1) That an integrated Discretionary Support Policy be introduced as shown at Appendix 7 and to refresh the discretionary fund to £100k for 2017/18.

To receive a report from the Executive Leader and other members of the Executive on the conduct of Executive business since the last Council Meeting.

The Leader of the Council (Policy, Finance & Devolution) (Councillor Alex Ganotis) reported that the Executive had looked at the staff facing business cases at its meeting December 2016 and that an Extraordinary Meeting the previous night had considered the outcome of the consultation on the public facing business cases. It was commented that there had been significant movement since the initial business cases were published in September 2016.

It was noted that in December the Government had announced that it would be providing additional funding for adult social care which would be provided by diverting existing funding relating to the new homes bonus.  It was commented that while some authorities would receive a net loss in income as a result of this announcement, however Stockport would receive a net benefit of approximately £0.5m for one year.  Councillor Ganotis further stated that it was the Executive’s intention to propose an increase in Council Tax of 4.9% so as to take advantage of the 3% levy for adult social care. 

Finally, Councillor Ganotis stated that he had attended the official opening of the Holiday Inn Express Hotel at Stockport Exchange.  It was stated that the night before the official opening the hotel had achieved a 90% occupancy rate at a time of year when demand was traditionally lower than average which had surpassed expectations. 

The Executive Councillor (Communities & Housing) (Councillor Sheila Bailey) announced that the Executive the previous night had agreed not to proceed with changes to the frequency of the residual waste collection service following the comments received as part of the public consultation and informed by a parallel survey of the unused capacity of current bins left for collection.  Councillor Bailey stated that the emphasis of the Executive would be to try to increase the recycling rate rather than make changes to waste collection frequencies.

Councillor Bailey then reported that the Council was in discussions with Keep Britain Tidy with a view to using the organisation to run intensive recycling campaigns as well as to publicise the issue of fly-tipping and the incorrect presentation of waste.

The Executive Councillor (Education) (Councillor Dean Fitzpatrick) reported that the Government had announced the second stage of a consultation in December 2016 with regard to the National Farer Funding Formula which would run until March 2017 and that information had been circulated throughout the Council to seek their views. 

The Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance) (Councillor David Sedgwick) reported that a fund had been created to undertake some low level refurbishment of library facilities in the Borough and that the Council had made a bid for £180,000 to make improvements to the digital offer in libraries. 

Councillor Sedgwick further commented that the Executive had agreed to make changes to significantly reduce the offer of committee teas that would be provided for members in advance of meetings.

To answer questions from Councillors addressed to the Executive Leader or other members of the Executive, in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 11.

The Leader of the Council (Policy, Finance & Devolution)) and the Executive Councillors (Communities & Housing), (Economy & Regeneration), (Children & Family Services) and (Health) answered questions and responded to comments relating to the business of the Executive in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 11.

To receive the Minutes of the Executive held on 20 December 2016 and 18 January 2017 (to follow) and the record of executive decisions taken since the last Council Meeting, (schedule enclosed, decisions previously circulated) (pages) and consider any recommendations they contain.

The Mayor declared the Minutes of the Executive Meeting held on 20 December 2016 and 18 January 2017 (copies of which had been circulated) and the record of executive decision taken (copies of which were circulated) since the last meeting of the Council to be duly received.

To receive a report from the Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees on the conduct of Scrutiny business.

To receive a report from the Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees on the conduct of Scrutiny business.

There were no reports from the Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees on the conduct of their business since the last Council Meeting.

To answer questions from Councillors addressed to the Scrutiny Chairs, in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 11.

There were no questions relating to the business of the Scrutiny Committees in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 11.

To receive the Minutes of the following Scrutiny Committees:-

Children & Young People – 7 December 2016  

Corporate, Resource Management & Governance – 6 December 2016

Environment & Economy – 8 December 2016

Health & Wellbeing – 29 November 2016

The Mayor declared the Minutes of the following Scrutiny Committees (copies of which had been circulated with the Summons) to be duly received:-

Children & Young People – 7 December 2016 

Corporate, Resource Management & Governance – 6 December 2016

Environment & Economy – 8 December 2016

Health & Wellbeing – 29 November 2016

To receive a report from the Chairs of the Planning & Highways Regulation; Licensing, Environment & Safety; and Audit Committees on the conduct of their business since the last Council Meeting.

There were no reports from the Chairs of the Planning and Highways Regulation, Licensing, Environment and Safety or Audit Committees on the conduct of their business since the last Council Meeting.

To answer questions from Councillors addressed to the Chairs of Ordinary and Area Committees, in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 11.

There were no questions relating to the business of the Ordinary, Area and Ward Committees in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 11.

To receive the minutes of the following Ordinary, Area and Ward Committees:-

Ordinary Committees

Audit – 30 November 2016

Employment Appeals – 19 December 2016       

Funding – 22 November 2016      

Health & Wellbeing Board – 23 November 2016           

Licensing, Environment & Safety – 23 November 2016           

Licensing, Environment & Safety Sub – 30 November and 19 December 2016

Planning & Highways Regulation – 24 November 2016          

Town Centre – 20 December 2016          

Area Committees

Bramhall & Cheadle Hulme South – 15 December 2016         

Central Stockport – 15 December 2016

Cheadle – 13 December 2016      

Heatons & Reddish – 12 December 2016          

Marple – 14 December 2016        

Stepping Hill – 13 December 2016          

Werneth – 12 December 2016

Ward Committee

Brinnington & Reddish Joint – 19 December 2016

The Mayor declared the Minutes of the following Ordinary, Area and Ward Committees (copies of which had been circulated with the Summons) to be duly received:-

Ordinary Committees

Audit – 30 November 2016

Employment Appeals – 19 December 2016      

Funding – 22 November 2016     

Health & Wellbeing Board – 23 November 2016          

Licensing, Environment & Safety – 23 November 2016          

Licensing, Environment & Safety Sub – 30 November and 19 December 2016

Planning & Highways Regulation – 24 November 2016         

Town Centre – 20 December 2016         

Area Committees

Bramhall & Cheadle Hulme South – 15 December 2016        

Central Stockport – 15 December 2016

Cheadle – 13 December 2016     

Heatons & Reddish – 12 December 2016         

Marple – 14 December 2016        

Stepping Hill – 13 December 2016         

Werneth – 12 December 2016

Ward Committee

Brinnington & Reddish Joint – 19 December 2016

This Council Meeting notes:

·           That all councils are required by government to have a Local Plan which identifies land for housing, offices and industry;

·           That the proposed Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is one approach to fulfilling this requirement;

·           That the GMSF is a 20-year plan, requiring a third more housing land to be identified than would be required by a 15 year plan, as produced by many other Local Authorities, and is based upon growth assumptions over such a long period which cannot be verified;

·           That the GMSF proposals include significant releases of Green Belt in Stockport which residents and politicians alike have reacted strongly against;

·           That the proposals were developed without the involvement of Stockport councillors and that the former Lead Councillor for this work had not been informed of these proposals by the time she left office in May 2016; and

·           That Greater Manchester councils have a long tradition of working together effectively where there is common agreement, and of working separately or in clusters where there is not common agreement.

This Council Meeting further notes:

·           That the Executive delegated the formulation and preparation of the GMSF to AGMA in March 2015 and that this council resolved to enter an agreement to jointly prepare the GMSF with the other Greater Manchester authorities in April 2015, in the expectation that an acceptable plan would be proposed;

·           That this council has a duty under Section 33a of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to cooperate with other planning authorities; and that this duty was fulfilled in developing our current Local Plan and has been fulfilled by neighbouring authorities outside of Greater Manchester without the need for a joint process for developing each Local Plan; and

·           That, at its last meeting on 1st December 2016, this council approved a report which set out the process to formally commence work on a review of the existing development plan documents and to commence work on a new Local Plan for the borough, which explicitly noted that Stockport’s Local Plan would only sit alongside the GMSF if the GMSF were to be adopted (paragraph 3.4).

This Council Meeting therefore resolves to ask the Executive Leader to

·           Make arrangements to ensure that the GM Spatial Framework does not apply to Stockport,

·           make arrangements to comply with the duty to cooperate with other planning authorities; and

·           pursue Stockport’s own Local Plan.

Moved by:                  Councillor Iain Roberts

Seconded by:            Councillor Mark Hunter

In accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 16.1 (Motion similar to one previously rejected) this motion has been signed by a further five signatories:-

Councillor Geoff Abell

                                    Councillor Malcolm Allan

                                    Councillor Laura Booth

                                    Councillor Sue Ingham

                                    Councillor Wendy Meikle

MOVED AND SECONDED - This Council Meeting notes:

·         That all councils are required by government to have a Local Plan which identifies land for housing, offices and industry;

·         That the proposed Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is one approach to fulfilling this requirement;

·         That the GMSF is a 20-year plan, requiring a third more housing land to be identified than would be required by a 15 year plan, as produced by many other Local Authorities, and is based upon growth assumptions over such a long period which cannot be verified;

·         That the GMSF proposals include significant releases of Green Belt in Stockport which residents and politicians alike have reacted strongly against;

·         That the proposals were developed without the involvement of Stockport councillors and that the former Lead Councillor for this work had not been informed of these proposals by the time she left office in May 2016; and

·         That Greater Manchester councils have a long tradition of working together effectively where there is common agreement, and of working separately or in clusters where there is not common agreement.

This Council Meeting further notes:

·         That the Executive delegated the formulation and preparation of the GMSF to AGMA in March 2015 and that this council resolved to enter an agreement to jointly prepare the GMSF with the other Greater Manchester authorities in April 2015, in the expectation that an acceptable plan would be proposed;

·         That this council has a duty under Section 33a of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to cooperate with other planning authorities; and that this duty was fulfilled in developing our current Local Plan and has been fulfilled by neighbouring authorities outside of Greater Manchester without the need for a joint process for developing each Local Plan; and

·         That, at its last meeting on 1st December 2016, this council approved a report which set out the process to formally commence work on a review of the existing development plan documents and to commence work on a new Local Plan for the borough, which explicitly noted that Stockport’s Local Plan would only sit alongside the GMSF if the GMSF were to be adopted (paragraph 3.4).

This Council Meeting therefore resolves to ask the Executive Leader to

·         Make arrangements to ensure that the GM Spatial Framework does not apply to Stockport,

·         make arrangements to comply with the duty to cooperate with other planning authorities; and

·         pursue Stockport’s own Local Plan.

AMENDMENT MOVED AND SECONDED - This Council Meeting notes:

·         That all councils are required by government to have a Local Plan which identifies land for housing, offices and industry; Stockport’s current Development Plan which was adopted by the Council in 2011 comprises of the Core strategy as well as retained policies from the 2006 UDP Review;

·         That the proposed Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is the approach approved and entered into by the former Liberal Democrat Executive to fulfilling this requirement back in 2014;

·         That the GMSF is a 20-year plan, requiring a third more housing land to be identified than would be required by a 15-year plan, as produced by many other Local Authorities, and is based upon growth assumptions over such a long period which cannot be verified for either a 15 or 20 year plan;

·         That the initial first draft GMSF proposals highlight the need for significant improvements in transport infrastructure, the provision of health care and schools alongside the release of green belt in Stockport;

·         That residents of Stockport have engaged extensively in the consultation and that the consultation was extended into January 2017 following representation and concerns from residents, MP’s, locally elected members and Council leaders;

·         That residents and elected members have raised a number of concerns about the initial draft of the GMSF especially around infrastructure provision, housing need and the significant proposed loss of green belt;

·         That it welcomes the support from Andrew Gwynne MP for Denton & Reddish, Anne Coffey MP for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.(i)

At 7.47 pm it was

RESOLVED – That the meeting be adjourned.

The meeting reconvened at 8.00 pm

The Council Meeting then proceeded to debate the amendment.

Upon the amendment being put to the vote:-

For the amendment 39, against 18, abstentions 2.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

The amendment was then put as the substantive motion and it was

RESOLVED – (39 for, 18 against, 2 abstentions) This Council Meeting notes:

·         That all councils are required by government to have a Local Plan which identifies land for housing, offices and industry; Stockport’s current Development Plan which was adopted by the Council in 2011 comprises of the Core strategy as well as retained policies from the 2006 UDP Review;

·         That the proposed Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) is the approach approved and entered into by the former Liberal Democrat Executive to fulfilling this requirement back in 2014;

·         That the GMSF is a 20-year plan, requiring a third more housing land to be identified than would be required by a 15-year plan, as produced by many other Local Authorities, and is based upon growth assumptions over such a long period which cannot be verified for either a 15 or 20 year plan;

·         That the initial first draft GMSF proposals highlight the need for significant improvements in transport infrastructure, the provision of health care and schools alongside the release of green belt in Stockport;

·         That residents of Stockport have engaged extensively in the consultation and that the consultation was extended into January 2017 following representation and concerns from residents, MP’s, locally elected members and Council leaders;

·         That residents and elected members have raised a number of concerns about the initial draft of the GMSF especially around infrastructure provision, housing need and the significant proposed loss of green belt;

·         That it welcomes the support from Andrew Gwynne MP for Denton & Reddish, Anne Coffey MP for Stockport, Mary Robinson MP for Cheadle and William Wragg MP for Hazel Grove who have spoken in Parliament on behalf of constituents and highlighted and questioned a number of issues and raised concerns within the draft GMSF;

·         That Stockport residents should be congratulated for their full and robust examination of the opportunities and challenges that the GMSF highlights in its current format, especially on the areas of green belt;

·         That the GMSF proposals were developed by AGMA whose meetings were attended by the former Liberal Democrat councillor who was Leader of the Council at that time. The former Liberal Democrat Leader of Stockport Council  was appointed by AGMA as the Lead Councillor across Greater Manchester for Planning & Housing with responsibilities which included the plan to develop the GMSF proposals;

·         That Greater Manchester councils have a long tradition of working together effectively where there is common agreement, and of working separately or in clusters where there is not common agreement; and

·         That the newly elected Labour Executive and Stockport Councillors continue to support this approach.

This Council Meeting further notes:

·         That the former Liberal Democrat Executive instructed Stockport Council Officers to work on the formulation and preparation of the GMSF for AGMA in March 2015 and that this Council resolved to enter an agreement to jointly prepare the GMSF with the other Greater Manchester authorities in April 2015, in the expectation that an acceptable plan would be proposed after two complete rounds of consultation;

·         That this council has a duty under Section 33a of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to cooperate with other planning authorities; and that this duty was fulfilled in developing our current Development Plan created in 2011. It has also been fulfilled by neighbouring authorities outside of Greater Manchester without the need for a joint process for developing each Local Plan; and

·         That, at its last meeting on 1st December 2016, this Council approved work to begin on Stockport’s Local Plan. The Local Plan needs to be developed irrespective of whether GMSF goes forward and in what form, and is necessary to produce the evidence base for future planning strategy irrespective of the GMSF.

This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.(i)

This Council meeting notes with great concern that:

·           The Government has recently changed the guidance to the Building Regulations, Fires in School Buildings Bulletin 100 (BB100), which no longer requires the installation of fire suppression systems (sprinklers) be fitted into new schools and those under-going major refurbishment.

·           The guidance published by the Department for Education to show how new school buildings can be built in such a way as to reduce the risk of fire and to ensure the safety of pupils, staff and visitors if a fire occurs, is now non-statutory.

·           The main objective of the Revised BB100 is to simplify the guidance. However, the process has removed the expectation that all new schools (except for low risk schools) will be protected from fire with automatic sprinklers.

·           There were more than 600 fires in British schools last year, with Arson suspected in 40% of cases. Each large fire creates an average of £1.5million and as much as £2.8million worth of damage.

·           Government cuts of £28million over the last six years have meant a reduction of over 400 firefighters from the front line in Greater Manchester. Currently Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority faces a further Government budget cut of £14.4million over the next four years.

·           The benefits of Fire Suppression, which were extensively and emphatically documented in the foreword of the previous BB100 by the then Minister of State for Schools have been erased from the revised BB100, with no mention made of sprinklers at all. This has taken place at a time when new schools in Scotland and Wales will have automatic sprinklers installed.

·           There has been no advance notification or formal consultation prior to the indication of this change which is strongly rejected by the Fire Sector, the Fire Sector Federation, the Fire Protection Association and the Arson Prevention Bureau.

This Council meeting believes that:

·           The safety of young people and schools’ staff is paramount.

·           Uninterrupted learning in schools is an essential part of a child’s education and should not be jeopardised by a short-term objective to build schools cheaply.

·           This change is remarkably out of step with the rest of Great Britain. In Scotland and Wales new schools are fitted with sprinklers. Children in England should not be educated in schools with a lower safety standard than those in our neighbouring devolved administrations.

·           The new guidance is a retrograde step. Sprinkler systems save lives, they prevent fires from spreading and from causing significant disruption to children’s education. This view is shared by the Chief Fire Officers Association, the Local Government Association, the Fire Sector Federation, the Fire Protection Association and the Arson Prevention Bureau.

·           This change of policy is a false economy as the cost of increased insurance premiums and the damage caused by fire outweighs that of the installation of sprinklers. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has concluded that the cost of installing a sprinkler system can be recouped in fewer than ten years following a fire.

·           Fred Perry House and the new Stockport Homes buildings are fitted with fire suppression systems – children and teaching staff deserve the same level of protection as Council employees, Councillors and partner organisations.

·           Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority are coming under increasing pressure to deal with major incidents.

This council meeting further resolves to:

·           Ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Education, informing her that Stockport Council strongly objects to the removal of the requirement to install fire suppression systems (sprinklers) into new schools and those under-going major refurbishment from the Fires in School Buildings Bulletin 100.

·           Call on the Government to reconsider its position and reintroduce the guidance to Building Bulletin 100 with regard the installation of Fire Sprinkler Systems into new school buildings.

·           Call on other Local Authorities to consider requesting that the Government reconsiders this important matter.

Moved by:                 Councillor Dean Fitzpatrick                     

Seconded by:           Councillor Walter Brett

In accordance with the provisions of Council Meeting Procedure Rule 14.7 (Alteration of Motion) at the request of the mover of the motion the Council Meeting gave its consent to the alteration of the motion as tabled to incorporate an alteration which had been published and circulated in advance of the meeting.

RESOLVED - This Council Meeting notes with great concern that:

·           The Government has recently changed the guidance to the Building Regulations, Fires in School Buildings Bulletin 100 (BB100), which no longer requires the installation of fire suppression systems (sprinklers) be fitted into new schools and those under-going major refurbishment.

·           The guidance published by the Department for Education to show how new school buildings can be built in such a way as to reduce the risk of fire and to ensure the safety of pupils, staff and visitors if a fire occurs, is now non-statutory.

·           The main objective of the Revised BB100 is to simplify the guidance. However, the process has removed the expectation that all new schools (except for low risk schools) will be protected from fire with automatic sprinklers.

·           There were more than 600 fires in British schools last year, with Arson suspected in 40% of cases. Each large fire creates an average of £1.5million and as much as £2.8million worth of damage.

·           Government cuts of £28million over the last six years have meant a reduction of over 400 firefighters from the front line in Greater Manchester. Currently Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority faces a further Government budget cut of £14.4million over the next four years.

·           The benefits of Fire Suppression, which were extensively and emphatically documented in the foreword of the previous BB100 by the then Minister of State for Schools have been erased from the revised BB100, with no mention made of sprinklers at all. This has taken place at a time when new schools in Scotland and Wales will have automatic sprinklers installed.

·           There has been no advance notification or formal consultation prior to the indication of this change which is strongly rejected by the Fire Sector, the Fire Sector Federation, the Fire Protection Association and the Arson Prevention Bureau.

This Council Meeting believes that:

·           The safety of young people and schools’ staff is paramount.

·           Uninterrupted learning in schools is an essential part of a child’s education and should not be jeopardised by a short-term objective to build schools cheaply.

·           This change is remarkably out of step with the rest of Great Britain. In Scotland and Wales new schools are fitted with sprinklers. Children in England should not be educated in schools with a lower safety standard than those in our neighbouring devolved administrations.

·           The new guidance is a retrograde step. Sprinkler systems save lives, they prevent fires from spreading and from causing significant disruption to children’s education. This view is shared by the Chief Fire Officers Association, the Local Government Association, the Fire Sector Federation, the Fire Protection Association and the Arson Prevention Bureau.

·           This change of policy is a false economy as the cost of increased insurance premiums and the damage caused by fire outweighs that of the installation of sprinklers. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has concluded that the cost of installing a sprinkler system can be recouped in fewer than ten years following a fire.

·           New Stockport council affiliated buildings such as the new Stockport Homes buildings are fitted with fire suppression systems – children and teaching staff deserve the same level of protection as Council employees, Councillors and partner organisations.

·           Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority are coming under increasing pressure to deal with major incidents.

This Council Meeting further resolves to:

·           Ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Education, informing her that Stockport Council strongly objects to the removal of the requirement to install fire suppression systems (sprinklers) into new schools and those under-going major refurbishment from the Fires in School  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.(ii)

This Council Meeting notes: 

·           That alcohol can be enjoyed in a responsible way by adults. 

·           That alcohol can cause serious and fatal diseases, including several types of cancers; that the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Alcohol Guidelines advise both men and women that it is safest not to drink regularly more than 14 units per week, to keep health risks from drinking alcohol to a low level

·           That there were over 7,300 hospital admissions attributable to alcohol in Stockport in the year 2014/15, a figure which has risen 11% from 2012/13.

·           That alcohol can only be legally purchased by adults over 18 years old. 

·           That the advertising of alcohol is designed to make products more appealing and in turn can appeal to children and young people.

·           That the Science Committee of the European Alcohol and Health Forum concluded in 2009 that “alcohol marketing increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to use alcohol and to drink more if they are already using alcohol”.

·           That recent Healthier Futures/Alcohol Health Alliance public opinion survey found 73% support in Greater Manchester for a 9pm watershed for alcohol adverts on TV.

·           That the recent public engagement campaign ‘See What Sam Sees’ by Healthier Futures, talked with over 200 people across Greater Manchester and received overwhelming support for a 9pm watershed from the Greater Manchester public. 

This Council believes: 

·           That it is the responsibility of all levels of government to try to ensure good public health in the population. 

·           Pre-watershed advertising and glamorising of alcohol consumption on TV can impact public health negatively, particularly among the young.

This Council resolves to: 

·           Request the Leader of the Council to write the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, expressing these views and asking her to bring forward legislation to introduce a 9pm watershed for the advertising of alcohol products on TV to protect children and young people from the influence of alcohol advertising.

·           To continue to promote good health in our borough, to support the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Alcohol Guidelines, and to protect children and adults from alcohol-related harm.

Moved by:                  Councillor Colin Foster

Seconded by:           Councillor Elise Wilson

RESOLVED - This Council Meeting notes:

·         That alcohol can be enjoyed in a responsible way by adults.

·         That alcohol can cause serious and fatal diseases, including several types of cancers; that the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Alcohol Guidelines advise both men and women that it is safest not to drink regularly more than 14 units per week, to keep health risks from drinking alcohol to a low level

·         That there were over 7,300 hospital admissions attributable to alcohol in Stockport in the year 2014/15, a figure which has risen 11% from 2012/13.

·         That alcohol can only be legally purchased by adults over 18 years old.

·         That the advertising of alcohol is designed to make products more appealing and in turn can appeal to children and young people.

·         That the Science Committee of the European Alcohol and Health Forum concluded in 2009 that “alcohol marketing increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to use alcohol and to drink more if they are already using alcohol”.

·         That recent Healthier Futures/Alcohol Health Alliance public opinion survey found 73% support in Greater Manchester for a 9pm watershed for alcohol adverts on TV.

·         That the recent public engagement campaign ‘See What Sam Sees’ by Healthier Futures, talked with over 200 people across Greater Manchester and received overwhelming support for a 9pm watershed from the Greater Manchester public.

This Council believes:

·         That it is the responsibility of all levels of government to try to ensure good public health in the population.

·         Pre-watershed advertising and glamorising of alcohol consumption on TV can impact public health negatively, particularly among the young.

This Council resolves to:

·         Request the Leader of the Council to write the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, expressing these views and asking her to bring forward legislation to introduce a 9pm watershed for the advertising of alcohol products on TV to protect children and young people from the influence of alcohol advertising.

·         To continue to promote good health in our borough, to support the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Alcohol Guidelines, and to protect children and adults from alcohol-related harm.

This Council Meeting notes:

·        That the council has previously recognised the potential of HS2 to ‘significantly reduce the effects of the North/South divide and bring huge regeneration benefits to Stockport’ (as part of a motion moved by Councillor Craig Wright on 28 November 2013.

·        That Phase 2b (from Crewe to Manchester has been estimated to deliver over £52bn in total benefits of which £21bn comes from faster journey times and around £16bn from improving capacity and other benefits.

·        That news the government now plans to complete Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe section) by 2027, announced 16/11/2016, is highly welcome.

·        However, that Government documents released on 15 November 2016 including the HS2b Command Paper, Strategic Outline Business Case, Economic Case, Financial, commercial and management cases all appear not to mention classic compatible train stops in Stockport beyond 2033.

·        That if Stockport is not included in HS2 plans through ‘classic compatibles’ the extent of the above economic benefits to Stockport could be significantly curtailed.

This Council believes:

·        That, as the southern gateway to Greater Manchester, Stockport clearly warrants a clear part in HS2 plans, through ‘classic compatible’ connectivity to the HS2 network beyond 2033.

·        That the relevant parties (Department for Transport, TfGM, HS2 Ltd, and Transport for the North) should deliver a clear statement on Stockport’s status within HS2b plans, and the running of ‘classic compatibles’ through Stockport Station.

This Council resolves to:

·        Request the Chief Executive of the Council to write to the Secretary of Transport and to the Chief Executive of HS2 Ltd expressing these views and asking for a clear statement on the position of Stockport in relation to classic compatible connectivity within phase 2b of the HS2 programme.

·        Request the Chief Executive of the Council to seek the support of TfGM and Transport for the North to maintain Stockport’s HS2 link beyond 2033.

·        Request the Chief Executive of the Council to write to Stockport’s four Members of Parliament (Ann Coffey, William Wragg, Mary Robinson and Andrew Gwynne) to seek their support in this matter.

Moved by:                  Councillor Kate Butler

Seconded by:            Councillor Alex Ganotis

RESOLVED - This Council Meeting notes:

·         That the council has previously recognised the potential of HS2 to ‘significantly reduce the effects of the North/South divide and bring huge regeneration benefits to Stockport’ (as part of a motion moved by Councillor Craig Wright on 28 November 2013.

·         That Phase 2b (from Crewe to Manchester has been estimated to deliver over £52bn in total benefits of which £21bn comes from faster journey times and around £16bn from improving capacity and other benefits.

·         That news the government now plans to complete Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe section) by 2027, announced 16/11/2016, is highly welcome.

·         However, that Government documents released on 15 November 2016 including the HS2b Command Paper, Strategic Outline Business Case, Economic Case, Financial, commercial and management cases all appear not to mention classic compatible train stops in Stockport beyond 2033.

·         That if Stockport is not included in HS2 plans through ‘classic compatibles’ the extent of the above economic benefits to Stockport could be significantly curtailed.

This Council believes:

·         That, as the southern gateway to Greater Manchester, Stockport clearly warrants a clear part in HS2 plans, through ‘classic compatible’ connectivity to the HS2 network beyond 2033.

·         That the relevant parties (Department for Transport, TfGM, HS2 Ltd, and Transport for the North) should deliver a clear statement on Stockport’s status within HS2b plans, and the running of ‘classic compatibles’ through Stockport Station.

This Council resolves to:

·         Request the Chief Executive of the Council to write to the Secretary of Transport and to the Chief Executive of HS2 Ltd expressing these views and asking for a clear statement on the position of Stockport in relation to classic compatible connectivity within phase 2b of the HS2 programme.

·         Request the Chief Executive of the Council to seek the support of TfGM and Transport for the North to maintain Stockport’s HS2 link beyond 2033.

·         Request the Chief Executive of the Council to write to Stockport’s four Members of Parliament (Ann Coffey, William Wragg, Mary Robinson and Andrew Gwynne) to seek their support in this matter.

To consider a report of Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance).

The Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance) (Councillor David Sedgwick) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the Council’s approach to pay policy in accordance with the requirements of Section 38 of the Localism Act 2011.

RESOLVED – That the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2017/18 be confirmed and published in accordance with the Localism Act 2011.

To consider a report of Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance).

The Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance) (Councillor David Sedgwick) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the proposed Business Programme for the municipal years 2017/18 and 2018/19.

RESOLVED - That the Business Programme for the municipal years 2017/18 and 2018/19 be approved and adopted.

To consider a report of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

In accordance with the provisions of Council Meeting Procedure Rule 14.7 (Alteration of Motion) at the request of the mover of the motion the Council Meeting gave its consent to the alteration of the motion as tabled to incorporate an alteration which had been published and circulated in advance of the meeting.

The Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance) (Councillor David Sedgwick) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing a number of amendments to the Members’ Allowances Schemes following the receipt of the recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel.

RESOLVED - (1) That Recommendation One of the Independent Remuneration panel be not be accepted and that the rate of the basic allowance remain at the current level of £9,925.84.

(2) That all of the remaining recommendations be approved and adopted save that where these have been expressed as a monetary value as well as a proportion of the basic allowance, the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to recalculate these amounts to reflect the change to the base value of the basic allowance approved at (1) above.

(3) That the Deputy Chief Executive be requested to publish the necessary public notices to give effect to the revisions to the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

To consider a report of the Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance).

The Executive Councillor (Reform & Governance) (Councillor David Sedgwick) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the proposed polling arrangements for the Greater Manchester Mayoral Elections on 4 May 2017.

RESOLVED – That the polling arrangements for the Greater Manchester Mayoral Elections on 4 May 2017 as detailed within the report be approved and adopted.