Agenda item

To consider a joint report of the Cabinet Members for Inclusive Neighbourhoods and Sustainable Stockport.

The Cabinet has previously set out its approach to responding to the opportunities, challenges and uncertainty outlined within the review of the medium-term financial plan at its meeting on 21st September 2021. This was shared for further discussion and comment with scrutiny committees in October 2021.

Following these discussions further development of proposals have been undertaken and these are now being shared again with Scrutiny for comment and consideration.

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to comment on the proposals within the four business cases alongside feedback from consultation and equalities analysis.

Officer contact: Holly Rae on 0161 474 3014 or email: holly.rae@stockport.gov.uk

The Director of Place Management submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an update on the Cabinet’s proposed approach to responding to the opportunities, challenges and uncertainty outlined within the review of the medium-term financial plan presented at the Cabinet meeting on the 21 September 2021.  The Scrutiny Committee was provided with an opportunity to make initial comments on the proposals at its meeting in October 2021.  Following these discussions further development of proposals have been undertaken and these are now being shared again with the committee for comment and consideration.

The Cabinet Members for Sustainable Stockport (Councillor Sheila Bailey) and Inclusive Neighbourhoods (Amanda Peers) also attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         The removal of the proposal in relation to school crossing patrol services in this latest iteration of the report was welcomed.

·         It was confirmed that no changes were proposed to the waste collection regime as part of the ‘TLC public realm’ proposals .

·         Concern was expressed in relation to the proposal to remove the area committee’s delegated budgets that currently allowed local councillors the opportunity to determine spending priorities for their own wards. 

·         The Delegated Budget allowed councillors to quickly react to concerns from local residents rather than having to wait to identify and secure funding from other sources

·         In response, it was stated that there remained significant underspends within the budget which may demonstrate that the current process might not represent the most efficient way of allocating funding for minor projects.

·         It was suggested that further work should be done to identify why some wards had accrued more funding than others within their budgets.

·         It was suggested it was unfair to justify the removal of the Delegated Budget on the basis they had not been fully allocated when area committees were asked to pause requests for new schemes over the summer.

·         It was acknowledged that there was pressure within the highways service to deliver the totality of the schemes requested by members.

·         While it was stated that councillors would still be able to initiate new schemes concern was expressed that there was not a clearly identified process for how such requests would be prioritised or what funding sources would be available.

·         It was noted that there was an item that was due be considered by the Scrutiny Committee later on the agenda (agenda item 9) that aimed to put in place a process by which schemes and initiatives at the local level could be co-ordinated more strategically through the development of neighbourhood transport plans.

·         It was suggested that there was an increased risk through these proposals that local priorities would be kept in abeyance as there would not be a budget earmarked to deliver them.

·         Members commented that local councillors and officers from the highways service worked well together to deliver and respond to the needs of local residents.

·         It was suggested that the online consultation on the proposals in the MTFP was not always intuitive with proposals for the Delegated Budget being found under the ‘governance’ section of the consultation.

·         The proposals in relation to charges for residents parking permits was considered to be broadly acceptable and constituted an equitable approach to the current variation in the status of schemes across the borough.

·         The charges for residents parking permits were reasonable in the context of the benefit derived and could be justified in terms of the cost of providing the scheme and its enforcement.

·         A strategic approach to vacancy management needed to be implemented and would not always be appropriate to see every vacancy as a saving opportunity with consideration needing to be given the demands of the service.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.