Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Cabinet Members on any matters within the powers and duties of the Cabinet, 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 submit question to the Cabinet on any matters within its powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Five questions were submitted.
(1) The first question asserted that many residents in Offerton had only recently become aware of proposals for a dual carriageway bypass and that these people were shocked that the issue had progressed without the Council providing more information, suggesting that this demonstrated a lack of respect toward residents. The Cabinet was asked when the public would be given an opportunity to tell councillors how bad they felt a road would be for Offerton.
In response, the Leader of the Council clarified that the Council was not proposing any road scheme, but was examining whether a bypass between the A6 and M60 was justified. This would then form part of an outline Business Case, the outcome of which may be to start further investigations into the feasibility of such a proposal. Only after that further work was complete, and if funding was available, would the Council make a decision on whether or not to proceed to a planning application. These proposals would be subject to consultation, and the planning application would be subject to specific consultation.
The Leader confirmed that it was the anticipated that an outline Business Case would be considered at the next Cabinet Meeting in November, but that no final decisions would be taken on the proposal at this stage, not least because no funding was available. The Leader further acknowledged the concerns and objections to the possibility of the scheme from those in area, and stated that the public would be fully involved should the Council decide to proceed with the scheme.
Furthermore, the Leader stated that possibility of a bypass in this location was already in the public domain and had been so for many years, having been discussed for 70 years, and most recently as part of the recommendations from the South East Manchester Multi-Modal Study in 2001.
(2) The second question expressed concern that the A6-M60 Bypass Business Case would not be given sufficient time for proper examination prior to a decision being taken by the Cabinet. It was asked what opportunity there would be for the Council and its members to receive and consider comments and submissions on the Business Case, whether from transport experts or people in Offerton and elsewhere along the route who would be most directly affected.
The Leader of the Council reiterated that the Council was currently at the stage of developing a strategic outline business case that would not contain detailed proposals for a scheme, nor would it contain sufficient information to decide to proceed with a scheme. In the event that the Cabinet was to agree to move forward with a scheme, that would be subject to public consultation. The Leader confirmed that the Cabinet had not yet seen the outline business case.
(3) The third question asked the Cabinet not to build the A6-M60 bypass next to the questioner’s school.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration explained that the Cabinet made a number of important decisions, and that for those most important of these would be subject to public consultation. As part of the decision making process evidence was needed to inform that decision, and the information that would be in outline Business Case would not say whether the road scheme would be a good or bad idea.
The Cabinet Member further responded that the road scheme had been proposed for 70 years, but that the Council needed to be clear that this remained the right solution. The business case would provide lots of evidence both for and against the scheme, and it would be at that point that the Cabinet would decide whether or not to proceed with further investigation. If it chose to, there would be the opportunity to get involved before any further decision was taken. If that decision was taken then a planning application would be needed and there would again be opportunity for the public to provide their views.
(4) The fourth question acknowledged that the Council and the NHS were shortly to start a stakeholder consultation on shifting resources from the hospital and the way in which permanent hospital bed closures would be approved. Clarification was sought on how ordinary members of the public would learn about and access the consultation, and how bed closures would be addressed. It was further questioned whether the consultation would address whether bed closures would be made simultaneously with community service changes or after changes had become established and the effects assessed, and were these two different approaches not spelled out in the consultation whether it would be of value. Clarification was also sought as to why the Council was consulting on bed closures when the Deputy Leader of the Council had previously stated in the Council Meeting that the Council had no control over hospital beds.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Health confirmed that the consultation on Stockport Together would go live from the following week, the details of which would be on the Council, CCG and Stockport Together websites. There would also be opportunity for non-digital feedback to be received.
The Cabinet Member further responded that he had previously stated that Stockport Together partners would not remove bed capacity until such time as they were satisfied that community based services were in place and operating effectively. Since these statements were made, NHS England had adopted a similar principal and developed a process for making such changes.
The Cabinet Member confirmed that the Cabinet and partners would next be taking decisions early in the January 2018. The substance of these decisions would be about whether partners were able to shift resources from hospital based services into community based services.
The Cabinet Member further confirmed that the public were encouraged to engage with the consultation process, and particularly those who lived outside of Stockport but used and relied on Stockport based services, such as the Hospital.
A supplementary question was asked about whether the Council would do more to ensure a good engagement with the consultation as the previous ‘listening’ process had attracted only small numbers of people.
In response the Cabinet Member acknowledged the relatively small level of engagement, but that the aim of those events was to better understand the issues the public had so as to bring the main consultation process into sharper focus. He also stated that there was no way to force people to engage, and suggested that low attendance might be attributed to satisfaction with the proposals as much as it could be attributed to dissatisfaction.
(5) The Chair reported that in relation to the fifth question the questioner was not present and that in accordance with the Code of Practice a written response would be provided.