Agenda item

Questions By Members

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.

Minutes:

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

 

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

 

“I was advised earlier this year that a Tree Preservation Order on Dainewell and Millennium Woods on the Sale/Carrington border had been approved and simply required legal work. It now transpires this was not the case and the woods haven’t even been surveyed by the Council. Would the Executive Member support local residents of St. Mary’s and Bucklow St. Martin’s Wards by ensuring that the Tree Preservation Order is progressed and approved as a matter of urgency?”

 

Councillor Wright, the Executive Member for Investment, Regeneration and Strategic Planning stated that he was entirely supportive of protecting the Borough’s trees where it was appropriate to do so. Tree Preservation Orders were made to protect specific trees, groups of trees or woodlands in the interests of ‘amenity’. The making of an Order prohibited the cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage or wilful destruction of trees without the consent of the Local Planning Authority. Anyone who wished to carry out works to trees subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) needed to make an application to the Council for consent for those works, which may then be granted or refused. The carrying out of unauthorised works to protected trees was a criminal offence.

 

The Executive member confirmed that an assessment of the trees in Dainewell Woods would be undertaken as a matter of priority, in accordance with government guidance, to determine whether they merited protection under a TPO which could only be made, following statutory consultation and the confirmation of the Order. The Planning Service prioritised the making of TPOs by assessing whether trees were under imminent threat, however, there was presently nothing to suggest that the trees at Dainewell Woods were under threat, such as a live planning application. Nevertheless, Councillor Wright indicated that the Planning Service would prioritise the request and undertake an assessment of the trees in October.

 

Councillor Chilton was encouraged that the request would be prioritised and asked as a supplementary question, whether the Executive Member would personally support it. Councillor Wright preferred not to comment either way until the experts had made their assessment which would then enable an educated response to be made.

 

(b)    Councillor Mrs. Brophy asked the following question for which she had given notice:

 

“Please would the Executive member explain what weed killers are used by Trafford Council and its contractors.

 

What plans does the Council have to protect the natural environment, biodiversity, the public and our Parks and Green Spaces?”

 

Councillor Adshead, the Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change advised that the Council and its contractors used a weed control product called Rosate 360 TF which was absorbed by the weed foliage and translocated to the growing points in the roots and to the underground rhizomes/stolons of perennial weeds. After application, glyphosate was strongly absorbed onto the soil particles and became practically immobilized within the soil. As a result, Rosate 360 TF had no further herbicidal activity and was subsequently broken down by microbial activity.

 

The Executive Member acknowledged that the use of glyphosate had become a subject of debate with scientific studies to both approve and disapprove its toxicity and whilst still licensed for use, some local authorities were taking steps to ban herbicides. With regard to future plans, the Council was in the process of evaluating its vegetation management programme, investigating the options available and comparing them to the current programme of weed control and considering other effective and sustainable solutions.  

 

Councillor Mrs. Brophy asked as a supplementary question whether there were plans to investigate more biodiverse ways of tackling weeds in the Borough. Councillor Adshead assured Councillor Mrs. Brophy that the Council would continue to investigate all the available alternatives, acknowledging that certain previous methods had caused problems with some ‘Friends of Park’ planting schemes. The Executive member envisaged that more information would be provided at a future point as the options evolved.  

 

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

 

Given the very high percentage of on-street parking in Trafford, how is this council making it easier for residents and businesses to move to electric and low-emission vehicles?

 

Councillor Adshead, the Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change reported that the Council was seeking to increase provision of On-street Electric Vehicle Chargepoints in Trafford via the Office for Low Emission Vehicles grant funding scheme to fund 75% of the implementation costs of Electric Vehicle (EV) Chargepoints.

 

Consideration was being given to a report which would enable an initial application to be made to the grant provider for the introduction of 6 chargepoints in the borough and, if successful, these would be programmed for implementation during the current financial year. Future requests would be collated and considered for a further bid the next financial year to further increase the number of EV chargepoints across the borough.

 

In addition, officers had recently started working with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) on its EV project that had funding to provide an additional 48 rapid charging points across Greater Manchester in 2019. Sites were currently being considered in Trafford for further investigation with TfGM during the next few months.

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor Coggins asked what action the Council was taking to integrate the charging points with renewable energy. Councillor Adshead advised that he would consult with officers and obtain the information regards the options for renewable energy.

 

(d)    Councillor Mrs. Young asked the following question for which she had given notice:

 

“Hale Village shopping has been badly affected by the lack of available parking. In the Unitary Development Plan the Council seeks to maintain local and neighbourhood shopping centres to ensure there are adequate facilities conveniently located to serve the day to day needs of the community. Will the Executive Member please confirm that car parking facilities in Hale District Centre will not be reduced?

 

Councillor Adshead, the Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change acknowledged that there were many challenges to the borough’s town and village centres, with changes in lifestyles and the rise in internet shopping, alongside wider economic changes all having an effect. Whilst the provision of parking was an element, he stated that it was not the only factor.

 

The Council operated 3 pay and display car parks in Hale Village, providing a total of 262 spaces which was more than either Sale Moor or Urmston. In addition, Hale also had free on street parking across the Village with up to 100 spaces of between 1and 2 hours and a small free car park on Cecil Road with approximately 21 spaces.

 

Current usage surveys of car park use revealed that Cecil Road had a 75% occupancy level, Victoria Road 71% and Brown Street 44%. As Brown Street car park was underutilised, the Council was at present consulting on proposals for its regeneration to include affordable housing, whilst maintaining a car park with provision above current occupancy levels.

 

Councillor Mrs. Young asked as a supplementary question for an explanation as to why the Brown Street proposal would now significantly reduce the number of car parking spaces when the invitation to tender specified that the number of spaces should be retained. Councillor Adshead reiterated that the car park was underused and that the proposal would provide for parking in excess of current usage. The Executive Member, however, did not wish to pre-empt the consultation, which was currently ongoing and recognised that the proposals could change as a result of the outcome.

 

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

 

This Council’s Tree Replacement Policy could see the felling of 350 healthy, mature trees across Trafford costing potentially over half-a-million pounds. Will this administration continue to support this scheme and is the consultation process rigorous enough?

 

Councillor Adshead, the Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change clarified that approximately 60 mature trees had been identified for potential removal in the current financial year and not the 350 stated in the question. The Executive Member advised that consultation included all properties on a road highlighted for a tree removal scheme, neighbouring properties that had trees adjacent/to their rear and Ward Councillors. The Consultation process took approximately 4 weeks to complete with residents provided with a detailed explanation of the work planned, feedback form and a stamped addressed envelope. Schemes would only proceed if the majority of residents supported the Council’s proposals. Councillor Adshead explained that the consultation process had been in place for approximately 10 years and had been well supported by residents with a high feedback return over that period.

 

Councillor Adshead also added that on becoming Executive Member he had asked for a full review of the Council’s tree policy and in particular, advocated the planting of replacement trees, as close as was practically possible to those that had been removed.        

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor Jerrome asked, why it was that many healthy trees in their prime, often half way through their life cycle were being targeted. In response, Councillor Adshead stated that on the whole, trees were removed if they were dead, dying or dangerous with the exception being specialist tree programmes that the Council had to undertake. It was also acknowledged that mistakes may have been made many years ago with unsuitable species planted in the wrong location resulting in problems as the trees developed. As the Executive Member had mentioned, the Council would be looking at the issue further with a review of the tree policy and envisaged better management through special tree programmes.

Supporting documents: