Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Executive Councillors on any matters within the powers and duties of the Executive, 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 put questions to the Executive on any matters within its powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
11 questions were submitted. Four of the questions had been submitted by members of the public who were not present at the meeting. The Chair confirmed that, in accordance with the Code of Practice, written responses would be provided to these questions.
(1) The first question asked what compensatory measures had been discussed and the timescale for their implementation, in connection with the proposed disposal of open space in Brinnington (see Minute 7 below).
In response the Executive Councillor (Support & Governance) stated that discussions were ongoing between the Council and the Friends of Reddish Vale regarding the compensatory measure and consideration was being given to the Group’s suggestion of replacement toilets at Reddish Vale Visitors Centre, the estimated cost of which was £60,000 - £70,000. The provisions of the Development Agreement underpinning the disposal of these sites meant that the monies to be paid to the Council would be in stages as the project progresses, so resources for the compensatory works would not be available immediately. The Council was therefore exploring the feasibility of ‘front funding’ these works to avoid significant delays. It was emphasised that at this stage it could not be cannot guaranteed that the Council would be able to carry out the works prior to the receipt of the first payment from the developer.
(2) The second question sought clarity on why the Investing in Stockport Business Case for Public Realm and Solutions SK made no reference to staffing reductions in Reddish Vale Country Park, what the significance was of references to ‘Key Parks’ and what bearing this had on the status of the Country Park.
In response, the Executive Councillor (Supporting Places) stated that no reference had been made to staffing in the Country Park as there were no proposals to alter this. It was also clarified that the term ‘Key Parks’ had no significance beyond the Business Case and was simply to identify the fact some parks would be affected.
(3) The third question referred to the Marple Place and Underbanks Proposals report (see Minute 6 below) and asked what consultation would be undertaken over the proposed move of the Market, including who would administer and evaluate the consultation.
In response, the Executive Councillor (Thriving Economy) stated that the Council had already undertaken some consultation with Traders, and was committed to ongoing dialogue and engagement with Traders and other interested parties as the details of the proposals were developed. The Executive Councillor gave an assurance that a timeline for consultation would be provided and that he was committed to ensure that these proposals would be developed promptly to remove uncertain for traders. It was also stated that the Council had already worked with particular traders to discuss their potential relocation options.
(4) The fourth question asked if the Council would produce a further detailed report on the possibility of keeping the market in the Market Place and improving it in its present location with the emphasis on a new start for Stockport Market.
The Executive Councillor (Thriving Economy) responded by stating that the Council had previously commissioned and implemented the Market Improvement Plan, which aimed at improving the market in its current location. Although significant improvement had been achieved, this had not stopped the decline of the market. As a result, the Council was now proposing an alternative location for the existing market traders. Specific proposals would be subject to a detailed business case that would be presented to the Executive for decision. It was further stated that the Council was committed to enhancing the market as this was a key element in promoting and enhancing the vibrancy of Stockport.
(5) The fifth question asked why the Council was supporting the establishment of a Mayor for Greater Manchester when voters had previously rejected this option, and whether it was appropriate for Council leaders to have as much power as they did when sitting on the GMCA in light of the relatively limited number of electors who vote for a councillor in comparison to the total electorate for that area.
In response, the Leader of the Council clarified that although there had been referenda on the establishment of mayors for Salford and for Manchester, these were for mayors for those cities only, not for Greater Manchester (GM) as a whole. The model for GM was very different to that eventually adopted in Salford, and the Greater London model, as the GM Combined Authority (GMCA) was answerable to the 10 local authorities.
The Leader of the Council accepted that no leader of a council was elected by more than one ward of their constituent authority, but that all members of the Council had to elect the leader from their number, thereby giving them a greater mandate, but also being answerable to them.
As to why the proposal for a GM Mayor was not subject to a referendum, it was further answered that the Mayoral model was a condition of the devolution of additional powers and funding to the GMCA from central Government, and that what was proposed was not for local authorities to relinquish powers to the GMCA/ Mayor. Given the significant challenges, poorer outcomes and inequalities faced by GM, and the opportunities to address these through devolution, ensuring better services and outcomes was of greater importance than structural questions.
(6) The sixth questions asked what the impact would be on service users and the NHS if the proposed targets for reducing demand on adult social care, as set out in the Investing in Stockport Business Case, were not met, particular for those people with a disability and older people.
In response, the Executive Councillor (Supporting Adults) reiterated that there were significant financial pressures on all public services, including the NHS, and that the only viable response was to seek to integrate social care and community health services. It was stated that Stockport had already made significant progress in this area through the development of Locality Hubs and that all partners had given an absolute commitment and were working hard to ensure the right support for vulnerable clients, and to protect them during the process of change.
(7) The seventh questions asked why information on the Council’s website indicated that the planning application for new housing in Brinnington (DC056554) was still within its consultation period when the application had been determined nine months previously.
In response the Executive Councillor (Thriving Economy) stated that the reason was because the legal agreement, known as a Section 106 agreement, between the Council as Planning Authority and the applicant had not yet been signed. It was hoped that this would be signed in the next month and at that point the website would be updated.