Agenda item

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 Deputy Mayor and Councillors on any matters within the powers and duties of the Council.

11 public questions were submitted as follows:-

·         Relating to why it was proposed to increase the percentage of funding withheld from early years’ nursery education.

The Cabinet Member for Education (Councillor Dean Fitzpatrick) responded that the early years national funding formula model that was introduced in April 2017 determined the overall early years allocation provided to each local authority.  It was stated that Stockport was allocated £4.30 per hour which represented the national floor level, and that in order to ensure the overall budget remained sustainable the Council could not allocate more than that to providers via the local early years single funding formula model.

·         Relating to the Care Quality Commission having recently rated Stockport’s care homes as the most inadequate in England and whether this had anything to do with staffing levels.

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care (Councillor Wendy Wild) responded that the Council had a Quality Improvement Team working directly with providers both in relation to care homes and the support offered to people in their own homes.  It was stated that through this work over the last year, which had been undertaken in partnership with providers, the overall situation had improved significantly such that there had been an increase in the number of nursing homes which were rated as good or outstanding increasing from 40% to 66% and was now above the average across Greater Manchester.

·         Relating to proposals to impose parking charges on the upper area of the car park at Romiley Railway Station and what the likely outcomes of this proposal would be for rail travellers and the residents of nearby streets.

Councillor Lisa Smart responded that the aim of the proposal was to generate income, but that the impact of introducing charges had not been fully considered.  Councillor Smart stated she had previously raised this issue at a meeting of the Corporate, Resource Management & Governance Scrutiny Committee at which she had been assured that there would be a consultation undertaken with stakeholder groups.  Councillor Smart expressed her concern that the proposal would discourage people from using Romiley Railway Station and encourage commuters to park on residential streets in the vicinity.

·         Relating to what the Council was planning to do to address the rise in hate crime in the Borough.

The Leader of the Council  and Cabinet Member for Policy, Finance & Devolution (Councillor Alex Ganotis) responded that since the tragic events earlier this year at the Manchester Arena, there has been a rise in hate crime across Greater Manchester and that this had followed a similar pattern to the rise seen following the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.  It was stated that there had been significant work led by Greater Manchester within the ten districts, which included activity by Stockport Council and its partners to respond to this threat ranging from coordinated response activity to raising awareness and championing inclusion.  The Council was working closely with Greater Manchester Police and within communities to tackle hate crime through a multi-agency partnership.  A dedicated fund was also established to support local community groups to undertake activities which specifically addressed hate crime.

·         Relating to what the Council planned to do to address increases in domestic violence, rape incidents in a domestic environment and child sexual exploitation inside a domestic violence environment in Stockport.

The Leader of the Council  and Cabinet Member for Policy, Finance & Devolution (Councillor Alex Ganotis) responded that this was an area of priority for the Council and that he would respond further in writing to the questioner in relation to the activities of the Council in this area.

·         Relating to the potential A6 to M60 Relief Road and the predicated reductions in journey times contained within the Strategic Outline Business Case and whether this was worth the loss of greenspace within the Goyt Valley.

Councillor Richard Coaton responded that he could not accept that a 43 second per hour saving in journey time outlined in the Strategic Outline Business Case would justify the building of any new road.  Councillor Coaton further stated that increases in road traffic would further erode this journey saving.  It was further stated that the construction of the relief road would result in irreparable damage to the Goyt Valley and Poise Brook Valley.

·         Relating to why variable demand modelling recommended by the Department for Transport for schemes costing in excess of £5 million had not been used within the Strategic Outline Business Case.

The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration (Councillor Kate Butler) responded that while variable demand modelling was required by the Department for Transport, it was not necessary at this stage of the development of the business case for the relief road.

·         Relating to how the Council would fund the required £500,000 to match government funding for developing the A6 to M60 Relief Road scheme.

The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration (Councillor Kate Butler) responded that the Council would not divert funding away from the provision of Council services to pay for the next phase of the business case development.  It was stated that the Council would seek funding from the government for any further development of the scheme.

·         Relating to why the people of the Offerton Estate and the Bosden Farm Estate should accept a bypass running through the middle of where they lived which would deprive the children of the area of fields and woods and which would run adjacent to five schools.

Councillor Laura Booth responded that she was both a local resident and a governor of a school adjacent to the proposed route of the A6 to M60 Relief Road.  Councillor Booth further stated that she also understood the concerns of those who were currently affected by heavy congestion and who hoped that the bypass would get built.  However, she commented that she had very serious concerns about the potential impact of the road and was concerned whether the costs of the scheme which included the loss of open spaces and a potential increase in congestion and pollution in certain areas were worth paying for the benefits which may be an overall reduction in congestion and pollution.

·         Relating to why there was no further information within the A6 to M60 Relief Road Strategic Outline Business Case about the operation of the bypass itself, such as how much traffic there would be on it.

The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration (Councillor Kate Butler) responded that the Strategic Outline Business Case represented the first stage in a lengthy process and contained the information that was required by the Department for Transport.

·         Relating to whether Councillor Bailey would look to social rent rather than rent convergence and the use of the 80% market rent within the Housing Revenue Account Rents Policy.

The Cabinet Member for Communities & Housing (Councillor Sheila Bailey) responded that rent restructuring concluded in 2014/15 and in 2015/16 the government changed the policy and the rents were changed from retail price index plus 0.5% as a method of increasing them to CPI plus 1%.  In 2016/17, the policy was further changed to reduce social and affordable rents by 1% in each of the next four years, and in the fifth year the rent settlement would return to CPI plus 1% percent for five years from 2021 to 2025.  Councillor Bailey further stated that she agreed that the majority of available housing for rent in Stockport provided by the Local Authority should be for social rent.

Five further public questions had been submitted where the questioner was not present at the meeting and in accordance with the Code of Practice, the Chief Executive was requested to respond to the questioners in writing.