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 3 hours prior to the commencement of the meeting 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 public questions were submitted as follows:-
· Relating to whether the council would commit to support for tackling holiday hunger and continue to press the Secretary of State to take holiday hunger seriously with particular regard to those children who were having to self-isolate and would therefore not be in receipt of free school meals.
The Cabinet Member for Children, Family Services & Education (Councillor Colin Foster) responded that this was a manifestation of the increasing problem of poverty and that access to free school meals was a major element of this. Councillor Foster stated that since 1 March 2020 there has been an increase of 13 percent in the number of children in receipt of free school meals.
Councillor Foster stated that the council, schools and its partners had worked to provide all eligible children with food vouchers over the summer following the change in government policy resulting from Marcus Rashford’s campaign. Following a review of the summer initiative, plans were now being draw up for future school holidays starting with the forthcoming October half-term as the first step in implementing the principle of tacking holiday hunger over all school holidays in Stockport.
Finally, Councillor Foster undertook to write to the government to urge them to publish comprehensive guidance on free school meals without delay for those pupils who have to isolate.
· Relating to the Parking Strategy Update report that had recently been submitted to the council’s area committees and whether the council would apologise for omitting reference to the fact that fundamentals of the proposed scheme were the same as the Stepping Hill CPZ proposal that had been rejected by 95% of respondents.
The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Stockport (Councillor Sheila Bailey) responded that extensive efforts had been made to devise a scheme for the Stepping Hill area, however the matter that was before the Cabinet at this meeting was intended to balance the needs of residents, business and visitors in those areas of Stockport that had a parking problem of one kind or another. Councillor Bailey stated that it was not the case that there was a single solution that could be applied in every scenario, and as such the scheme was designed to be flexible. Councillor Bailey expressed the view that officers should be congratulated for their sincere and genuine attempt to try and deal with this problem and that there was nothing to apologise for.
· Relating to the apparent conflict between council’s stated commitment in the Climate Action Now Strategy and the potential removal of green belt protection from the eastern side of the Tame Valley to allow for the expansion of the Brebdury Industrial Estate.
The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Stockport (Councillor Sheila Bailey) responded that Stockport had been at the forefront of providing protection for the environment and that the Climate Action Now Strategy document had 16 pages of aims and objectives and was designed to be taken into account in everything that the Council did insofar as future development was concerned. However, the Council also had a duty to ensure that the borough could provide housing, jobs and security for its residents. Councillor Bailey stated that when the next iteration of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework was published, there would be every opportunity for residents to make their views on the proposals known.
· Relating to the provision of a temporary residual holding cost for Central Library of £30,000 per annum and whether this mean that there was no intention to retain the building for public use and whether the £350,000 allocated for the fit-out of the former Argos unit in Merseyway for a temporary facility would be better used on making Central Library covid-secure and other improvements.
The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance (Councillor Tom McGee) responded that the proposals in the report had been designed to ensure that residents were able to continue access library services. The £30,000 holding cost for Central Library aimed to ensure that the Central Library building remained safe and secure, while the £350,000 for fit out costs was the likely maximum required, with the actual cost incurred likely to be less than this as a result of a dilapidation agreement with the previous tenants. It was further stated that during the period of the occupancy of the unit, the council would be saving approximately £70,000 in running costs per year associated with the Central Library building.
· Relating to the proposed closure of the Sainsbury’s supermarket in Stockport town centre and what approaches the council had made to Sainsbury’s and the response that had been received.
The Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Devolution (Councillor Elise Wilson) responded that the council remained in dialogue about the Sainsbury’s site and wanted to see the site used in a way that suited the town centre and which created jobs. It was noted that the council did not own the site occupied by Sainsbury’s.