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 to questions to the Cabinet on any matters within its powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
19 questions had been submitted.
(1) The first two question asked why requests from the questioner in relation to Vale View Primary School continued to be considered vexatious despite an instruction from the Information Commissioner that such requests should be complied with.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance stated that legal advice had been obtained in relation to the comments made in the questions. Clarification was provided that the Information Commissioner had not instructed the Council to comply with such requests but rather to review the matter, which the Council had done. The Cabinet Member confirmed that the Council’s position had not changed and that this had been communicated to the questioner in its letter in June 2019.
(3) The third question referred to the decision taken by the Welsh devolved government to not proceed with the M4 relief road scheme in South Wales, and the recent declaration by Stockport Council of a climate emergency (supported by all political groups) and asked whether the Cabinet would reconsider its position on building the A6M60 Relief Road and instead invest the resources in integrated transport and supporting bus refranchising.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration restated his previous commitment to do all he could to improve public transport. He referred to his recent appointment to the reconfigure Greater Manchester Transport Committee and a commitment he and the Leader of the Council had secured for tram-train services to Stockport within in 10 years. He also restated the Cabinet’s commitment to bus regulation in Greater Manchester.
The Cabinet Member expressed sympathy for the concerns raised by the questioner, but clarified that the Council position had been decided following a Council Meeting and the Cabinet had agreed to proceed on that basis. The money being sought by the Council from Transport for the North would only be for the development of a business case that would inform a final decision on whether to seek to proceed with a road scheme.
(4) The fourth question sought clarification on whether Council officers dealing with applications for housing by homeless persons, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in Samuels vs Birmingham City Council, that subsistence benefits should not be used to cover rent shortfalls and that persons who have used subsistence benefits for the purposes for which they are intended, shall not be deemed to be 'intentionally homeless'.
The Leader of the Council stated that a written response would be provided to the questioner.
(5) The fifth question asked whether the unified model of public services being developed by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and partners would mean the end of Stockport Council and the current model of local government.
The Leader of the Council stated that this was not the case. She reported that the proposals from the GMCA had been out to consultation amongst the ten constituent councils, with further consideration by the GMCA due at the next meeting on 26 July 2019.
The remaining questions all referred to the proposed expansion of Ludworth Primary School.
Questioners asked their questions of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance made a statement in response, before addressing the individual issues raised in the questions.
By way of background, the Cabinet Member highlighted that there were a number of differing legislative frameworks that were relevant to the expansion of Ludworth Primary School, including a duty to provide sufficient appropriate school places, a duty to determine planning applications within a statutory framework of rules and limitations, and a duty to manage the public highway. All three elements were within the remit and responsibility of the Council, although not necessarily of the Cabinet. Further legislation related to school organisation, although these were not within the Council’s duties, and responsibility rested with the school’s Governing Board.
The Cabinet Member expressed his sympathy with members of the public living in the vicinity of the school as he himself lived near a school and was aware of the challenges this presented.
The Cabinet Member acknowledged the delay in responding to the consultation and bringing forward proposals, attributing this to changes in staff and cabinet responsibilities and the new team working on school place need.
It was further clarified that the report being considered by the Cabinet that evening was solely about the change to the admission number for pupils at the school and the associated safeguarding issues. The current Planned Admission Number was 45, requiring split classes that the school was seeking to avoid.
The Cabinet Member also acknowledged the significant number of concerns about traffic and stressed that it was not the aim of the proposals to create any additional problems for residents, but rather to seek to resolve as many of the existing problems during the course of the process.
The Cabinet Member then addressed the specific questions submitted.
(6) The sixth question sought clarification on the impact of any decision on the Key Stage 2 pupils from 2019, such as whether building expansion would take place, or classes would be mixed across year groups, particularly given the decision to accept 15 additional pupils from September 2019.
In response, the Cabinet Member stated that the Planned Admission Number had been considered in conjunction with the School, who wished to increase places from 45 to 60 per year group. One of the reasons was to create two forms of entry. The School capacity was 360, but currently held 323 pupils, so the extra 15 pupils from September 2019 was within its capacity and within the 25% threshold as outlined in paragraph 7.1 of the report. These arrangements were only for Reception in 2019 and would not apply for Key Stage 2.
(7) The seventh question asked whether air quality had been monitored on Lower Fold at Ludworth School and if so, what the findings were.
The Cabinet Member responded by highlighting the development by Greater Manchester councils of a Clean Air Plan for the region that would seek to address the large scale issue of air quality. The Council did monitor air quality in certain areas around the borough, but none of these sensors were outside schools. The Council was nevertheless looking into the ability to tackle idling vehicles as a means to improve air quality.
(8) The eighth question asked whether the additional 20 short stay parking places proposed for Brabyns Park were sufficient to accommodate parking demands for an additional 100 additional children proposed, given the high demand on places currently, particularly from commuters. It was also asked whether consideration had been given to making all of Brabyns Park car park short stay.
The Cabinet Member confirmed that consideration would need to be given to designating short stay parking spaces, but such measures would likely be a consideration of the planning application, and be subject to a further formal public consultation. Problems with commuter parking near transport hubs was acknowledged.
(9) The ninth question asked whether the Council would consider introducing time-limited ‘No Entry’ restrictions on Pear Tree Close to mitigate against anti-social parking from parents.
The Cabinet Member expressed doubts about the legality of imposing and enforcing such a restriction at this location, but undertook to contact those responsible for enforcement of existing restrictions and traffic movements to press for greater enforcement. The Cabinet Member also commented that the Council had earlier in year invested in in an enforcement care with camera technology for deployment around schools.
(10) The tenth question sought clarification on whether the comments made by residents in October 2018, particularly over traffic, had been considered when development the proposals for expansion.
The Cabinet Member stated that the comments had been considered as part of the development of the proposals, and further consultation would be undertaken as part of the planning application process. He stressed again that the Council was not seeking to make existing problems worse but to alleviate them.
(11) The eleventh question asked for previously promised information on birth rates in the Marple area that would demonstrate whether expansion of the school would increase traffic and travel to the school from the wider Marple area or would serve an increase in population in Marple Bridge.
In response, the Cabinet Member stated that the birth rate in Marple Bridge was stable, but the birth rate within the Ludworth catchment area had increased. It was also stressed that Ludworth was a popular school; for 45 places it had 60 1st preferences, 178 preferences overall and 32 in year transfer requests.
(12) The twelfth question asked whether, given the increased intake at Ludworth Primary School for September 2019, the consultation exercise had been a waste of time.
The Cabinet Member stated that he did not believe this to be the case as those responses had informed the development of these proposals, and had highlighted areas for additional work.
(13) The thirteenth question referred to the difficulties caused by parking associated with the school and asked whether the proposed mitigation measures were sufficient, and what consideration had been given to the proposals made by residents for additional measures.
The Cabinet Member referred to earlier comments about short stay parking and no entry restrictions, and reiterated the need to seek additional enforcement of existing restrictions.
(14) The fourteenth question sought clarification on the weighting given to concerns from residents about traffic issues during the planning process, compared to the potential impact on pupils and parents such as having to move to a four day week.
The Cabinet Member explained that the comments made by residents would be considered as part of the planning process, and would need to be weighed against the legal requirements of planning law and advice from highways and planning officers.
Specifically in relation to schools reducing their hours of opening, the Cabinet Member referred to recent guidance issued by the Department for Education strongly discouraging schools from moving to 4 day weeks.
(15) The fifteenth question asked about the details of the Traffic Impact Assessment for the school expansion and specifically about details related to Hogarth Road, seeking clarity on measures proposed to mitigate impact of the expansion, including extra enforcement.
The Cabinet Member stated that there was uncertainty about the exact level of extra traffic generated, but that there needed to be enhanced enforcement from relevant agencies, and the Council was already providing additional enforcement activity around schools. A review of existing restrictions was also needed to ensure that they were appropriate, such as no loading rather than no waiting, to allow for more effective enforcement.
The Cabinet Member, in summary to his responses, emphasised that all the comments made would be considered as part of the development of any proposals, and he offered to meet with residents, including vising the school during the school drop-off/ pick up.
The Cabinet Member for Children, Family Services & Education reiterated that a number of the issues raised by the questions, such as the organisation of classes within the school, were the responsibility of the school themselves. He also stressed the difficulties presented to schools by a 45 intake, but that it was for the school to manage those. He further commented on the government guidance in relation to school hours, but that this was also a matter for the school.
A further four questions had been submitted by questioners who were not present at the meeting. It was stated that, in accordance with the Code of Practice a written response would be provided to those questioners.