Minutes of Proceedings of the City Council Meeting

City of Stoke-on-Trent

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Minutes of a meeting of the City Council held on Thursday, 8 December 2011 at the Civic Centre, Glebe Street, Stoke-on-Trent.

In Attendance: THE LORD MAYOR Councillor Terence Follows

Councillor Bagh Ali Councillor Ann James Councillor Muhammad Aumir Councillor Gurmeet Singh Kallar Councillor Kath Banks Councillor Majid Khan Councillor Paul Breeze Councillor Adrian Knapper Councillor Jack Brereton Councillor Andy Lilley Councillor Janine Bridges Councillor Mark Meredith Councillor Abi Brown Councillor Shaun Pender Councillor Karen Clarke Councillor Mohammed Pervez Councillor Randolph Conteh Councillor Sheila Pitt Councillor David Conway Councillor Andy Platt Councillor Terry Crowe Councillor Tom Reynolds Councillor Neil Day Councillor Ruth Rosenau Councillor Alan Dutton Councillor Paul Shotton Councillor Matthew Fry Councillor Duncan Walker Councillor Joy Garner Councillor Lee Wanger Councillor Martin Garner Councillor Glenys Ward Councillor Debra Gratton Councillor Alastair Watson Councillor Olwen Hamer Councillor Amjid Wazir Councillor Gwen Hassall Councillor Alison Wedgwood Councillor Peter Hayward Councillor Debbie Wheeldon Councillor Sarah Hill

Apologies submitted Councillor Shazad Hussain Councillor Matt Wilcox

Prepared by Member Services City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

99 MINUTES OF A PREVIOUS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON 20/10/11 Members were advised of an administrative correction required to the minutes presented for approval. Councillor Pervez had been listed in the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 20 October 2011, as having a Personal Interest in the Local Government Pension Scheme. This was incorrect, the interest that he had declared at the meeting was his Membership of the Co-operative Society.

RESOLVED – That, with the correction now made, the minutes of the last meeting of the City Council held on 20 October 2011, be approved and adopted as a true and correct record.

100 TO WELCOME VISITORS (IF ANY)

The Lord Mayor welcomed members of the public and representatives of organisations to the Council meeting.

101 TO RECEIVE OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS (IF ANY) The Lord Mayor conveyed the best wishes of the Council to Councillor Randolph Conteh who was scheduled to undergo surgery on Monday 12 December 2011.

102 TO TRANSACT BUSINESS OF A NON-CONTENTIOUS AND/OR URGENT NATURE SPECIALLY BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE LORD MAYOR OR CHAIRMAN The Lord Mayor presented awards to officers that had been involved in securing the following awards for the City Council:

• Guardian Public Services Awards – Runner up in the Creativity and Innovation category for Skills Development for the Trainee Care Worker Scheme – awarded to the Adult Social Care Learning and Development Team.

• Shine a Light Award – Multi Agency Team of the Year Award and Outstanding Achievement Award – awarded to the Early Years Team for the Stoke Speaks Out initiative.

Cabinet Members, Councillors Hamer and Gratton, thanked the officers involved and outlined the nature of the schemes referred to, which had received national recognition through the awards. Members of the Council joined the Lord Mayor and the Cabinet Members in congratulating those concerned.

The Lord Mayor went on to announce the death of Sam Hurst, the Headteacher of Glebe Primary School, which had been reported on by the local press that day. Councillor Gratton, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Life Skills, paid tribute to Sam and the outstanding contribution that she had made to primary education in the City.

2 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

103 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members declared interests, as indicated, in accordance with the provisions of the City Council’s Constitution on the issued listed below:

Name Item Interest Nature

Councillor A Knapper Para. 115 – Motion Personal Tenant of Realis on Notice Estates.

104 REPORT OF PETITIONS RECEIVED The City Council received details of a petition received since the last full City Council meeting in relation to noxious smell affecting the people of Smallthorne.

RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

105 PUBLIC QUESTIONS The City Council received details of 8 public questions submitted under Council Procedure Rule 8 and the respective responses provided by Cabinet Members, as set out below:-

Question 1: Electoral Registration – (Submitted by Mr Adam Colclough, Penkhull, Stoke on Trent)

The government has announced proposals to move from household voter registration to individual registration, meaning the public will no longer be compelled to comply with electoral registration officers.

Household registration may present problems in relation to possible fraud, however the move to individual registration could see up to ten million people failing to register to vote.

Parliamentarians, academics and the Electoral Commission have expressed concern that the resulting shrinkage of the electoral register could cast doubt on the validity of future election results.

What steps will the council take should individual registration become the norm to ensure the maximum number of people join the electoral register and make use of their right to vote?

Response Provided by the Leader of the Council (Councillor Mohammed Pervez):-

Whilst the government is committed to introducing individual electoral registration from 2014, it is still at a very early stage in terms of detail.

3 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

It is therefore not possible to give any indication of what steps the city council will take to ensure the completeness of the electoral register. Final legislation will dictate how the system will be implemented and administered.

However, Stoke on Trent has an excellent record of ensuring that the electoral register is full and accurate, achieving a response rate of over 96% at the annual canvass in recent years.

Electoral Registration Officers’ performance is monitored by the Electoral Commission. Since the inception of the performance standards, Stoke-on-Trent has never failed to meet or exceed the standard.

Regardless of the system that is used, the Electoral Registration Officer is fully committed to doing everything possible (within legislation and with resources available) to ensure that no elector in Stoke on Trent is disenfranchised and is given the facilities required to cast their vote.

(In a supplementary question, Mr Colclough asked the Leader of the Council if he agreed that effective engagement with communities was a priority for the City. Councillor Pervez gave reassurances that the City Council was fully committed to effective community engagement and the democratic processes that existed to support community engagement.)

Question 2: Transfer of Residential properties (Submitted by Ms Eve Johnson, Dresden, Stoke on Trent)

In the last 10 years how many Stoke-on-Trent City owned residential properties have been transferred to other organisations or where allocation of properties has been transferred, and to whom? (Each year)

In each case what did the council receive (cash/ in kind services etc)

What is the estimated total value (at current market rates) of the value of these properties?

Response Provided by the Cabinet Member for Housing & Neighbourhoods (Councillor Gwen Hassall):

A total of 15 council house dwellings were transferred as part of the ‘Meir Housing Market Renewal Area of Major Intervention Master Plan’, to Great Places RSL, during the 2010/11 financial year. The value received by the Council as part of this was £131,250 (average £8,750 per dwelling), but this valuation reflected the fact that Great Places paid for the refurbishment of the transferred dwellings, at around £60k per dwelling.

The city council retains the right to 100% nominations from our housing register for a period of 5 years

4 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

Leased properties

20 council house dwellings are leased to Brighter Futures as per the following:

1997/98 2 dwellings leased

1998/99 1 dwelling leased

2001/02 2 dwellings leased

2002/03 2 dwellings leased

2004/05 3 dwellings leased

2007/08 1 dwelling leased

2008/09 1 dwellings leased

2009/10 6 dwellings leased

2010/11 1 dwelling leased

2011/12 1 dwelling leased

All are leased to support vulnerable tenants with enduring mental health problems (12 properties) or people with learning disabilities who require ongoing low level support (8 properties). Brighter Futures pay the council a lease charge, quarterly in advance, equal to the rent, minus a notional housing management element. The current average market value for council house dwellings is £64k. Following Right to Buy discount the average reduces to £40k.

Hillcrest House

Hillcrest House is leased to Brighter Futures on a 25yr peppercorn arrangement with maintenance responsibility lying with Brighter Futures. Prior to 2007 it was a local authority registered care home managed in the traditional way and in need of total refurbishment to bring it up to a 21 st century, independent living establishment. Entering into the long lease arrangement satisfied the bid conditions to enable Brighter Futures to submit a bid to the Homes and Communities Agency Affordable Housing Programme. The bid was successful and provided £256kk toward a total refurbishment cost of £451k. Health funded £45k and Brighter Futures met the remaining £150k from their capital reserves the overall scheme now contains 15 units of accommodation and is part of the clubhouse Network supporting 125 members. The overall scheme enables residents to step up to independence in a safe and supported environment and through the clubhouse continues to support members living independent from the facility.

Question 3: City Council Loan Scheme (Submitted by Ms Eve Johnson, Dresden, Stoke on Trent)

5 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

On 1 August 2011 I received a response to a FOI SOT08634 which stated no museum items on loan. On 8 September the leader made reference to a painting at Stoke City football club and made reference to a Museums Picture Loan Scheme.

Why did the council mislead me in my FOI request?

When was the "Museums Picture Loan Scheme" adopted and by whom? Can you provide a copy of it as part of your answer?

Response Provided by the Leader of the Council (Councillor Mohammed Pervez):-

The City Council has two distinct service areas Museum Service and Library Service (which incorporates the Archive service). These two services have different and separate loan policies. The Museum service do loan material and the Archive Service do not.

The reply to the FOI request made on 6 th July 2011 was incomplete. Information about 1,169 items on loan had not been included but will be sent to you. A copy of the Museums Picture Loan Policy which was agreed by the then Leisure and Cultural Services Committee in February 1998 will also be sent to you. Whilst I agree that the FOI reply you received was incomplete, I have no reason to believe that the council deliberately attempted to mislead you.

Question 4: Tender arrangements for Bucknall Park City Farm (Submitted by Mr John Taylor, on behalf of Friends of Bucknall Park City Farm, Stoke on Trent)

On 21 January 2011 the tender process seeking expressions of interest for the City Farm site was suspended and bidders were told:

‘We are reviewing our approach to the procurement and for a temporary period this has been suspended. A further communication will be sent to you shortly. Thank you for your interest in the City Farm and your patience while we review our approach.’

Is this procurement process now abandoned?

If yes please say who took the decision and the date thereof and what bidders were told and the date thereof.

Response Provided by the Cabinet Member for City Services (Councillor Janine Bridges:-

The procurement process is now abandoned. The decision to abandon the expression of interest through the bravo system was taken by the Director of Business Services in consultation with Elected Members on the 27 th January 2011 and a notice published on the system.

6 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

(In a supplementary question Mr Taylor commented on reference made in the Our City publication to alternative facilities located outside the City and he asked Councillor Bridges if the residents of Stoke-on-Trent deserved better. Councillor Bridges agreed that residents did deserve better and she commented that negotiations were taking place on alternative sites.)

Question 5: Future of Bucknall Park City Farm (Submitted by Mr John Taylor, on behalf of Friends of Bucknall Park City Farm, Stoke on Trent)

When City Farm closed we were told; The City Council remains committed to finding a new operator for a similar venture for the future.

Is this commitment now binned?

If yes please say who took the decision and the date thereof and outline the alternative uses now being considered for the site.

If no please outline plans for procurement in terms of specification, lease and timing.

Response Provided by the Cabinet Member for City Services (Councillor Janine Bridges):-

A decision was taken to pursue alternative uses for the former City Farm area, this will include looking at planning policy that may allow other uses and also how better linkage to the wider park could be achieved.

A decision to review alternative uses was taken by Cabinet Members in July 2011, the view was taken that a City Farm would always be difficult to sustain without City Council funding.

(In a supplementary question Mr Taylor referred to the City Council’s initial commitment to finding a new operator for the farm, which was not subsequently upheld. He asked the Cabinet Member how residents of the City should interpret the word ‘commitment’ when used in the future by the City Council. Councillor Bridges commented on the difficult decisions that had to be made at the time and the Authority’s commitment and obligation to all the residents of Stoke-on-Trent, she explained that in order to continue with the facility it had to be self sustainable and not a burden to the tax payers in the City.)

Question 6: Recycling Targets (Submitted by Mr Mike Barnes, Dresden, Stoke on Trent)

In the last five years Stoke-on-Trent City Council has introduced measures to increase its recycling rates to meet targets.

For each of the last five years what has been the statistics for each area of recyclable material?

For example - metals - weight, cost of collection, value received, company sold too

7 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

Please could you give this information for:

- metals (broken down into types) - plastics - textiles - paper - garden - other

What implications has this had on the incinerator and in contract over the same period?"

Response Provided by the Cabinet Member for City Services (Councillor Janine Bridges):-

In the last five years Stoke-on-Trent City Council has introduced measures to increase its recycling rates to meet targets.

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Dry Recycling 14.95 14.81 15.95 16.44 20.6 21.23

Composting 4.18 5.18 8.67 10.33 16.87 17.99

Total 19.13 19.99 24.62 26.77 37.47 39.22

8 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

As can be seen the introduction of the enhanced collection service is 2009/10 made a marked improvement in recycling performance, specifically in relation to the provision of an organic collection service.

NI193: Percentage of Municipal Waste Sent To Landfill (available 2006 - 07 onwards)

Total Year Landfill rate %

2007- 08 21.57

2008- 09 17.80

2009- 10 9.80

2010- 11 14.60

Collection costs are not identifiable, they have been previously requested but we have been unable to disseminate costs. The value received for the materials collected are commercial in confidence in nature and have therefore not been included within the information compiled.

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Material Collected Collected Collected Collected Collected

Kerbside

Glass Mixed - - - 3,024.85 3,501.07

Green Glass 1,163.28 1,281.68 1,399.91 - -

Brown Glass 300.46 331.04 274.77 - -

9 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

Clear Glass 1,290.23 1,421.56 1,494.08 - -

Plastic - - 39.41 1,871.44 3,673.95

Aluminium Cans 104.72 115.43 167.57 189.94 423.69

Steel Cans 511.00 564.00 837.68 920.92 1,422.34

Other Mixed - - 2.00 127.96 409.16

Paper 5,180.62 5,707.91 4,930.94 5,195.32 5,037.47

Textiles 131.10 144.44 181.60 73.56 21.04

Organic - - 278.40 10,979.61 17,674.78

Green 2,512.64 8,249.76 9,578.60

BCA

Batteries 40.08 25.56 24.35 26.72 22.11

Cans 4.64 6.78 7.80 7.07 5.61

Cardboard 324.54 377.22 416.92 316.10 276.20

Flu.Tubes - - 1.23 1.22 1.03

Fridges - - 123.02 72.97 38.56

Furniture 4.96 5.21 7.97 10.06 9.62

Glass

10 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

75.48 86.66 105.68 71.52 46.85

Green 1,444.10 1,024.06 879.02 842.70 595.26

Metal 719.57 551.89 430.11 368.89 383.30

Oil 24.00 18.40 17.00 13.55 12.15

Paper 145.35 176.85 161.57 127.66 125.49

Plastic 26.99 48.96 59.67 28.58 15.02

Rubble 2,656.92 2,605.46 2,622.96 - 833.88

Shoes 3.92 4.43 4.91 4.91 1.74

Tetrapaks - 0.81 4.94 3.62 3.03

Textiles 40.37 75.52 83.26 88.72 88.70

TVs/CRT/Monitors - - 249.73 270.62 257.59

WEEE - LDA - - 109.47 99.36 106.14

WEEE - SMALL 312.23 499.16 157.97 188.64 189.60

Wood 1,596.26 1,612.18 1,553.59 1,694.12 1,576.14

HCA

Batteries 51.74 34.10 19.59 26.52 2.70

Cans

11 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

4.18 4.19 5.08 3.48 280.73

Cardboard - - 89.00 302.41 0.88

Flu.Tubes - - 0.82 1.03 42.53

Fridges - - 85.72 93.78 6.62

Furniture - - 1.36 3.32 40.56

Glass 89.71 74.70 70.87 50.16 428.12

Green 2,266.96 856.70 964.62 1,117.78 1,013.78

Metal 1,120.23 785.07 538.06 515.58 14.42

Oil 25.20 20.10 15.60 15.60 122.24

Paper 115.58 107.72 119.90 124.24 5.22

Plastic - - - 6.26 9.15

Rubble 3,730.50 1,844.18 995.28 2,035.20 784.04

Shoes 6.47 6.80 5.82 9.48 122.35

Tetrapaks - 0.51 0.70 1.04 312.88

Textiles 68.20 76.48 96.16 117.81 1.42

TVs/CRT/Monitors - - 288.73 332.51 125.54

WEEE - LDA 398.41 608.94 171.10 146.44 243.20

12 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

WEEE - SMALL - - 161.68 207.95 2,056.70

Wood 422.51 417.25 946.74 2,101.38 21.86

Total Annual Tonnage 26,913.15 29,771.71 30,782.97 33,832.60 42,386.46

Waste arisings within England have been in decline since 2006/07. This reduction is due to a combination of factors which include the reduction in packaging and reduction in raw materials in packaging type (thinner glass etc) together with successful waste minimisation campaigns. This has been exacerbated in more recent years by the economic downturn, which has reduced spending.

NI191: Residual Household Waste per Household (available 2006 - 07 onwards)

13 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

K/g per Year HH

2007- 08 N/A

2008- 09 734.36

2009- 10 590.06

2010- 11 581.17

These National trends have been echoed within Stoke-on-Trent and this has led to a reduction in waste disposal costs over the same period. The success of the enhanced recycling scheme has seen a further reduction in waste inputs to the plant of 14,612 tonnes in 2010/11.

As a result of the reduction in waste sent to the Energy from Waste plant at Hanford it has been possible to assist Sandwell Council, Derby City Council and Leicestershire County Council to reduce disposal costs and exposure to landfill infraction penalties.

Question 7: Achieving efficiencies by sharing services (Submitted by Mr Kieran Clarke, Packmoor, Stoke on Trent)

As part of the drive to gain efficiency and economic benefits, many local authorities are sharing services and facilities with other authorities and/or public sector organisations.

Recently Staffordshire County and Wolverhampton City Councils announced they are considering a partnership agreement to merge their back office functions. Both authorities feel that they will save money by working together. If the initial agreement is successful further sharing opportunities will be explored.

It has been stated in the press that currently the city council has no plans to share services with any other authorities. Why not?

Is this not a case of the council burying its head in the sand by not taking advantage of the opportunity to reduce its own back office costs? Surely this would then enable it to concentrate its resources on frontline services.

Soon there will be no one left to share services with.

Response Provided by the Cabinet Member for Finance (Councillor Sarah Hill):-

14 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

I can confirm that the council is open to - and is actively progressing - ways to share services with other LAs and partners, where it is advantageous to our customers and where it makes good commercial sense to do so. We already share services in terms of car parking arrangements for Staffordshire County Council and have a shared building control service with Newcastle Borough Council.

We have also instigated conversations with all three of our neighbouring boroughs to pursue further opportunities around economic development and waste. In fact at the City Council meeting you will hear about the Joint Waste Core Strategy which, together with Staffordshire County Council, looks at how joint working can deliver a better and more efficient service across administrative boundaries.

In addition, we are collaborating with Staffordshire County Council on a framework agreement for procuring temporary agency workers using MSTAR (Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources).

These conversations are currently ongoing and we remain committed to exploring efficiency opportunities with partner agencies in other areas of service delivery.

(In a supplementary question Mr Clarke commented on the major investment that the City would be undertaking on IT systems and upgrades and asked the Cabinet Member if there were plans to share facilities. The Cabinet Member responded by outlining the City’s commitment to obtaining the best possible value for the people of Stoke-on-Trent, she explained that all decisions would be based around what was best for the City, but she assured Mr Clarke that whenever the opportunity was there to look at shared services the City would do so.)

Question 8: Public Questions at City Council (Submitted by Mr Mick Williams, Penkhull, Stoke on Trent)

As you will be aware I have used the facility to ask questions under Procedure Rule 8 at the last two Council meetings, both of which have been supported by organisations with some concern for the issues involved but to which there has been no satisfactory answer - much less an answer to the actual questions asked.

Are you satisfied that this procedure constitutes a meaningful part of citizen engagement/empowerment? Given the totally unacceptable answers I have received will you either direct that these issues are addressed or else discontinue this meaningless charade of secrecy and obfuscation

Response Provided by the Leader of the Council (Councillor Mohammed Pervez):-

The ‘Your Question Time’ facility has been in operation at our City Council meetings for over 10 years. In the last twelve months alone we have considered 45 questions from our local residents at full City Council meetings and I believe that this in itself is testimony to the success and popularity of the facility. I’m firmly committed to regular engagement with the public and I do believe that the facility is one of a range of meaningful options that we offer to local people to facilitate communication with us.

15 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

With respect to your second question, please email me the precise details and I will ensure that you get a response. (In a supplementary question Mr Williams asked if the number of public questions submitted was the correct way to measure the success of the scheme and should questioners instead be asked if they were satisfied with the response provided. The Leader of the Council explained that residents had a right to ask questions and the Cabinet Members would provide responses, whether or not the response was acceptable to the individuals asking the questions was not a measure as it would depend on circumstances. He reiterated that the success rate was the number of people that asked questions and the fact that the Cabinet were giving responses to those questions.)

106 MEMBERS' QUESTIONS

The City Council received details of three questions submitted by Members under Council Procedure Rule 11.2 and the respective responses provided by Cabinet Members, as set out below:-

Question 1: High Speed Rail Link (Submitted by Councillor Brereton)

Has the council undertaken a feasibility study of the potential for high speed rail within the city?

Response provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transformation (Councillor Adrian Knapper):-

In June this year, the Cabinet considered a report on the government’s consultation on HS2, focused on the section between London and Birmingham. A response was submitted to government which supported the principle of HS2 extending north of Birmingham, subject to a station being provided to serve the local economy. HS2 Limited have been asked to give serious consideration to the need for a station on this section of the proposed route, and we are now liaising with adjacent authorities and LEP areas to develop a joint stance, ahead of the government’s plans to announce a proposed route in the new year. A feasibility study is not appropriate course of action, as decisions on the route and the locations of stations will be subject to national appraisal, but the City Council can and should influence that debate, working with partners and neighbouring authorities.

(In a supplementary question, Councillor Brereton sought reassurances that attempts would be made to influence debate to ensure that a station for the high speed rail link would be located in the centre of the City. The Cabinet Member explained that the location of the stations would be down to the Government, he added that in reality it was not definite that there would be a station in the City at all.)

Question 2: Mandate for Change (Submitted by Councillor Brown)

16 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

In the 'Mandate for Change' document, a commitment to make the gateways to the City 'loud and proud' is made - can the portfolio holder please detail what progress has been made on this so far, and what is planned in the longer term?

Response Provided by the Cabinet Member for Transformation and Resources (Councillor Shotton):-

The Mandate for Change recognises the importance that our gateways will play in creating the right image for the City – this includes the train station and the key road accesses to the City and the City centre. The investment plan includes proposals to improve our key gateways, with public realm improvements to Winton Square area in front of the train station, improvements to the link between the train station and city centre and also to improve the ‘Welcome’ signing at the city boundary, as part of a programme of improvements to the highway network. Detailed proposals are still to be developed, but I anticipate that several key locations will benefit from these improvements during the delivery period.

(In a supplementary question Councillor Brown referred to the two main gateways to the City from the south east, commenting that the signage on the A520 was poor, she asked if welcome signage on the A520 would form part of future proposals. The Cabinet Member explained that he could not provide such confirmation at this stage, however he agreed that the signage at that gateway was looking tired.)

Question 3: From Councillor Brereton addressed to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transformation (Councillor Adrian Knapper)

'What is the council doing to develop a strategy to tackle traffic bottlenecks such as the Leek Road A52 junction with Station Road & Glebe Street junction and the Cobridge A50/A53 junction?'

Response Provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transformation (Councillor Adrian Knapper):-

The City Council has already adopted a strategy for transport investment in its latest Local Transport Plan, which sets out a broad 15 year strategy, which will improve the efficiency of the network to make sure it supports economic regeneration. The delivery programme for the Local Transport Plan is largely dependent upon central government funding however, and last year’s Comprehensive Spending Review saw the annual capital settlement suffer severe cuts in funding, in excess of 50% in some areas of the transport programme.

Improving the transport network is a critical element of our Mandate for Change, so we will be looking to prioritise investment in the network. We will focus on dealing with known capacity problems and also on improvements which will support the local economy, for example by making journeys more reliable and by opening up opportunities to create new jobs. Schemes will be funded through our Mandate for Change programme, supported where possible by other money, from the LTP, other government funds and by working in partnership with developers.

17 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

Regarding the specific junctions highlighted, we are well aware of the traffic problems that people suffer on a daily basis.

• The Leek Road/A52 junction (the Lime Kiln lights) is a big problem, and although we have spent a lot of money on improvements in the last two years, we still have traffic delays at peak times. As we improve the capacity, so the traffic grows to take up the spare capacity. The junction is part of our urban traffic controlled network however, so we are able to manage the junction and amend signal timings to reflect demand. In the longer term, it may be possible to deliver more significant changes to the road network, tied in to new development in the area.

• The junction of Station Road and Glebe Street was improved last year, tied in to the Sixth Form College development. That junction has now settled down and delays are better than before the changes, but I know that there are still long queues at certain times of day. The main constraint is the Glebe Street bridge under the railway, which limits what we can do, but the lights are now tied in to our urban traffic control system and staff are working on more complex phasing of the lights to maximise efficiency.

• The Cobridge traffic lights have suffered from capacity problems for at least 20 years, and land constraints have made it difficult to do anything meaningful, without very expensive changes to the road layout, which would probably require land acquisition and buildings to be demolished. We do have a scheme in the programme to improve this junction, within existing highway boundaries, and this will be delivered during 2012/13 using funds from the Local Transport Plan. It includes adding an extra lane on the approach from Vale Place and will greatly improve journey reliability.

Our urban traffic control system helps us to get the very best out of the road network, but there will always be delays at peak times, simply because road space is effectively a free commodity and at peak times, the demand to travel outstrips the capacity and drivers will fill up the space available. Good transport links are critical to our local economy and to delivering the Mandate for Change, so we will continue to make improvements where we can, and we will use modern technology to maximise the efficiency of critical junctions like those mentioned.

107 APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE ON SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES IN THE CITY OF STOKE-ON-TRENT On the motion of Councillor Garner, seconded by Councillor Rosenau, it was:-

18 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

RESOLVED – That the following be appointed as City Council representatives to serve on the governing bodies of the schools indicated:-

SCHOOL NAME

Abbey Hulton Primary Mr Mike Bogg, Abbey Hulton

Etruscan Primary Mrs Janet Wareham, Clayton, Newcastle

Hanley St Luke’s Primary Councillor Alastair Watson, Hanley

Harpfields Primary Councillor Shaun Pender, Newcastle

Kingsland Nursery Mrs Mubsira Aumir, Bucknall

Milton Primary Mr Michael Convey, Milton

St George and St Martin Mr Kieran Clarke, Packmoor Primary

St Jonn’s Primary Mrs Sue Cotton, Newcastle

St Peter’s Academy Councillor Paul Shotton, Stoke

Summerbank Primary Councillor Martin Garner, Tunstall

Thomas Boughey Nursery Imran Ahmed, Hanley

108 COUNCIL TAX BASE 2012/13 The City Council received a report recommending the tax base which would culminate in the setting of the General Fund Revenue Budget and Council Tax in February 2012.

The legislative requirements involved with the setting the tax base were outlined and it was noted that the tax base for the City reflected the average value for a domestic property based on a band D.

The report submitted provided an analysis of the tax base and made reference to work that was ongoing to improve the council tax collection rates in the City.

It was recommended that the tax base for 2012/2013 was 71,397.9, based on a 98% collection rate. The tax base for 2011/12 was 71,304.9 based on the same percentage collection rate.

On the motion of Councillor Hill, seconded by Councillor Lilley, it was:

RESOLVED – That the tax base for 2012/13 be set at 71,397.9.

19 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

109 CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL'S CONSTITUTION A number of changes required to the City Council’s Constitution were considered, each of which had been approved by the relevant Committee and subsequently considered by the Constitution Working Group. The changes were outlined in detail in the report submitted and were concerned with the inclusion of new guidance for Members and Officers on outside bodies, some minor changes to the Code on Criminal Record Bureau checks and some amendments to the Scheme of Delegations to Chief Officers.

On the motion of Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Platt, it was:-

RESOLVED (i) – That the Guidance for Members and Officers on Outside Bodies, as set out in Appendix A of the report submitted, be adopted by the City Council and incorporated into Part 5 of the Constitution (Codes and Protocols).

RESOLVED (ii) – That amendments be made to the Local Code of Conduct on Criminal Records Bureau Checks for Members in Part 5 of the Constitution (Codes and Protocols), as set out in Appendix B of the report submitted.

RESOLVED (iii) – That the amendments to the wording of the current delegation 2.7 in the Scheme of Delegations to Chief Officers in Part 3 of the Constitution, as set out in Appendix B of the report submitted, be approved.

RESOLVED (iv) – That the current delegation numbered 2.30 be deleted from the Scheme of Delegations to Chief Officers in Part 3 of the Constitution.

110 SAFER CITY PARTNERSHIP PLAN, 2011-2014 The City Council was advised of the production of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Plan, entitled the “Safer City Partnership Plan 2011–2014”. The updated Plan was produced by the Safer City Partnership and was based on community and partner intelligence. It took into account changes in national direction, the local environment and the City Council’s Mandate for Change and had been endorsed by the Statutory Authority’s Group, the Executive Board of the Safer City Partnership and the Cabinet. It was submitted to Council for approval as a Policy Framework document.

In moving that the Plan be approved, Councillor Hassall asked the City Council to note the achievements made to date and the valuable contribution made by the Safer City Partnership to improve the quality of life for residents of Stoke-on-Trent. The motion was seconded by Councillor Reynolds.

20 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

RESOLVED – That the Safer City Partnership Plan 2011-2014 be approved and the achievements made to date and the valuable contribution made by the Safer City Partnership to improve the quality of life for residents of Stoke-on-Trent be noted.

111 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - JOINT STOKE-ON-TRENT AND STAFFORDSHIRE WASTE CORE STRATEGY 2010-2026 Consideration was given to the Joint Waste Core Strategy (JWCS) which had been prepared by officers of Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council to provide strategic spatial panning guidance on waste planning issues as part of the Local Development Framework. A consultation exercise on the document had been undertaken for a statutory period of six weeks from 23 September 2011, and details of the consultation responses were submitted to the meeting along with the strategy itself.

It was noted that the production of a JWCS was mandatory and the City Council was being asked to approve its submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate in Spring 2012.

On the motion of Councillor Bridges, seconded by Councillor Knapper, it was:-

RESOLVED – That now the final responses have been received the Joint Waste Core Strategy be approved for submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

112 STOKE-ON-TRENT AND STAFFORDSHIRE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY - PERIODIC REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN Councillor Crowe introduced the periodic report of the Chairman of the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Authority.

On the motion of Councillor Crowe, seconded by Councillor Banks, it was:-

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

113 STAFFORDSHIRE POLICE AUTHORITY - PERIODIC REPORT ON POLICE AUTHORITY MATTERS Councillor J. Garner introduced the periodic report on Staffordshire Police Authority matters. Specific reference was made at the meeting to the way in which Staffordshire Police had reacted to the riot threats in August 2011, and their excellent use of social networking as a medium. Councillor Garner was asked to congratulate the Police Authority on the City Council’s behalf.

On the motion of Councillor Garner, seconded by Councillor Hayward, it was:-

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

21 City Council Thursday, 8 December 2011

114 MOTION ON NOTICE - SAY NO TO THE NAME CITY SENTRAL

Councillor Breeze moved, and Councillor Conway seconded, the following motion (notice of which had previously been given):- “That, in view of the clearly overwhelming expression of public opposition to the name City Sentral for the proposed new Hanley shopping development, as a matter of significance to our city, as witnessed through many media outlets, including local radio, tv, newspaper articles, letters and a poll, in addition to an online petition and general word of mouth, this City Council:-

• rejects the name City Sentral for the proposed new shopping development

and,

• In partnership with Realis Estates, endeavours to put in place a more acceptable process to choose a more appropriate name.”

Following a debate on the motion, it was moved by Councillor Breeze that a recorded vote be taken but this was not supported by more than 18 members present and voting at the meeting.

On being put to the vote, the motion was rejected by the City Council.

115 MINUTES OF THE CABINET (27/10/11 AND 3/11/11) Minutes of meetings of the Cabinet held on 27 October and 3 November 2011 were submitted.

On the Motion of Councillor Pervez seconded by Councillor Gratton, it was:-