This is an opportunity for Members of Council to ask the Mayor, Members of the Executive or the Chairs of any Committee or Sub-Committee a question on notice under Procedure Rule 10.2.

The Mayor reported that 5 questions had been received under Procedure Rule 10.2.

(a)    Councillor Myers asked the following question for which he had given notice:

“The Council has agreed to borrow up to half a billion pounds to invest in properties that will generate revenue and support regeneration.  Most of the investment has been pre-Covid and much of the investment has been in retail premises which are now worth considerably less than the price paid. In addition, the empty retail premises have left a shortfall in revenue.

Would the Executive Member for Finance and Investment outline the strategy to mitigate the losses?”

Indicating that a full written response had been provided to Members and was available on the Council’s website, the Mayor invited Councillor Ross, Executive Member for Finance and Investment to respond.

Councillor Ross advised that all the Council’s investments had been made in accordance with the agreed investment strategy and were monitored closely with regular updates provided to the Investment Management Board.  The range of investments was both diverse across a number of sectors and comprised a mix of investments including directly acquired assets and provision of development debt. Of the amounts invested at the end of 2019/20 approximately 25% had a direct retail exposure and one quarter of that was invested in supermarkets. Real estate valuations would rise and fall over time with the normal market cycles. However, as the Council is a long-term investor, portfolio income levels were more significant than “on paper” value. Investments provided an important revenue stream for Council services and were estimated to generate a nett income of £7.4 million in the current financial year.

Councillor Myers asked as a supplementary question whether the Executive Member could assure the Council that the £3.9 million reserve was enough to safeguard the Council’s investments in the falling retail market. Councillor Ross advised that the Council’s reserves were continuously under review and that consideration was being given to increasing the reserve set aside for the Investment Strategy. At this point in time, he assured the Council that the matter was subject to further review and if, at any time in the future, the position needed to be reviewed it would be. 

(b)    Councillor Coggins asked the following question for which she had given notice:

“Does the council agree that 2 years is not an appropriate timescale for an emergency response, like the climate emergency report and draft action plan we have had this week?”

Councillor Adshead, the Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change advised that Trafford was one of the first Council’s to declare a climate emergency and addressing the challenge was not a simple task nor could it be achieved alone requiring the support of Trafford businesses, communities and residents. External experts were commissioned to support the development of a framework and their report was well received and approved at the Executive Meeting on 28 September 2020, with the target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2028. It should be noted that their work would have concluded earlier if it had not been for the consequences of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

The importance of meeting the climate challenge was recognised by the Council as a corporate priority and the Council had brought forward initiatives to reduce carbon useage and proposals for sustainable development which all demonstrated the Council’s commitment to addressing the climate emergency. Now the framework had been agreed, Councillor Adshead looked forward to working across the Council and with partners to deliver these ambitious plans.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Coggins asked whether the Executive had truly grasped the extent of the challenge facing us and the implications for us all if we fail. Councillor Adshead recognised that there was a lot of work to be done and that the task was to set up the various groups and forums, as a matter of urgency, with Councillors, businesses and communities and alongside Trafford’s involvement at a Greater Manchester level, the work had begun.

(c)    Councillor Newgrosh asked the following question for which he had given notice:

“With the first anniversary of Trafford Council’s Empty Homes Policy upon us, can we please be informed exactly how many long term empty homes have been brought back into use by this initiative, and what the current number of long term empty homes currently stand at?”

Responding to the question, Councillor Wright, the Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration reported that the first stage in the implementation of the strategy was to assess the number of long term empty properties within the borough which would require further investigation. The number of properties which met the criteria was 487 as of June 2020 and after a further detailed investigation of the properties confirmed 445 properties being empty over 2 years with no explanation or no detailed plans of bringing them back into use. A risk assessment has been developed and investigations are ongoing with 63 undertaken by 30 September 2020. The availability of small loans of up to £10,000 has been communicated to the owners of empty properties on a regular basis over several years, however, uptake has been low with 2 properties being brought back into use in 2019/20 using this financial assistance. Part of the strategy is to identify why uptake of the assistance was so low. The first yearly review of the Empty Properties Strategy would be undertaken in November 2020 and a further update at that stage can be provided.

As a supplementary question Councillor Newgrosh queried the means as to how the figure of over 700 properties listed in the Strategy as long-term empty homes had been reduced. Confirming the figure as 445, Councillor Wright advised that whilst 2 had come back into use using the assistance scheme, the Council was investigating and visiting properties over a period of time to assess them in more detail and any criticism would be unfair given the world crisis that year with resources being diverted to other affairs in the Council and the increased difficulty of undertaking visits. The Executive Member assured Councillor Newgrosh that it was a priority and in better times hoped to improve the rate of performance but given the current restrictions, it would be difficult to push matters to a greater degree than what they were.

(d)    Councillor Brophy asked the following question for which she had given notice:

“What additional services can Trafford provide for people experiencing mental health challenges during covid, whether that be exacerbation of previous issues or needs that have arisen as a result of covid itself such as ongoing or worsening physical health issues, unemployment, isolation, depression or loneliness?”

The Mayor advised that a full written response had been provided to Members and was available on the Council’s website and invited Councillor Slater, Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Equalities to respond.

Indicating that the written response was quite detailed, Councillor Slater wished to draw attention to a range of virtual and telephone meeting platforms provided for those wishing to access additional services as well as the usual mental health services delivered by the borough’s service providers. With regard to those issues directly that have directly arisen from the pandemic, Trafford Psychological Therapies Services have provided services for people to speak about loneliness, unemployment, stress, sleep disturbance and the trauma of domestic violence.

Throughout the pandemic, the Primary Care Mental Health and Wellbeing Service had worked closely with the volunteer hubs in the neighbourhoods providing support and taking referrals via the hubs, with Blusci, one of the Council’s commissioned providers offering additional support. The Approved Mental Health Professionals service continued to operate, whilst TES (adult autism and ADHD diagnostic services) and MATS (Memory assessment team services) which were initially pared back in order to support core services, have now been stepped back up and were running as normal.

The Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust operated a 24 hour helpline for service users and carers and the Executive Member conveyed the telephone number 08009 530285 to all Members in case residents were to contact them.

Councillor Brophy asked as a supplementary question whether the Council was confident that these needs could be met in unprecedented times with all the additional challenges to funding, pressures on other services and people being deployed elsewhere. Councillor Slater advised that staff had been deployed in other areas to support Covid on the frontline but as hospitals had been able to discharge people from Covid wards, people had been able to move back to their own jobs and staff were now back in situ. From the comments she had received from staff and residents, the Executive Member did feel confident that both the authority and the NHS were providing as much as they could considering the budget pressures and conveyed thanks to all the staff involved in these services for their amazing work.

(e)    Councillor Miss Blackburn asked the following question for which she had given notice:

"Would the Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change inform me as to the legal maximum width of cycle lanes and if advance notice of them on roads needs to be given to road users?"

The Mayor advised that a full written response had been provided to Members and was available on the Council’s website and invited Councillor Adshead, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change to respond.

Councillor Adshead advised that there was no legal maximum width for cycle lanes. If a highway authority made a decision to have a whole carriageway dedicated to cycles only, it could do so by introducing a prohibition of motor vehicles or pedestrian and cycle zones, etc., and these were usually enforced with signs or physical measures. Although there was no legal maximum width there was a legal minimum width for cycle lanes which was defined by the Department for Transport (Dft). The Executive Member also confirmed that in accordance with DfT guidance there were no advanced cycle lane signs permitted to be used on the highway.

Councillor Miss Blackburn asked as a supplementary question for the Executive Member to specify what safeguards are being undertaken to ensure at road junctions, where there are cycle lanes, that safety is prioritised for all road users, as at present the pop-up cycle lane on the A56 had created hazards. On that particular issue, Councillor Adshead reported the Council was working closely with Transport for Greater Manchester and was receiving regular updates. In addition, the Council’s own team was regularly reviewing the situation and responding to issues that had arisen or had been raised with them. Should there be any further concerns or issues with other locations, Councillor Adshead asked Members to advise and they would be investigated.