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 the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Five questions were submitted.
(i) Clarification was sought on the costs of the A6MARR scheme in light of differences between the figures quoted on the SEMMMS website (£290m) and those in the Mid-Year Corporate Performance & Resources Report (£224m), and when finalised figures for the scheme costs would be available.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that the overall budget allocation for the scheme was £290m, which would include detailed design, construction, mitigation measures, purchase of land and compensation to affected residents and landowners. It was anticipated that the latter elements would take several years to be finalised so the £224m referred to was the forecast for the current scheme costs and did not include outstanding matters such as compensation. The overall scheme allocation therefore remained £290m.
(ii) In relation to the A6MARR reference was made to comments posted online about the ongoing work connected to the road scheme and the lack of immediate impact of the road in improving traffic flow. Clarification was sought on what was proposed to address these issues and why the road had been opened with so many matters outstanding, including safety features.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration acknowledged that the opening of a road of this scale would have significant impact on traffic patterns as motorists adjusted to additional options for their journeys, but that the A6MARR project team was working closely with Greater Manchester Urban Transport Control to monitor the impact of the new signalised junctions and to make adjustments to maximise the efficiency of the junctions.
In relation to the A34, it was stated that works at this location were close to completion and that would assist traffic movements in the area. Specifically in relation to concerns about outstanding safety matters the Cabinet Member clarified that an independent assessment had been undertaken of the road prior to opening that had found no issues that would prevent that opening. She stated that the Council endeavoured to exceed national safety standards where it was right to do so and would address any concerns the operation of the new road brought to light.
(iii) Clarification was sought on the process for assessing the impact of the A6MARR and how this would inform the SEMMMS Refresh and what the timetable was for the final draft of the refreshed SEMMMS to be published.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration replied that there would be an assessment of the impact of the road one year after opening and further assessment after five years.
In relation to the SEMMMS Refresh it was stated that feedback on the consultation was being analysed and it was hoped to publish a final draft during the Winter, although the date for this was dependent on outside factors include the release of the next iteration of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
(iv) In relation to the implementation of Universal Credit in Stockport it was asked whether the Cabinet would propose a motion to the Council Meeting, similar to that proposed by the Cabinet of Leeds City Council, expressing concern about the impact of the programme and calling on the Government to stop the implementation.
In response the Leader of the Council said yes.
(v) In relation to the Greater Manchester Mayor’s ‘A Bed Every Night’ initiative, clarification was sought on whether there were more than two rooms available in Stockport, when this programme would commence and whether it would be external temperature dependent.
In response the Cabinet Member for Communities & Housing stated that the Council worked to prevent homelessness throughout the year and had a range of policies in place. While temporary accommodation was provided the Council worked with individuals to find permanent homes that would help them gain employment and access services.
The Cabinet Member refuted the suggestion that there were only two rooms available in Stockport and stated that there were three facilities and 20 self-contained flats available for short term tenancies available all year round. It was confirmed that the initiative was not temperature dependent. The work of Stockport Homes outreach services, who provided support to rough sleepers, was also highlighted.
It was stated that the winter programme of support was provided between November and March. Anticipating additional pressure on accommodation during the winter period, extra provision had been made available in both male and female hostels as well as mobile provision that could be called upon if necessary.
The Cabinet Member stated that no one should be sleeping rough at
any time of the year, but during Winer the lower temperatures made
rough sleepers more vulnerable and in greater need of support. She
gave an assurance that the Council and its partners had measures
and plans in place to provide that support.