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The Mayor reported that 11 questions had been received under Procedure Rule 10.2 and that one had subsequently been withdrawn.

 

(a)    Councillor Anstee asked the following question, the first of two questions for which he had given notice:

 

“This Council faces challenging budget constraints and difficult decisions for the administration are likely to be required. Part of the response to this challenge should be an increased focus in increasing the council tax base through building new homes.

 

Please could the Executive Member outline what steps he is taking to ensure the planning and development service can adopt a greater focus on adopting a pro-growth approach to securing development, especially in existing urban areas?”

 

Replying to the question Councillor Wright, Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration relayed the response which had been circulated to Members and published on the Council’s website in advance of the meeting.

 

Remarking that there were brownfield developments struggling with the subjective elements of the planning process, viability, density and design and given the comment about Covid and the need to continue to attract investment in the borough, Councillor Anstee asked as a supplementary question could Councillor Wright commit to meet with him to run through those applications and to ensure that the Council’s future plans align with the pro-growth aspirations outlined in the Executive Member’s response. Councillor Wright indicated that he was happy to arrange a meeting with Councillor Anstee at a suitable time going forward.

 

(b)    Question from Councillor Carey

 

It was noted that Councillor Carey had withdrawn the first of two questions for which he had given notice.

 

(c)    Councillor Anstee asked the following question, the second of two questions for which he had given notice:

 

“Can the Executive Member confirm what funding was allocated to the Council in Tranche 1 of the EATF and any other funding the Council has received for roll out of schemes?  Will he also provide a breakdown of all expenditure incurred to date on schemes?”

 

Councillor Adshead, Executive Member for Environmental and Regulatory Services responded to the question and advised that his response had been circulated to Members and been published on the Council’s website in advance of the meeting.

 

Given that Tranche 2 funding was imminent, Councillor Anstee asked as a supplementary question whether Councillor Adshead would provide a commitment that evening that there will be a clear plan from the Council on how it intends to implement a scheme on Oxford Road in the Bowdon ward. Councillor Adshead indicated that the Council had yet to finalise the whole Tranche 2 programme due to the delay, however, the implementation date of March 2021 remained and as soon as he had the funding confirmation he would ensure that updated information was provided to all Members.

 

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

 

“Would the Executive Member comment on the usage of pavement frontage seating areas by Bars converted from retail establishments. With regard to health and wellbeing, due to the narrow pavements, are the licensees creating an effective barrier between the smokers and passing pedestrians?”

 

Replying to the question Councillor Adshead, Executive Member for Environmental and Regulatory Services relayed the response which had been circulated to Members and published on the Council’s website in advance of the meeting.

 

Councillor Miss Blackburn referred to the legislation which did not mention barriers between licensed premises and pedestrians only that there should be a distance of 2 metres between smokers and non-smokers without specifying pedestrians passing and asked as a supplementary question for the Executive’s views and whether there were any local conditions requiring a physical barrier.

 

Councillor Adshead advised that where temporary provision was introduced on public open space as a Covid recovery measure, smoking was not permitted as it was public land and would, therefore, be a contravention of the premises licence. Those establishments wishing to provide a smoking area would have to do so on their own land which by definition would be separate.

 

(e)    Councillor Chilton asked the following question for which he had given notice:

 

“Can the Lead Member for Education advise when her department plans to consult with the public and ward members about the increase to three form entry at Firs Primary School in Ashton-on-Mersey? This will have a significant impact on the footprint and local infrastructure, which is congested already?"

 

Councillor Carter, Lead Member for Education reported that the Education and Early Years Basic Needs Capital Report was scheduled for the Executive meeting in January 2021 and includes the proposal for Firs Primary School to meet the needs of children in the catchment area and additional demand from new housing developments in Sale West. The proposal built upon the emergency measure of having to set up a temporary classroom and if the Executive is in agreement there will then be a period of statutory consultation. With regard to footprint and local infrastructure, the proposal was to accommodate local children who would have to travel further afield if they did not get a place at Firs Primary School.

 

Given that the need for extra places had been known for some time, Councillor Chilton asked as a supplementary question whether the Lead Member or at least the Corporate Director of Children’s Services would agree to meet with ward Members and the Board of Governors at that school, as it had not happened, before the proposal went before the Executive. Councillor Carter agreed that she and the Corporate Director would be happy for such a meeting.

 

(f)     Councillor Carey asked the following question, the second of two questions for which he had given notice:

 

"A recent council press release reported the plan for 48 townhouses and 38 apartments to be built at the former Sale Magistrates Court off Ashton Road. Can the Lead Member for Education tell me which schools in the area have capacity to receive additional pupils that the development will bring?"

 

Councillor Carter, Lead Member for Education referred to the formula used to calculate the number of school places the borough needed and anticipated the number of new homes in the development would account for 12-14 children for the primary phase. As with all developments, the Council requested a monetary contribution from the developer linked to the pupil numbers which is used towards the cost of future school expansion projects. The development was within the Sale West school place planning area and proposals were being developed to increase the capacity in the primary sector to meet demand as the Lead Member had mentioned in her response to the previous question from Councillor Chilton (Minute 29 (e) refers).

 

Putting his supplementary question, Councillor Carey referred to Trafford’s housing target up to 2037 and asked the Executive Member what land had been identified to build new schools across the borough to meet the extra provision which will be required. Councillor Carter referred to consideration of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework at the Executive Meeting on 2 November 2020 when discussion was had about planning for school provision more effectively. Without the necessary support of those proposals there was the School Sufficiency Committee which would examine the suitability of sites for the future.

 

(g)    Councillor Boyes asked the following question for which he had given notice:

 

"Communication with residents must be a paramount objective of any administration, never more so than in the midst of a global pandemic, the worst crisis for the UK since World War Two. Given this scenario could the Leader explain why there was so much procrastination before the decision was finally taken to deliver an advisory leaflet to every house in the Borough, with the delivery itself being made by volunteers, at times using efficient walking routes provided by opposition Councillors. Furthermore on what basis was the decision taken more recently to deliver a second leaflet via the Royal Mail, as opposed to those same volunteers, at what must have been a very significant cost to residents?"

 

Councillor Andrew Western, the Leader of the Council advised that in respect of the first leaflet there was careful consideration as to whether it was appropriate and safe to deliver during the first few months of the pandemic when the country was in full lockdown and given that mutual aid groups had already been established through neighbourhood schemes and that they had undertaken some leafleting activity there was significant potential off duplication. There was also a clear need to establish community hubs at very short notice along with a number of other services that had to be stood up in response to the pandemic which the Council would wish to include on any communication information to residents, therefore it was never going to be an immediate activity. By the time it was considered safe to engage local volunteers the leaflet went out, at which time delivery services provided by the Royal Mail could not be guaranteed and the Leader of the Council was very grateful for the volunteers who supported that delivery, including those from the opposition political parties.

 

The second leaflet delivery was during the midst of the second significant wave of coronavirus and the national debate on a second lockdown. With the inevitability of a further lockdown and having the community hubs and other services set up, the Council was able to prepare and produce that leaflet quickly and efficiently and arrange its timely delivery.

 

Suggesting that the one place to which all online residents could receive regular information from the Leader of the Council was via a blog available to those that subscribe, Councillor Boyes asked as a supplementary question whether Members could have an assurance going forward that updates would be made much more frequent than had been during the current crisis when there was almost a five-month gap between postings. 

 

In response, Councillor Andrew Western indicated that he was happy to determine as and when he posted a blog and was confident that Councillor Boyes was more than aware that it was not the only channel that the Council used to communicate with residents, however, it was a much more frequent blog than residents had under the previous administration.

 

(h)    Councillor Butt asked the following question for which he had given notice:

 

"Can the Executive Member for Environmental and Regulatory Services provide an update on current consultation on the Modal filters at the Longford Park area of Stretford?"

 

Replying to the question, Councillor Adshead, Executive Member for Environmental and Regulatory Services relayed the response which had been circulated to Members and published on the Council’s website in advance of the meeting.

 

Remarking that a petition against the measures had received more signatures than the numbers expressing desire for the traffic calming scheme through the first consultation, Councillor Butt asked as a supplementary question for the Executive Member to resolve the issue there and then, to save time and tax-payers money by removing the barriers. Councillor Adshead reported that the consultation for the scheme had received a particularly high number of positive responses keen for some sort of measures to be taken. The Council was currently re-consulting, therefore, could not decide anything until the consultation had closed and welcomed comments on all perspectives. The Executive Member assured the Council that the views from local residents would be paramount in determining the matter.

 

(i)     Councillor Morgan asked the following question, the first of two questions for which he had given notice:

 

"Following the rejection of the much un-loved Greater Manchester Spatial Framework by Stockport Council, can the Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration provide the Council with an update on progress with Trafford’s Local Plan?"

 

Councillor Wright, Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration responded to the question and advised that his response had been circulated to Members and had been published on the Council’s website.

 

Councillor Morgan asked as a supplementary question why the Council could not have a full debate that evening on the merits and many flaws of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, as Stockport had done the previous week to which Councillor Wright advised that there was item on the agenda that evening.

 

(j)     Councillor Morgan asked the following question, the second of two questions for which he had given notice:

 

"Can the Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration provide the Council with an update on the status of the Hale and Sale Moor Place Plans?"

 

Councillor Wright, Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration responded to the question and advised that his response had been circulated to Members and had been published on the Council’s website.

 

Councillor Morgan asked as a supplementary question whether the Executive Member could update the Council on what the total cost of the plan had been to date and the total anticipated cost of the plan through to fruition. Council Wright replied to say that he did not have the figures to hand and that he would undertake to provide the information to Councillor Morgan in writing as soon as possible.

 

(k)    Councillor Evans asked the following question for which he had given notice:

 

"As the Leader of the Council now has responsibility for Sustainability and Climate Change and The Clean Air Plan (and Air Quality Commission) in the borough, can the Member tell me how many NO2 exceedances there were in Trafford recorded at air quality monitoring sites in 2019?"

 

In response, the Leader of the Council confirmed that the answer was zero.

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor Evans asked what message the Leader of the Council would like to send to the tradespersons whose businesses’ would be plunged into debt by a charge of at least £10,000 per van, per business. Responding to the supplementary question, Councillor Andrew Western wished to advise anyone who had not already fed into the consultation process which had now closed to email: cleanairgm@aecom.com to ensure that their views were known. He explained that the role he had, together with the Mayor of Greater Manchester was to lobby the Government responsible for implementing the scheme and responsible for directing all boroughs in Greater Manchester regardless of any exceedance numbers quoted by Councillor Evans . Those with views were encouraged to submit them to the email address, which remained open, in order that the individual borough’s, including Trafford could build the most compelling case possible for the Government to provide the required funding. The Leader stated that to date only £41 million had been received from a total ask of £165 million and he considered that appalling given the impact on businesses Councillor Evans had highlighted.  Asserting that there was no consistency on the matter from Greater Manchester Conservatives, the Leader of the Council suggested that Councillor Evans should take issue with his own Government, particularly as the funding to protect business and the decision to implement the scheme lay squarely with them.