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 questions to the Cabinet on any matters within their powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Seventeen questions were submitted.
(1) Would any consultation on the possible A6-M60 bypass be similar to previous consultation by implying the bypass would alleviate congestion problems, rather than explaining the loss of greenspaces and projected increases in traffic, and would the Cabinet not agree that the consultation should be impartial?
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded that any public consultation on this matter would take place in the context of the full suite of current information that the Council had made available through the publication of the strategic outline business case and the supporting documents. By publishing this information the Cabinet was ensuring that all the information currently held about the scheme was available for everyone to view and consider, and the Cabinet’s aim was always to ensure engagement with residents on any issue was done in a fair and open manner, and this consultation would be no different.
(2) Would the Cabinet provide details of what the proposed technical appraisals of the A6-M60 bypass would cover; what would be done to overcome the inadequacies of the previous traffic modelling using origin-destination data, and whether further modelling should not wait until after the opening of the A6MARR as suggested in the Feasibility Study?
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration drew attention to the statements in the report, namely that the development of the business case for a major scheme of this kind evolved over time and information was updated as a scheme progressed from one business case stage to another to ensure that new and updated information (such as the impact of other new road schemes – e.g. A6MARR) was taken into account. This was essential given that it could take many years to develop a scheme’s business case.
In terms of the technical appraisals needed for the Outline Business Case to be submitted to government for consideration, the Cabinet Member stated that for Large Majors funding in June 2018, these would include an environmental scoping report and continued review and refinement of the technical analysis of the scheme, including such areas as flood risk and air quality. Further work would also be undertaken to refine the traffic modelling.
(3) Concern was expressed that the Council would not adequately reflect the views of those living along the proposed bypass route nor those signatories to the recent petition, so details were requested about how interested parties could contact the government’s Investment Committee to submit evidence.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that it had been made very clear throughout the recent debates on this issue that a major public consultation would be held in the New Year as part of the next stage of business case development and prior to any scheme bid being submitted to government in June 2018. This would be an opportunity for all residents and businesses in the borough to express their views on the scheme. This was one of the major reasons that further funding was being requested from government before any bid was submitted, to ensure that this public consultation could take place and a full consultation report be produced.
(4) Given the emphasis placed on openness and transparency by the Council, why had consultation on the proposed parking charges at Romiley Station only been via a statutory notice in the local newspaper and no efforts made to inform the public given the impact this would have on confidence from the wider community?
The Cabinet Member for Communities & Housing responded by stating that the statutory notice detailing the proposals was published in the Stockport Express on the 8 November 2017 through a full page notice. Outside of the statutory process the Council had canvassed opinion from local business forums, the Town Centre Business Improvement District Board and through the Council’s Scrutiny process. A representative from the Friends of Romiley Station had been engaging with officers since the start of the statutory consultation however local groups were not contacted directly. Officers were meeting with residents and interested groups in January 2018 to discuss alternative proposals to achieve the forecast increase in parking revenues.
In response to a supplementary question, the Cabinet Member undertook to respond to the questioner in writing with details of the engagement with the Friends of Romiley Station.
(5) What were the reasons for removing the ‘lower cost alternative’ bypass route from the Draft Outline Business Case, given reference to it in the appendices, and was removing reference to it the reason for the delay in the Business Case publication?
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that the ‘lower cost alternative’ case referenced in the Highways Forecasting and Analytical Services’ report referred to the ‘do minimum’ scenario described elsewhere in the appendices and not to a different route alignment. This alternative scenario was used in the modelling as a comparison against the proposed scheme to demonstrate impact on overall network performance, broad re-assignment impacts, and changes in journey times. As set out on page 32 of the appendix documents, the ‘do minimum’ scenario was based on highways schemes which have been completed since 2015; were in construction; had funding in place; were part of a Highways England programme; or were likely to be completed by the forecast years used in the modelling.
The supporting documents made available on the SEMMMS website alongside the draft strategic outline business case had been made available in order to enable scrutiny to take place. The Council had been very clear from the start that all the available information had been published for complete transparency about the information on this scheme. This documentation had not been separated from the business case and it was worth nothing that it would not be commonplace for a council to publish this level of information at such an early stage in the business case development process.
(6) What changes had been made to the current version of the Car Parking Strategy; who owned the NCP operated Merseryway Car Park and what was the current and projected income generation from this; who owned the Redrock car park; what measures were in place to protect current town centre car parking capacity from future pressure from further development plans; what mitigation measures were in place to support businesses affected by Town Centre redevelopment, and what lessons had been learned from the TCAP and Redrock redevelopment processes?
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded by stating that the changes to the document were set out in Section 5 of the covering report included in the agenda papers. Merseyway was referenced in appendix 1 of the Strategy as being owned by the Council but operated by NCP and was listed in the table of privately operated car parks. When reviewing income, the Council considered all car parks in the town centre, including Merseyway. Stockport Council owned Merseyway and Redrock Car Parks and they were managed by NCP.
The Cabinet Member emphasised that the Council had invested in Stockport Town Centre on an unprecedented scale over the last few years, with the recent opening of Redrock and high quality public realm adding to the success of the Exchange Square development. The Cabinet was continuing to be ambitious, this included support for the creation of a Business Improvement District, working with them to develop the Christmas offer; 500,000 people projected to visit Princes Street, the cinema and other attractions in the new Redrock development per year which was good news for all businesses, particularly those in the Town Centre.
The Cabinet Member recognised the difficulties for the retail sector, and whilst the development work would bring more people into Stockport it was recognised that the previous 12 months had brought upheaval for businesses on Princes Street, many of whom may already have been struggling with the challenging economy. The Council had worked to ensure that the work was complete well ahead of this Christmas. During the works, the Council had worked very closely with companies to provide mitigation, providing practical support such as increased signage, free car parking and access to expert business advisors. The Cabinet Member stated that she had asked that officers meet with businesses over the coming weeks to review how the project had been managed. It was important that the Council support the investment in Stockport by supporting businesses that were vital to the town centre.
The car park strategy had been developed to support the town centre’s needs and to provide a high class offer for all users, a key element of which was to identify additional locations to provide more car parking as demand increased in the near future. This would only happen because Stockport was thriving and would be a consequence of success. The Council would need to keep reviewing the balance of car park spaces and tariffs to ensure the vibrancy of the town centre.
(7) Was it not the case that the environmental impact assessment for the proposed A6-M60 bypass would only be undertaken once the Council were totally committed to the building of the road, and how could the Leader of the Council justify this in light of his environment portfolio with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the GM Mayor’s campaign pledged to protect and enhance green spaces?
In response, the Leader of the Council referred to the debate at the Council Meeting at which it was stated that further information was required to enable the Council to take an informed decision about whether or not to progress with the road. This includes further information about environmental impacts, hence the requirement for an environmental scoping report at the next stage. As had been set out in the report discussed at the Council Meeting, the development of these proposals and completion of the outline business case was at an early stage. Should a decision be taken on completion of the next outline business case stage, further review of the environmental impact of the scheme would be undertaken in developing the final business case and in applying for planning permission for the scheme. In addition, the Council had committed that a full public consultation would be taken at the next stage to enable all residents and businesses in Stockport, including those who have already raised concerned via a petition, to give their views on the principles of the scheme.
In relation to his Greater Manchester Combine Authority portfolio, the Leader reiterated that he had never called for the A6-M60 to be built, and that he had been clear that there was insufficient evidence to persuade him that it should be built. He had also been clear that the current level of traffic congestion, car emissions and air pollution was unacceptable and that something must be done, as well as ensuring everyone had access to good quality green space.
(8) Was the Director for Public Health correct when he stated at the Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee on 28 November 2017 that the proposed cuts to public health and social care budgets would have an adverse effect on the NHS, that ‘they would damage the health of the public, and at later meeting that the cuts would diminish the base-line upon which the transformational programme was built upon. If so, should the Council be considering such cuts?
The Cabinet Member for Health responded by highlighting that there had been no additional resources from the government in the recent Budget Statement and that the Council was facing the single largest reduction in its funding. Given that the Council had already done most of what it could to raise income it was required to look at other options. The consultation of the budget proposals for adult services and public health remained open until 22 December and feedback was welcomed. The proposals would be considered by the Cabinet in due course when difficult choices would need to be made.
The Leader of the Council emphasised the difference between Stockport Together and the pooled budget, and that the proposals needed to be seen within the context of efforts to integrate further health and social care to mitigate the financial risks facing the Council. The Leader also stated that he would ensure the Director of Public Health wrote to the questioner to clarify his position.
(9) Would the Cabinet Member for Communities & Housing agree that residents should be encouraged to visit district and town centres and whether she would work with councillors to abandon the proposed imposition/ increase in parking charges and maintain the free car park status to drive economic growth in Stockport instead of neighbouring authorities where parking remained free?
The Cabinet Member for Communities & Housing stated that she had already committed to discuss the issues with councillors in the New Year, but stated that the Council needed to find £18m in savings to set a balanced budget for 2018/19. She stated that she was willing to listen to any proposals for where the savings could be made, but the Cabinet was committed to protect front line services as far as possible.
(10) Given the commitment of the Cabinet to consult further on proposed changes to car parking charges, would the Cabinet commit to meeting with Marple North councillors to specifically in relation to Marple Bridge with a view to developing a proposal that would be acceptable to all?
In response, the Cabinet Member for Communities & Housing reiterated the response she gave to the previous question, namely she had already committed to discuss the issues with councillors in the New Year, but that the Council needed to find £18m in savings to set a balanced budget for 2018/19. She stated that she was willing to listen to any proposals for where the savings could be made, but the Cabinet was committed to protect front line services as far as possible.
The Leader of the Council reported that the questioners for the remaining seven questions were not present at the meeting so in accordance with the Code of Practice would receive written responses to their questions.