I’m sure that all members will wish to record our sympathy to the victims of flooding which affected Greater Manchester and much of the North of England over the Christmas period.
Stockport wasn’t badly affected this time, but Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service have said that had the Mersey burst its banks they would have struggled to cope, and this should provide us with a stark warning as to the scale of the threat.
Will the Leader of the Council agree to revisit local contingency plans to ensure that all preparations by the Council and our partners which can be made, are made, and to place a greater emphasis on being proactive rather than reactive when it comes to flooding?
Cllr Sue Derbyshire (Liberal Democrat Leader of the Council, Manor):
We were one of the two [boroughs] that did not actually have to have people or businesses evacuated. Civil Resilience is done across Greater Manchester with local representation.
It’s one…joint service and I should have probably thanked Mr. Boylan [Stockport Council’s Chief Executive] in my Leader’s Report who had a less than a relaxing post-Christmas because he was on Gold Watch as part of that civil resilience.
They are always looking at what might happen and they are always updating in the light of new information because the floods were significantly worse than we have had. It might be [labelled] a 1 in a 100 year event, but do you remember when we [have] had 1 in a 100 year events in consecutive [instances of severe weather]?
We want homes and businesses in Stockport to be as resilient as they can be – something we also want for all the people across Greater Manchester and the North West.
Comment: Labour want the borough to be as prepared as possible to manage the risk of future flooding, and that includes the Council and our local partners in the emergency services and Environment Agency being proactive now rather than waiting to react to the next ‘1 in a 100 year event’. Civil resilience is a cross border issue, with planning at regional and national level, but we hope Stockport Council is feeding into this wider planning.
Cllr Kate Butler (Labour Spokesperson for Corporate and Customer Services, Reddish North):
Reported anti-social behaviour in Stockport has risen by more than 25% in the last 18 months, with the total number of cases rising from over 1,275 in 2013-14 to over 1,700 in 2014-15 and this pattern has continued in the first half of this year.
What are [the Executive Member for Safe and Resilient Communities’] views as to why there has been this worrying increase in anti-social behaviour which blights many local neighborhoods?
Cllr Shan Alexander (Liberal Democrat Executive Member for Safe and Resilient Communities, Marple South):
Most of the anti-social behaviour is youth creating a nuisance…but having said that we are doing quite a lot of work in parks, in open areas and [across] Stockport, to try to help young people to find a better way of doing things.
I can speak about parks [where] we have got SAVY [Stockport Action for Voluntary Youth] working to help our young people…
Most of the anti-social behaviour is young people, so we are also going into schools, talking to schools about how we approach young people.
Also the Youth Justice Plan does help with anti-social behaviour. There are four or five different projects, I can’t name every project, but we are doing quite a lot of work to address this.
The other point is in December and January, the figures do go up. It does go up during that time, not just December, but [also during] November and December as you have the fireworks and there are different things happening during that time as well and in the Summer you get that.
But we are working hard behind the scenes and are doing everything possible to bring the figures down.
Comment: Residents are unlikely to be reassured about the Council’s response to rising anti-social behaviour by this reply. Cllr Butler quoted annual figures from the Council and the Executive Member only had a series of unsubstantiated statements to offer. What is needed is a clear, evidence-based plan to tackle anti-social behaviour in Stockport
Cllr Wendy Wild (Labour Spokesperson for Adults, Davenport and Cale Green):
Despite reassurances to the contrary in this chamber at the Council Meeting on 29th October, and the passing of a motion which stated that mental health is a top priority of the Council on 3rd December, the Well-Being Centre on Chestergate closed on 31st December.
Will the Executive Member for Supporting Adults restate his previous commitment to find an alternative site in Stockport for the Centre by the end of this financial year?
Cllr Keith Holloway (Liberal Democrat Executive Member for Supporting Adults, Cheadle and Gatley):
As I am sure Councillor Wild and other Councillors will know, the decision to terminate the lease of the Sir Joseph Whitworth Centre was taken not by the Council, but by the Health Service, in particular through their property services agency.
What the Council has done is work with the organisations based at the Centre to ensure that we could support those organisations to find an alternative base to deliver those services and have given a commitment to work with them to find a permanent location and we hope that will be within the Stockport Town Centre area.
It may not be for the totality of those services, because as members of Adult Care [Services and Housing] Scrutiny Committee and other members of Council will know, as part of the Stockport Together initiative, within all of our 8 neighbourhood services, we are looking at ways in which we can strengthen the provision of locally based mental health support and it could well be that some of the services currently within the St. Joseph Whitworth Centre, could entirely appropriately be part of that neighbourhood service.
We are working with those groups [and] we endorse our commitment to mental health, but I must remind Councillor Wild and all Councillors, of the statement from Councillor Derbyshire at the beginning of this session.
We are faced with a situation where the Council needs to find something in excess of £21m savings for the next financial year and in Adult Social Care the initial savings that we were looking for are around £8.5m. By taking up the Osborne Tax, we could reduce that savings down to about £6m but…can I underline Councillor Derbyshire’s request to anyone who can see ways within Social Care or anywhere else to see how best we can bridge that £2m gap.
So mental health, of course we will do whatever we can to support the further development of mental health services for our residents right across Stockport, but that has got to be seen in the context of the financial pressures facing the whole of the Council.
Comment: This appears to be a significant change of position from the Executive Member, who before Christmas was providing assurances that an alternative site would be found for the valuable support groups which were based at the Well-Being Centre on Chestergate. He is now speaking of how he ‘hopes’ this will be in the town centre, but that was the guarantee he appeared to give only a matter of weeks ago.
Another example of the Lib Dem Executive saying one thing and doing another whilst hiding behind the financial climate to justify the choices they are making. The financial position hasn’t changed considerably since last autumn, and nobody forced the Executive Member to promise campaigners that he would find a new location and provide funding for 3 years.
Cllr Andy Sorton (Labour, Brinnington and Central):
My question is about young people and their ability to participate in sport and physical activity in Stockport. Irrespective of what provision might be available, there are certain areas, and it is part of [a recent] report on sports participation from the London School of Economics, where inequalities bring barriers to young people getting involved in sport and physical activity.
To put this into some kind of perspective…the mortality rates in this borough vary between males by 11 years and females by 8 years [in different areas of Stockport]. Access to sport and physical activity is a major part of that.
Councillor Meikle, we are getting a new sports facility in Brinnington which is really welcome. The problem is, if it’s not accessible to young people as cost effective or no cost provision, then it’s pointless because they won’t be able to access it and the circle goes round.
My question is what assurance can you give us that you will deliver low cost or no cost sporting facilities and activities for these young people?
Cllr Wendy Meikle (Liberal Democrat Executive Member for Supporting Children, Offerton):
Mr. Mayor, this is [a question relating to] Councillor McAuley’s [portfolio] as it’s with regard to sports provision and leisure. [That said] I will work with whatever people want me to work on, wherever people want me to. If they want me to make sure that people can access provision, I will certainly try to do that.
Comment: Cllr Sorton has subsequently received assurances from the Leader of the Council that his concerns will be taken seriously and that efforts will be made to make sure that local leisure facilities are accessible for local people. We look forward to substantive proposals being brought forward in the near future as this is a crucial part of tackling health inequalities which is something which has support across the political parties.