Agenda item

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

This item covers two reports as follows;

·         Mid-Year Corporate Performance and Resources Report (CPRR) 2018/19

·         Mid-Year Leader’s Report 2018/19

The Mid Year Corporate Performance and Resource Report (CPRR) provides an update on progress in delivering the Council’s Priority Outcomes and budget during the first half of 2018/19, with a particular emphasis on the second quarter (July to Septmber).

The Leader’s Report reflects on significant achievements and challenges, key decisions at Greater Manchester level, along with areas of progress in delivering council priorities over the first half of the year.

These reports were considered and approved by Cabinet on 13 November 2018.

Scrutiny Committee is asked to:

·         Consider the Mid Year Reports;

·         Review the progress against delivering corporate objectives, key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2018/19;

·         Highlight key areas of and responsibility for taking forward corrective action to address any performance or resource issues;

·         Identify how areas of strong performance and good practice can be shared in other services.

Michael Cullen, Steve Skelton, 0161 474 4631 / 3174, michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk / steve.skelton@stockport.gov.uk

The Leader of the Council submitted the mid-year update Corporate Performance and Resources Report (CPRR) 2018/19 and the mid-year update Leader’s Report 2018/19 (copies of which had been circulated).

The Mid-Year Update Corporate Performance and Resource Report (CPRR) provided an update on progress in delivering the Council’s Priority Outcomes and budget during the first half of 2018/19 with particular focus on activity in the second quarter.

Updates were included on delivery of policy priorities, alongside Reform Projects. The report also included early forecasts of budget and performance data where this was available, along with an update on the refreshed Corporate Risk Register. It was supported by seven Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports which were being considered by scrutiny committees in the current Scrutiny cycle.

The Leader’s Annual Report reflected on significant achievements and challenges, key decisions at Greater Manchester level, along with areas of progress in delivering Council priorities over the first half of 2018/19.

It was reported that the reports had been considered and approved by Cabinet on 13 November 2018.

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Alex Ganotis) and the Cabinet Member for Reform & Governance (Councillor Elise Wilson) attended the meeting to present the report and answer councillors’ questions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:

·         Further information was requested in relation to references to non-cash limit surplus and capital financing costs. In response it was stated that these figures reflected a reduction in borrowing due to utilisation of cash balances instead. The Council was also borrowing short term at lower rates. It was confirmed that capital costs were adjusted in the MTFP Summer Review to make them permanent.

·         Clarification was sought on why it was proposed to undertake an 8 week rather than 12 week consultation on the next iteration of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. In response it was stated that the statutory requirement was for a 6 week consultation, so the proposed 8 weeks was longer than the requirement. The proposed timetable would also mean that the consultation would run up to election ‘purdah’. Officers were also awaiting the end of the Government consultation on housing need calculation methodology in early December.

·         Further detail was sought on the impact for Stockport of the GM Mayor’s Town Centre. In response the Leader stated that the programme had given focus to the Town Centre West initiative that had given rise to proposals for the first GM Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC). Another councillor expressed disappointment that the proposals only covered the west of the Town Centre rather than the whole of the area. In response assurance was given that the MDC would provide specific tools to address particular challenges in the Town Centre West area but this would not detract from wider efforts in the Town Centre that included significant redevelopment of the Bus Station.

·         Clarification was sought on the value of the Manchester Airport Group dividend. In response it was stated that notice had been recently received of a £2.1m interim dividend.

·         Further information was sought on plans to increase school places and the current situation in respect of the roof collapse at St Thomas’ school. In response it was clarified that the Council was only able expand capacity at maintained schools, and not academies. Further analysis of the need for place was being undertaken as there was often a disparity between the location of demand and availability of place. While the Council had the statutory responsibility to provide appropriate school places it did not always have the means to deliver on that responsibility. 

·         It was commented that the Call-Centre continued to fail to answer one out of every five calls made to it.

·         Given the revenue budget forecast surplus of 3.4m, plus the Manchester Airport Group dividend, further information was requested as to plans for the use of those resources, particularly in light of pressures on spending on services. In response it was stated that surpluses would be used to help resource the financial pressures being experienced by the Council, for example in supporting the High Needs Block for children and young people.

·         Clarification was sought on whether the current capital borrowing programme was the highest the Council had ever had. In response it was stated that levels were certainly high, but were not at the highest level.

·         Further detail was requested about long term plans for addressing SEND pressures. In response it was stated that a local plan had been developed to address the national upward trend in SEND demand that including increasing local specialist school capacity in order to reduce cost pressures.  

·         Confirmation was sought that the Council would not be drawing on resources for mainstream schooling to support SEND investment/ High Needs Block resourcing. In response it was stated that such measures would only be done following consultation with the Schools Forum.

RESOLVED – (1) That the reports be noted.

(2) That the Interim Director for Education be requested to provide a written to Committee members on the situation with respect to the St Thomas’ school roof.