To consider any appeals from the public against refusal to allow inspection of background documents and/or the inclusion of items in the confidential part of the agenda.

To allow Members an opportunity to [a] declare any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in any items which appear on this agenda; and [b] record any items from which they are precluded from voting as a result of Council Tax/Council rent arrears; [c] the existence and nature of party whipping arrangements in respect of any item to be considered at this meeting. Members with a personal interest should declare that at the start of the item under consideration.  If Members also have a prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interest they must withdraw from the meeting during the consideration of the item.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2018, copy enclosed.

Decision

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetings on 25 July 2018.

The report of the Operational Director of Highways is enclosed.

A report submitted by the Operational Director of Highways proposed a new resident parking policy for the city so that resident parking schemes could contribute to making the city an even more attractive place to live, work and visit. The report explained the importance of their being a balance between residents being able to park a car close to their property, or have deliveries made, and the other demands on the road space. The other demands varied across the city so there needed to be a common approach to the design of residents’ parking schemes that also responded to local differences in a sensitive and appropriate way.

The report proposed that future resident parking schemes be based on a set of common key principles:

a)    The operation of resident parking schemes needs to be self-financing. The City Council should not commit future revenue support to such schemes.

b)    There should be broad consistency across schemes so that the design of schemes aimed at tackling similar problems should not differ e.g. in the case of schemes designed to tackle parking around hospital sites.

c)    Schemes should be introduced in an equitable way so that there is appropriate financial support for residents who would be disproportionately affected by the impact of a charging scheme.

d)    There needs to be clear evidence of majority support in the area concerned for the introduction of a scheme as well as clearly established evidence of need.

e)    Enforcement of resident parking schemes should be fit for purpose. (A review of scheme enforcement is to take place looking at ways to increase / improve enforcement).

f)     Schemes need to be appropriate and proportionate to the parking issues being faced by residents in any given area.

g)    Any visitors’ permits made available as part of scheme design need to be linked to a specific vehicle and not be transferable. 

h)   It will be important to consider the ‘knock-on’ implications for adjoining areas in terms of displacement as part of any assessment.

The report explained that in addition to the four parking schemes already being developed (Rusholme, North Manchester General Hospital, Hathersage Road Area, and St George’s) there were eight other locations across the city that had been identified as being in need of some form of residential parking scheme. The report explained the issues that would need to be considered in order for these eight other schemes to be developed in accordance with the above principles: including the first of being self-financing, with residents living within the area of a scheme paying for their own and visitor permits for their vehicles.

The meeting was addressed by Councillor A Simcock, a ward councillor for the Didsbury East ward. Councillor Simcock spoke as the Council’s representative on the Christie Hospital Council of Governors, and also as the Chair of the Christie Hospital Neighbourhood Forum. He asked that the proposed extension of the Christie Hospital residents parking scheme be considered as the fifth named scheme already under development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

The report of the Strategic Lead for Homelessness is enclosed.

In November 2013 we had adopted the “Manchester Homelessness Strategy 2013 – 2018” that set out the Council’s priorities to address and prevent homelessness for the next five years (Minute Exe/13/154). In November 2017, as part of the work on the Homelessness and the City Centre Review, we had agreed proposals for the 2013 strategy to be revised to address a number of matters including the implications of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (Minute Exe/17/139).

A report now submitted by the Strategic Lead for Homelessness explained that the Council had undertaken the City Centre Review (Minute Exe/17/024) which had brought about additional investment for services for people who were rough sleeping. During late 2017 an in-depth review of the wider causes of homelessness in Manchester had been undertaken. That had included analysis of the available resources within the service to address the impact of the Homelessness Reduction Act. The Homeless Reduction Act had come into effect in April 2018. That had widened the access to prevention services for all households at risk of losing their home. Whilst that enabled the Council to support people who might be at risk of homelessness it also resulted in an increase in demand for services, and a requirement for closer partnership working.

A new strategy for addressing and reducing homelessness in Manchester had been developed through the Manchester Homelessness Partnership (MHP). The Partnership had been established in 2015 to bring together those with a personal insight into homelessness and the organisations working to reduce homelessness. The Partnership had since provided a radically different approach to how services were designed and commissioned, and had been instrumental in the development of the new strategy.

The report set out the how the partnership had developed this strategy. The strategy was to focus on three key aims:

• making homelessness a rare occurrence: increasing prevention;
• making any experience of homelessness as brief as possible: improving temporary and supported accommodation; and
• making sure homelessness a non-recurring experience: increasing access to settled homes.

The report also described the plans for the implementation of the strategy and the Council’s participation in that. It also set the new strategy in the context of the work being done across Greater Manchester. It was highlighted that this new strategy was to be for the whole city, so adopted by the Partnership as a whole, rather than a document produced and adopted solely by the Council. A copy of the document was appended to the report.

Decision

To endorse the proposed Strategy and commend it to the Manchester Homeless Partnership Board.

The report of the City Treasurer is enclosed.

In October 2016 we had considered and endorsed for public consultation a revised Council Tax Support (Minute Exe/16/126). In January 2017 we considered the outcome of the consultation and agreed to adopt a new support scheme (Minute Exe/17/012). The City Treasurer now submitted a report proposing further changes to the Council’s Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme, with the intention that these would also be subject to a period of public consultation. The basis of these proposed changes was to seek to ensure that that the scheme remained fit for purpose as working age residents in receipt of welfare benefits were moved onto Universal Credit (UC).

The report explained the challenges to the current scheme of Council Tax Support that were going to arise from the changeover to Universal Credit. One of the most significant of those being that it was not ‘universal’ and so Council Tax Support would need to be administered outside of and separately from UC. Under the current CTS scheme the entitlement to CTS was influenced by the entitlement to other benefits. As UC was set up so that the level of benefit could fluctuate, depending on a person’s earnings, there was the possibility of a lot of administrative processing to deal with fluctuating levels of CTS benefits, making the scheme less straightforward for residents and more expensive for the Council to operate.

The report set out a package of proposed changes to the current scheme to mitigate the consequences of claimants moving onto Universal Credit, including the introduction of a banding structure for level of support based on ranges of excess weekly income. It was hoped that these bands would accommodate much of the fluctuation in UC levels without there needing to be a matching fluctuation in the Council Tax Support.

We noted that the Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee had also considered the Treasurer’s report at a recent meeting (Minute RGSC/18/46). The Committee had supported the proposed changes to the CTS Scheme. It had also recommended that other possible changes to some aspects of the current scheme be considered for inclusion in the consultation on the changes set out in the report. These additional changes related to the support to families with three of more children.

It was agreed that the changes proposed in the report should be consulted upon. It was also agreed that the further changes recommended by the Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee should be considered by the City Treasurer, and if possible without causing undue delay, included in the consultation. Authority was therefore delegated to the City Treasurer to decide on the contents and timing of the consultation.

Decisions

1.         To endorse the proposals contained in the report and that there should be formal consultation on those proposals.

2.         To note the comments and recommendations of the Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee.

3.         To delegate authority to the City Treasurer in consultation with the Executive Member for Finance and Human Resources to finalise the consultation proposals and the timing of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

The report of the City Solicitor is enclosed.

A report submitted by the City Solicitor explained that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) was proposing to change the constitution of its Transport for Greater Manchester Committee (TfGMC). The intention was to reduce the size of the committee from its present size of 33 members down to 23. It order to achieve that the GMCA had devised proposals for how the 10 districts in Greater Manchester would appoint or Nominate Councillors to sit on the committee, and for the Greater Manchester Mayor to also nominate a person to sit on the committee.

As the TfGMC would be exercising some executive and non-executive functions the change would require the support of the executive and of the Council of each of the 10 districts. The actual appointment and nomination of Manchester City Councillors to the new committee would be done by the Council, on the advice of the Constitutional and Nomination Committee. The report asked for the Executive to agree to the governance changes that arose from these proposals.

Decisions

1.         To agree the reduction in size of the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee (TfGMC) to 23 members.

2.         To agree that each of the 10 Greater Manchester district councils shall:

·         appoint one member to the TfGMC (save for Manchester City Council which shall appoint two members); and

·         nominate one further member to be appointed to the TfGMC by Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) to ensure political balance.

3.         To agree that the GMCA shall appoint one member.

4.         To agree that the Mayor of Greater Manchester shall nominate one further member to be appointed to the TfGMC by the GMCA.

5.         To agree that the TfGMC Operating Agreement be amended to reflect the above changes.

6.         To agree that the TfGMC Terms of Reference be amended to ensure that they reflect the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s current transport powers.

7.         To agree that the Operating Agreement and Terms of Reference of the TfGMC be further reviewed in 2019/20 when the final Mayoral transport powers are agreed by Order.

The report of the City Treasurer is enclosed.

A report concerning requests to increase the capital programme was submitted. We approved five changes under delegated powers. These changes would increase Manchester City Council’s capital budget by £3.533m in 2018/19 and by £0.508m in 2019/20.

Decisions

To approve the following changes to the City Council’s capital programme:

1.         Highways – SEMMMS A6 Scheme. An increase in the capital budget of £2.962m in 2018/19, funded by Department for Transport grant (DfT).

2.         Highways – Large Patching Programme. An increase in the capital budget of £0.439m in 2018/19, funded by Department for Transport grant via Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).

3.         Highways – School Crossings Programme. An increase in the capital budget of £0.132m in 2018/19, funded by external contributions from Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM).

4.         Highways – MSIRR Great Ancoats Improvement Scheme. An increase in the capital budget of £0.308m in 2019/20, funded by external contributions from Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM).

5.         Corporate Services – Band on the Wall Loan. An increase in the capital budget of £0.2m in 2019/20, funded by capital fund.