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.
(1) The first question asked why air quality monitoring was not being carried out at all the sites where legal limits had previously been exceeded, where information was available on what sites were being monitoring and what the readings were, and questioning whether the Council had a duty to monitor air quality widely, including where pollution limits were not currently being breached.
In response the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded by stating that air quality was coordinated by the Combined Authority and the Council undertook monitoring as part of the GM monitoring network. The Council undertook a range of air quality monitoring activities, both automatic (real-time) and non-automatic (diffusion tubes), across the borough. This extended beyond the 6 locations previously asked about specifically at the last meeting of Cabinet. A full list of monitoring sites in the borough was available on the Defra website. The Combined Authority was also upgrading the GreatAir website which would provide real time information on air quality across Greater Manchester. The data collected from the network was periodically used in a modelling exercise to predict where the air quality standards would be breached.
(2) The second question sought assurance that the planned A6MARR opening celebrations were not part of attempt to promote an A6M60 bypass and asked why the Council was threatening the Goyt Valley with the road proposals in the SEMMMS Refresh. It further asked why the SEMMMS Refresh referenced the environmental impact of the bypass yet still proposed it, and given that the Government had suggested the proposal was too expensive why the Council continued to build its transport policy around it.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration gave assurance that the A6MARR opening celebrations were to recognise the road being opened and are not related to the A6 to M60 Relief Road proposals. She further stated that, as has been explained at a number of recent Cabinet meetings, the Council had clearly voted to continue working on feasibility work for a possible road scheme, nothing more. The Government, in deciding not to fund that work, had given a clear steer and the Council was therefore not pursuing the scheme at this time.
The SEMMM Strategy Refresh was put out to public consultation early in the summer and a high level of feedback was received. The outcomes of the consultation continued to be analysed and a final version of the strategy would be put to the Cabinet later this year.
(3) The third question related to the bronze-age site under a car park used by contractors for the A6MARR workers at Woodford and asked why the site was not subject to protection and what had happened to the bronze-age site.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration replied by stating that during the construction of the A6MARR a team of archaeologists had been working to ensure archaeological evidence was appropriately recorded. Work has shown that the ring gully and associated empty grave and cremation found in autumn 2015 were in fact Bronze Age (2200-700BC) and the site may have been a funerary monument – not the Iron Age roundhouse archaeologists initially thought. The findings were passed to Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. A report was currently being produced which details the findings for the parts of the site which were subject to an archaeological watching brief which was expected to be available soon.
The Cabinet Member, in response to a supplementary question about the plans for the car park post completion of the road works, stated that she would provide a written response.
(4) The fourth question asked what the revised cost of the A6MARR scheme was since the A6M60 Business Case had estimated the costs of that scheme on the projected costs of the A6MARR, and if the information was not available to public clarity was sought on when it would be accessible.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that there had been no change to the estimated cost of the A6-M60 link road and an updated cost would be reflected in further feasibility work, although this was not being pursued at the moment because Government funding had not been provided.
In relation to the releasing of information on the A6MARR costs contained in the report on the agenda the legal advice was that this was commercially sensitive information, the disclosure of which may prejudice the Council’s position, and should therefore not be released at this stage although position may change in the future.
(5) The fifth question referred to an NHS consultation on Integrated Care Provider contracts and sought clarification on what the Council was doing to promote this consultation following statements made by the Leader at the Council Meeting in September.
In response, the Leader of the Council reiterated his response to the question asked at the Council Meeting which was that his interpretation of the policy of Integrated Care Providers was different to that of the questioner in that he did not see the intention as privatising the NHS nor removing free access to healthcare, and were that the case he would be opposed to them. The Leader also stated that he believed both health and social care services should be free at the point of delivery and that they should be publically run, democratically accountable and properly resourced and that this integration should have been done at the beginning of the NHS so as to have put social care on an equal footing as health care.
Specifically in relation to the Council’s activity in respect of the consultation, a press release had been issued and this had also been promoted through social media. The Leader also stated that a further round of promotion would take place in advance of the closing date of the consultation.