Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2013.

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 19 September 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

Councillors and Officers were invited to declare any interests which they had in

any of the agenda items for the meeting.

The following interests were declared:-

Personal and Prejudicial Interests

(a)  Reference ED1552: A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road – Planning Application

                        (Executive Decision Record and report enclosed)

To consider the call-in of executive decision ED1552

(b)  To consider any further call-in items.

(a)  Reference ED1552: A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road – Planning Application

The Committee was informed that the Executive at its meeting held on 1 October 2013 had considered a report on the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road – Planning Application and had resolved:-

(1)  That approval be given to the preferred scheme for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road and the submission of the planning application, with approval of the final plans, planning submission and associated assessment documents being delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration); and

(2)  That in order to ensure the delivery of the Manchester Airport Relief Road, approval be given to the making of the necessary associated Compulsory Purchase Orders, side road orders and public rights of way changes, including diversions and changes of status from footpath to bridleway with detailed reports on these Orders being agreed with the Chief Executive and Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration).

The decision of the Executive had been ‘called in’ by Councillors William Wragg, Anthony O’Neill and John Smith.

Councillors William Wragg and John Smith explained their reasons for ‘calling-in’ the decision, namely that, although they were in favour of the overall scheme, they felt with regard to the proposed Junction 6 (Macclesfield Road) that Option 2 (underpass) should be pursued and not Option 1 (signalised junction) . The signalised junction would have a greater visual impact and increased noise, and there would be an adverse effect on air quality for those residents who lived close to the proposed junction. The councillors also expressed concerned about the traffic flow at the junction and the possibility of increased congestion as a result of the signalised junction, and its close proximity to the junction at Macclesfield Road (A523), Dean Lane and Mill Lane.

Two petitions containing 175 signatures from residents from a number of roads close to the proposed location of Junction 6 had been submitted to the meeting of the Stepping Hill Area Committee held on 9 July 2013. 95% of the signatories had stated their objection to the proposed junction (Option 1) and their preference for an underpass at this location (Option 2).

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         A Member felt that the consultation had shown a clear preference from local residents for an underpass at Junction 6 and he considered that the views of local residents had not been listened to properly.

·         Efforts had been made to minimise the visual and noise impact of the road.

·         A Member felt that more traffic would use the new road and dissipate the suggested congestion at the proposed Junction 6.

·         A Member expressed the view that the majority of the concerns about the proposed signalised Junction 6 were from residents who lived nearby. These concerns were not replicated by all the residents who lived in the area. The response overall from residents in Hazel Grove was in favour of the signalised junction.

·         There would be a greater impact on the Green Belt if the underpass option was pursued.

The Executive Councillor (Economic Development & Regeneration) (Councillor Iain Roberts) and the Service Director (Major Projects) responded to the issues raised. They advised that all the views had been listened to and a substantial amount of work had been undertaken to analyse the responses to the consultation. The proposed signalised junction had been put forward as the best option. The Scrutiny Committee had not previously disagreed with this proposal. Every effort had been made to minimise the visual and noise impact of the road with sound bunds and fencing being proposed as well as landscaping treatments. The anticipated traffic flows in the area had been modelled and traffic flows examined at all the junctions. The interaction between the proposed Junction 6 and the junction at Macclesfield Road (A523), Dean Lane and Mill Lane had been modelled and found to be low.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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

The report reviews the results of the consultation on proposed changes to the Council’s Residential Parking Policy.

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to comment on the revised policy.

Officer Contact: Megan Black on 0161 218 1410 or e mail: megan.black@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) reviewing the results of the consultation on proposed changes to the Council’s Residential Parking Policy to improve its consistency, ensure more enforcement and ensure the costs of the permit better reflected the costs of the schemes. The draft policy had been developed following an internal audit report and consultation on the existing policy and its implementation.

The report would be considered by the Executive at its meeting on 12 November 2013.

The Executive Councillor (Economic Development and Regeneration) (Councillor Iain Roberts) attended the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         A Member felt that the proposed charges would generate income for the Council rather than cover the cost of the service. He expressed concern that a flat rate charge was regressive as those from the lower socio-economic groupings were more likely to park on-street and so desire residents’ parking schemes. Another Member felt that those from the lower socio-economic groups should be financially supported by the Council as he considered that they were being penalised for something which was not their fault.

·         A Member expressed concern that existing free schemes (excluding Town Centre and Edgeley Park events zones) would only be left free until they needed refreshing which would be triggered by planned relining of the carriageway or planned (carriageway and/or footway) maintenance.

·         A Member felt that there should be more enforcement of existing free schemes.

·         A Member felt that the appeals mechanism should be reviewed in six or twelve months’ time.

·         The proposed charges were comparable with other local authorities.

·         Charges for public transport had been increasing for some time.

It was then

MOVED AND SECONDED

‘That this Scrutiny Committee

i)    Welcomes the decision not to introduce charging for the Edgeley Park Events Zones;

(ii)  Does not support imposing extra charges on residents given the squeeze on incomes from the cost of living crisis and the impact increasing permit costs will have on low income families and people on fixed incomes;

(iii) Does not support forcing residents with existing free schemes to move to chargeable schemes when necessary maintenance is needed on the carriageway and footways;

(iv) Regrets that more has not been done to investigate how the average £13,000 cost of creating a residents’ parking scheme could be reduced;

(v)  Regrets that residents will now fear that permit charges will rise year on year due to the decision to set charges through the Council’s Fees and Charges system from 1st April 2014;

(vi) Calls on the Executive to reject the Residential Parking Policy, as set out in Appendix 7, and to think again.

For the motion 3, against 3, abstentions 2

The Chair exercised his casting vote in favour the motion.

MOTION CARRIED

A recorded vote was requested in relation to the voting on this motion and the voting was recorded as follows:-

The councillors who voted for the motion were Councillors Richard Coaton, Philip Harding and David Sedgwick

The councillors who voted against the motion were Councillors Andrew Bispham, Kevin Hogg and Craig Wright.

The councillors who abstained were Councillors Syd Lloyd and John Smith.

It was then

RESOLVED – That the Executive be recommended to give consideration to the comments of the Scrutiny Committee and the following resolutions:-

This Scrutiny Committee

(i)   Welcomes the decision not to introduce charging for the Edgeley Park Events Zones;

(ii)  Does not support imposing extra charges on residents given the squeeze on incomes from the cost of living crisis and the impact increasing permit costs will have on low income families and people on fixed incomes;

(iii) Does not support forcing residents with existing free schemes to move to chargeable schemes when necessary maintenance is needed on the carriageway and footways;

(iv) Regrets that more has not been done to investigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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

The report seeks commitment to support the Bramall Hall and Park project during the project delivery phase (2014/15 to 2016/17) and for a sustained period (2017/18 to 2023/24) after the completion of the project.

The Scrutiny Committee’s views are requested.

Officer Contact: Peter Ashworth on 0161 88 9473 or e mail: peter.ashworth@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) seeking the Scrutiny Committee’s commitment to support the improvements to infrastructure and visitor and educational facilities at Bramall Hall and Park as part of a project part funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). The HLF grant was conditional on the Council committing to deliver enhanced learning and engagement activities following the completion of the project.

The report would be considered by the Executive at its meeting on 12 November 2013.

The Executive Councillor (Economic Development & Regeneration) (Councillor Iain Roberts) attended the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

RESOLVED- That the Executive Meeting be advised that the Scrutiny Committee supports the Bramall Hall and Park project during the project delivery phase (2014/15 to 2016/17) and for a sustained period (2017/18 to 2023/24) after the completion of the project.

To note the resume of the meeting held on 12 September 2013.

Officer contact: Charlotte Forrest on 0161 474 3208 or e mail: charlotte.forrest@stockport.gov.uk

The Scrutiny Committee considered a resume (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting of the Adult Education, Skills and Employability Partnership held on 12 September 2013.

RESOLVED – That the resume of the meeting held on 12 September 2013 be noted.

To note the resume of the meeting held on 2 October 2013

Officer contact: Charlotte Forrest on 0161 474 3208 or e mail: charlotte.forrest@stockport.gov.uk

The Scrutiny Committee considered a resume (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting of the Stockport Economic Alliance held on 2 October 2013.

RESOLVED – That the resume of the meeting held on 2 October 2013 be noted.

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager

The report sets out planned agenda items for the Scrutiny Committee’s next meeting and Forward Plan items that fall within the remit of the Scrutiny Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to consider the information in the report and put forward any agenda items for future meetings of the Committee.

Officer Contact: David Clee on 0161 474 3137 or e mail: david.clee@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the planned agenda items for the Committee’s next meeting and Forward Plan items which fell within the remit of the Scrutiny Committee.

 RESOLVED – That the report be noted.