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 Deputy Mayor reported that 9 questions had been received under Procedure Rule 10.2.

(a)     Councillor Welton had given notice of the following question:

““The 1/3 mile section of the Trans-Pennine Trail (TPT) that runs along busy Sinderland Lane (from Dairyhouse Lane to the turning for the recycling centre at Woodcote Lane) reverts to a 60 mph national speed limit, and has no pavement. It can be terrifying, as my 9 year old daughter and I experienced when we were close passed by the driver of a fast moving car, while riding our bikes there last year. Does the Executive Member for Environmental and Regulatory Services agree that these conditions are unsafe and off-putting for pedestrians and cyclists using the TPT, and contrary to the council’s efforts to get more people walking and cycling?”

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

As a supplementary question Councillor Welton asked whether the Executive member was aware of the numerous physical barriers on the TPT that prevent its use by those using adapted bikes and trikes and would he review these barriers to ensure that it was accessible to all. Councillor Adshead indicated that he would be happy to do so and invited Councillor Welton to send him the details so that the issues could be raised with officers.

(b)     Councillor Chilton had given notice of the following question:

“One of the many businesses badly affected by the current crisis are kennels and catteries, who now find themselves largely superfluous due to the fact nobody is travelling away from home. Can the Executive Member for Finance and Governance, Cllr Ross, advise whether, in line with other Councils, grant funding will be made available to them, as such businesses in Trafford (of which there are comparatively few) have so far received nothing?”

Councillor Ross, Executive Member for Finance and Governance had responded to the question in advance of the meeting and his response had been circulated to Members and been published on the Council’s website.

Councillor Chilton indicated that he was happy that the response covered the points raised in his question and that as a result he did not wish to raise a supplementary question.

(c)     Councillor Evans had given notice of the following question:

“The report to the Public Executive on Monday last, quite rightly, highlighted the uncertainty of the future for the council’s finances, and the leisure economy in Trafford as we emerge from the pandemic (see para 5.7 in the public report). Given this uncertainty is it not therefore premature to have decided that new builds of the leisure centres at Altrincham and Stretford will now not proceed?”

Councillor Patel, Executive Member for Culture and Leisure had responded to the question in advance of the meeting and her response had been circulated to Members and been published on the Council’s website.

Councillor Evans asked as a supplementary question for the Executive Member, in the absence of the associated costs, to reconsider such a huge decision for Stretford and Altrincham. Councillor Patel advised that it was explained at the Executive meeting that a leading industry specialist was working through the costings and the technical programming of the Altrincham, Sale and Stretford refurbishments and that she would report back on the age and condition of the buildings in the future.

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

“ Leaving aside the dereliction of responsibility by the GM Mayor Andy Burnham and his deputy Mayor Beverley Hughes to hold the GMP leadership to account on its systemic failure in recording 80,000 crimes including other crimes closed without investigation; 70% of all domestic abuse cases closed prematurely by the GMP;

Will Cllr Whitham offer an apology to the residents of Trafford for his part in the failure as the appointed scrutiny member on the Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel to adequately question and scrutinise committee reports that he will have received and on meetings held, particularly since the HMICFRS watchdog had reported concerns since 2016 and should have been a focus of attention?”

Councillor Whitham, Executive Member for Communities and Partnerships reported that Members would be aware that since the publication of the inspection report a number of measures had been announced and he was happy to speak to colleagues across the chamber about the report’s findings, the methodology behind the findings, further inspections and the measures announced by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester and also the work of the Police, Fire and Crime Panel. It was an important matter of substance which was to be debated later (Minute No. 49 refers) and commenting on past political performance by the opposition in respect of police governance and scrutiny and the interest shown by the questioner, Councillor Whitham wondered whether an apology would, therefore, be forthcoming from Councillor Butt.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Butt asked Councillor Whitham how many, or what percentage, of the approximate 80,000 unrecorded crimes related to domestic violence and abuse reported by residents in Trafford. In response, Councillor Whitham indicated he would accordingly provide the information subsequent to the meeting.

(e)     Councillor Brophy had given notice of the following question, the first of two questions she had submitted:

"In the wake of Storm Christoph many residents in Timperley were left to fend for themselves as emergency services and AMEY were overwhelmed. Given the likelihood that the Climate Emergency will lead to increasing occurrences of severe flooding, what strategic changes are the Council planning to make to ensure that comprehensive flood prevention measures are implemented with input from affected residents?"

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

Councillor Brophy asked as a supplementary question whether Councillor Adshead could write to the Timperley Councillors, identifying the issues that arose from the previous week’s flooding and how they were to be addressed. Councillor Adshead indicated that the response he had provided set out the extent of the problems experienced and that issues were clearly prioritised. The Executive Member took the opportunity to place on record thanks to all the Council’s staff and partner organisations for their exceptional performance on that night. He invited Council Brophy to inform him of her concerns after the meeting so that they may be considered, as per his reply, as part of the after review and furthermore, Councillors of all the wards affected would be invited to provide their input into the review.

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

"Pictor Academy has been hit by flooding affecting their ability to provide outdoor space for their students as part of their agreed COVID-19 procedures. Colleagues will appreciate the difficulty that any change in routine presents when working with SEN children. The staff at Pictor have gone above and beyond, sourcing their own pump from a private firm and clearing the water from their yards and playing field. What can the council do to ensure that Pictor Academy is reimbursed for this unexpected cost and are supported in the event of any future flooding?" 

Councillor Carter, Lead Member for Education advised that as an academy, the school was no longer part of the local authority, however the Council was willing to provide non-financial support when requested. The site had been visited prior to Storm Christoph to investigate flooding reported by residents, however, no action could be taken with the culvert until the water receded and as such it was highlighted that if requested, sandbags would be provided to residents. Staff visited Lime Grove during the incident to check on water levels and they posed no risk to the properties. Staff on site also accessed the situation with the academy and when found to be affecting only the playing fields, other residents were prioritised.

As a supplementary question Councillor Brophy asked how the Council was going to ensure that its schools and partner organisations were better prepared to respond to events that were likely to become more frequent in the future. In response, Councillor Carter re-affirmed that partnerships were in place, however, the issue of flood defences extended beyond Education and was being led by the Environment Team. 

(g)     Councillor Newgrosh had given notice of the following question:

"I have been contacted by residents regarding the modal filter “planters” in the Longford Park area on Cromwell road, Norwood road and Hillingdon road. A consultation closed on 19th December for residents to give their views on whether these should either stay as they are, be moved or removed completely. I am aware a FOI request for the results has been submitted but no information or data is yet forthcoming. Can the Executive clarify when this data will be made public and the results be actioned if appropriate?”

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

Councillor Newgrosh indicated that he was happy that the response covered the points raised in his question and that as a result he did not wish to raise a supplementary question.

(h)     Councillor Miss Blackburn had given notice of the following question:

"Would the Executive Member, Cllr Stephen Adshead, answer this question about the south side of Lostock Road, Davyhulme, regarding the designated cycle track where bollards were erected before the end of the consultation period with residents in December 2020. Can he state whether the (circa 70-80) bollards will be reduced in number in order to facilitate a safer entry and exit for residents onto the busy bus route to and from the M60 motorway? The current placement of bollards causes a hazardous angle for re-entry onto the road affecting its residents and other road users?"

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

Councillor Miss Blackburn asked as a supplementary question for Councillor Adshead to confirm if there were plans to create designated cycle lanes on Winchester Road, Davyhulme between Moss Vale Road and Crofts Bank Road. In response, the Executive Member was unable to confirm that any decisions had been taken since consultation on the Urmston Active Neighbourhood had only just finished and proposals would be brought forward in discussion with local Councillors and other agencies, including residents.

(g)     Councillor Minnis asked the following question for which she had given notice:

"Trafford all age transport policy was up for consultation over the holidays. I was disappointed to find the consultation comprised only of two questions. Could I gain a commitment from the Executive that future consultations are both complete and meaningful?"

Councillor Carter, the Lead Member for Education confirmed that in fact the consultation lasted for 8 weeks, 6 during term-time and 2 over the school holidays with a detailed explanation provided and a thorough analysis of the families and schools that would be affected and those families were written to directly. All consultees were asked whether they agreed with the proposals, were invited to ask questions and to make comments or share alternative ideas and there was a supplementary question regarding whether the low income criteria should be expanded to include more families. Additional to this consultation, a question on the proposed change was also included in the budget consultations as a way of seeking wider input and 69% of the 441 wider consultees strongly agreed or agreed with the Home to School Transport proposal. Thanking all officers involved in the planning, promotion and reaction to such consultation, Councillor Carter considered that the approach was to be applauded and was completely robust.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Minnis asked that whilst Trafford’s Transport Policy was compliant with national guidelines, could the Lead Member explain why children attending special schools and should qualify for the transport are being denied it under the 3 mile policy which was for more able children. In response to this point, Councillor Carter indicated that she would be happy to take up individual cases and asked Councillor Minnis to send her details of the cases she was aware of.