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 its powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Five questions were submitted.
(i) The first question referred to the 2013 Environmental Statement for A6MARR that identified 24 locations where air pollution exceed the limits, and asked how many of these locations had recently been monitored for air quality, what plans there were to monitoring the impact of the A6MARR on these locations in light of the law preventing actions that would cause exceedances or to worsen air quality in an Air Quality Management Area?
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that ongoing air quality monitoring was undertaken at Finney Lane, Kenilworth Road, Gorton Road, Bramhall Lane and along the A34 and A6. As set out in the A6MARR Monitoring and Evaluation Baseline Report, monitoring to assess the air quality impact of the A6MARR scheme would be undertaken one year after the road had opened. An offer was made to provide more technical detail if that was wanted.
(ii) The second question referred to previous commitments given by the Leader of the Council to only vote in favour of any finalised Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) if it was right for Stockport and if the majority of councillors in the no-overall control Council voted in favour. It further referred to the recent decision of the GMCA to change the GMSF from a Joint Development Plan that required consent of all 10 Greater Manchester councils to a Spatial Development Strategy that only required the consent of the Council Leaders and Greater Manchester Mayor. It was asked whether the Leader would reconfirm his commitment and that of his Cabinet that he would only vote in favour of the GMSF Plan if the majority of councillors agreed following a debate and vote at the Council Meeting?
In response, the Leader of the Council reconfirmed that commitment of the Labour Group for as long as they led the Council.
(iii) The third question asked for an explanation, given the controversial nature of GMSF and the disquiet of residents at the first iteration, of why the GMCA took the decision to change the nature of the GMSF from a Joint Development Plan to a Spatial Development Strategy, that would remove the vote of all ten member councils which many would consider to be an attempt to silence local elected members and to have been an undemocratic decision?
The Leader of the Council explained that when the GMSF process was initiated the only mechanism to achieve this was through a Joint Development Plan, and that the process would be led through AGMA as a joint committee of the 10 local authorities, with the final decision being taken by the 10 at the point of the Plan being ready for submission to the Secretary of State. However, since 2014 it was anticipated that there would be a change in regulations that would allow for such a plan to be a GMCA process, and this change came about in July of this year and would now allow the Combined Authority to allocate sites. The Leader stated that although it was always envisaged that the status of the Plan may change, he had wanted to give certainty to councillors that they would have meaningful input into the decision and hence his commitment for a debate and vote at the Council Meeting.
Specifically in relation to the rationale for the decision in principle to alter the status of the Plan, the Leader of the Council explained that the GMCA was under a duty to provide a spatial development strategy as required by the Devolution Agreement. This new strategy would sit between national policy and Local Plans, and give a context to that local work. This would provide a clearer relationship between the GMSF and Stockport’s Local Plan, whereas a joint development plan would be more confused as it was delegating powers to AGMA. Furthermore, it would restrict the scope of the GMSF to strategic matters (as defined by national planning policy) and thereby more clearly preserve the powers and autonomy of the local authorities. Finally, the Leader stated that while he believed the intention to change the status of the GMSF had been made clear by the GMCA for some time, his commitment to a Council Meeting vote on the final Plan would protect the decision making powers of councillors.
(iv) The fourth question asked, in the context of discussions at a recent scrutiny committee about accountable care organisations, why there had been recent changes in the leadership of the Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and what impact this would have on Stockport Together.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Health acknowledged that there had been changes in personnel at the CCG, as there had been in a number of organisations in the health and care economy in Stockport during the previous 12 months, including at the Council. Specifically in relation to the CCG, the Cabinet Member explained that when the current Chair gave notice of her intention to stand down the Board decided to review its governance arrangements, including the type of chair they may have in the future as Stockport was unusual in having a non-clinical chair. These changes coincided with others choosing to move on, and each person would have had their reasons for doing so.
In relation to Stockport Together the Cabinet Member emphasised that the Boards of all partners remained committed to the programme. The recent CQC local review final report had highlighted concerns about the governance of the Programme but partners were seeking to address those concerns.
(v) The fifth question highlighted references in reports on the agenda to performance at the Contact Centre and difficulties residents had in contacting the Council, and the implications of references in the MFTP Summer Review that this will become more difficult in the future or be more internet based. The question asked how this was reconciled with the stated aim to ‘improve customer experience’, how it would assist those with limited or no internet access, and how the promised ‘safety net’ would work for vulnerable residents unable to contact the Council to seek further support.
The Leader of the Council responded by emphasising the challenge of improving customer service in the context of dramatically reducing resources. The historic underinvestment in new technology was acknowledged although recent investment through Digital by Design and other Cabinet decisions had helped improved the situation. While contact centre performance was in line with the target of 79% of call answered, this nevertheless meant that 21% of calls had not been answered. The Business Cases the Cabinet would be publishing in September would outline the plans to invest in further improvements.
Specifically in relation to protecting the vulnerable, the Cabinet was seeking to free-up resources through investment to fund the more expensive interventions to support those who were not able to contact the Council through the website. These services would be co-produced with those residents to make them as effective as possible, and the feedback from Scrutiny Committees and the public to the budget consultation was vital to making sure those services would be fit for purpose.