Attended a meeting in Hulme tonight. The police along with the combined authority with a particular focus on Manchester and Trafford came together to consider a focused bid to the Youth Endowment Fund on deterring violent crime.
The bid would be to the Agency Collaboration funding project of the Youth Endowment Fund charity.
Agency Collaboration Fund
We know that many children and young people at risk of becoming involved in violence are known to local statutory agencies such as police services, GP practices, schools and colleges and children’s services. Yet this knowledge is often fragmented across multiple organisations, with different people holding different pieces of the puzzle. Opportunities where agencies could and should work together effectively to better prevent children becoming involved in violence are missed.
To help understand where those opportunities are, we’re investing in our Agency Collaboration Fund. We want to understand if, how and when effective collaboration between agencies (and sometimes between departments within the same agency) can prevent children from involvement in violence.
The fund aims to address these questions:
Which partnership models work best to support children and young people and how?
How do local conditions and contexts affect change?
Which agency collaboration activities, interventions and approaches are most effective at preventing children and young people from becoming involved in violence?
Really worthwhile project. I hope GMCA can progress and a package of matched funding can be put together. It’s clear that violent crime is worryingly increasing and all the indications point to it increasing across networks. This isn’t an issue of a few kids across one or two streets, the networks extend right across neighbourhood borders and police forces. Information sharing is vital and for me it’s not enough to say that a particular neighbourhood is relatively crime free.
This is nothing new, I was once told by a neighbourhood policeman of one particular set of streets in this ward that had hardly any crime, largely because of a few residents higher up the criminal hierarchy, kept a lid on things rather than bring police attention and woe betide any local dealing etc.
Data sharing has to be fit for purpose and and taken seriously.
Sadly, I was the only Trafford councillor who attended but it was good to hear from Manchester Councillors who like me had seen the impact on families of this tragic descent.
A few predictions for this time of year seems to be the tradition. I’m optimistic.
I think we’re going to have a difficult few weeks with covid but spring is going to look so much better for those who keep up their vaccination. It will never go away but we’ll find it far more manageable with minimal impact on daily lives. Just to reiterate though, January/February will be horrible.
As covid normalises, trade unions will take a hard look at the equality of health provision. In 2023 it will not be defensible for the lowest rates of vaccination to be amongst ethnic minorities and manual trades.
(Trade Unions generally will be playing a bigger direct role in 2023 – and we’ll all be better for it)
Big wish – That we see a new health facility in the Gorse Hill/Firswood Area
I suspect the focus will shift to the Canalside area. We’ve only had one or two artist impressions of people relaxing on the side of the canal. We need to see how this area can be brought to life and importantly, how it relates to and complements the work on the Mall.
Man U will be putting some meat on the bones of their plans to modernise and enlarge the stadium. I really hope Trafford’s leadership is not bought off with promises of ‘jam tomorrow’. Residents around the stadium have seen it all before. There needs to be a paradigm shift in how Man U connects with its neighbours both here and greater Old Trafford; and Salford too. There’s a real opportunity to place residents to the front of negotiations before officers agree to the bulk of Man U’s demands.
Big wish: That Manchester United places itself hand in hand in collaboration with residents and local businesses to develop a masterplan that puts Man U as a catalyst for a neighbourhood enhanced by them rather than impaired.
I’m biased, but I believe that it was a huge error removing Kate Green from Labour’s education portfolio. Strategic thinking on how we address the twin challenges of Brexit and Covid is vital; and far more important than parliamentary bluster. Personally, I think this is an area that Andy Burnham needs to seize. We vitally need a skilled up work force that can compete internationally. Covid has been hugely damaging to a generation and yet it’s the aspect of levelling up that gets the least attention. The impact on children in Lostock and Gorse Hill has been far greater than Hale and Timperley and it needs addressing.
Big Wish 1- that we start publicising 11+ pass rates of schools. We’ve always been too polite and discreet about this but it allows certain schools to push the boundary of coaching. You will only see progress if you expose how inherently unfair it is to certain schools and their pupils.
Big Wish 2 – that we make an irresistible demand for a huge investment in Further Education. It’s never been more important to make lifelong learning routinely available to all.
Active Travel is going to continue to be controversial but it’s also going to edge forwards. We can’t have Stretford’s motorway restored to how it was; and a bus lane doesn’t help Stretford, or buses particularly there. We’ve got to make crossing our roads much easier and less stressful.
Nevertheless we are expecting work to start this year on the Greatstone Road/Talbot Road junction. Much needed as it’s been far too grim for pedestrians trying to cross Greatstone Road without a phase for them to cross safely.
I have quite a few on my wish list in this area but it’s worth pointing out that they’re all predominately for pedestrians. We really should have prioritised walking before cycling and I say that as a cyclist. No one cycles before they can walk and we’ve made it so difficult to get around on foot, it’s no wonder we use cars for ridiculously short journeys.
Big wish 1: That Trafford takes a strategic decision to make all crossings provide improved priority to pedestrians. Too many force the pedestrian to stand at the kerb, getting sprayed by cars for too long.
Big wish 2: A Chester Road crossing close to Gorse Hill Park. It’s awful having to cross there without any infrastructure but parents and children have to do it daily. Long overdue.
Big wish 3: Pedestrian phase for Park Road / Derbyshire Lane – I think it’s now on the list but needs pressure from Trafford to maintain its place.
Big wish 4: Safe pedestrian crossing for Raglan Road to Davyhulme Road at Fiveways. Clearly, I live on Raglan Road so I haven’t prioritised this one. However, since I’m going and daily have to chance my life against traffic from all directions, I’m going to include it in this my last wish list as councillor.
Big wish 5: Humphrey Park Station Tunnel : Complicated ownership/responsibility but this is such a valuable and well used pedestrian route between Lostock and Humphrey Lane and yet it’s in disgraceful nick. It doesn’t have disabled access, it collects rain and muck and it’s poorly lit. It can’t be beyond the wit of Trafford and Northern Rail/Network Rail to come together and sort it.
Big wish 6: A Melville Crossing beg button that works when there’s moving traffic. Not much point in having a controlled crossing if it waits until there’s no traffic before working.
Big wish 7: And this one really irritates. I wish we could lock Highways Agency, Trafford Council and TfGM in a room with a PC operating Street View to check every route from Junction 7 on the M60 for road signage to enable HGVs to find a sensible route to Trafford Park. I am sick to the back teeth of 30 ton HGVs getting lost in residential streets because there’s no signs once they’re off main route from junction 9 Parkway. I wouldn’t let them out of the room until they’d sorted it.
I think I dealt with this in my previous blog post. I don’t think we’re going to get from the seven year review the community engagement that we really need and was promised at outset. I do think it’s the only meaningful way we’ll achieve the focused service we need. There has been some improvement on occasions. I like the way that Stretford Litter Pickers has been able to work with Amey. I think that’s largely because Stretford Litter Pickers are more determined than most and all credit to them.
Too many parks have lost their swings. It’s vital we get investment. I worry so much about what covid has done to a generation of kids. At least give them park equipment to play on. We’ve locked them up for too long.
Liar Johnson is leaving the building
He’s going isn’t he? No one can survive their reputation being shredded the way that his has been over parties, expenses and his own arbitrary rules that he doesn’t pretend to stand by. The local elections will see him off and Labour will be cock-a-hoop.
Labour needs to be careful though. Johnson is the main reason Labour’s polling has improved. I am not sure Starmer’s inner circle are taking the right messages from this improvement in polling. I’m not sure it’s helpful to know what type of car they think Starmer is.
Lastly (and I mean it)
It’s always useful to list priorities. You’ve always come back at me to add a few more. I’ve always enjoyed that.
The fact that some of these priorities would have been listed when I first became a councillor I think says more about the way Council operates in its own bubble. Unless you have access to officers, you’re rarely going to make headway and that access has never been more at a premium than it is now.
However, I’ve only got about 10 more weeks as a councillor. So these will be someone else to pick up or not and that’s right. Generally, I am optimistic.
One of the things I think has really improved is community strength and identity. In Gorse Hill we’ve had the lantern parade and it was great. Stretford has been doing its advent windows for a few years now. I saw this week that Wigan had an annual fancy dress on Boxing Day. These locally based quirks are great and are a real hope that we can have neighbourhoods that are different and flourishing.
The Amey One Trafford Partnership has been a feature of life in Trafford for the last six and a half years and we’re coming up to the 7 year review.
So whether you’re itching to get Amey out of your life, or happy to move forward together, councillor scrutiny of the contract has commenced.
7 year Review
The agreement was signed 7th May 2015 and the partnership is due to end on the 30th June 2030 for everything but the street lighting contract, which gets an extra 5 years until 2035.
There is a provision for the council to ask for an 8 year extension to 2038 if it so chooses, but to all intents and purposes the bulk of the contract is a 15 year agreement and we’re coming up to that half way point.
What gets to be reviewed?
The terms of the review are specified under clause 12 of the agreement. The terms have their roots in the original aims of the ‘Reshaping Trafford’ project set out at the onset of the tender in March 2015:
To deliver a minimum of 20% savings against the net budget from contract commencement.
To deliver further, future efficiency savings through continuous improvement and innovation in service provision through the contract life.
To have flexibility, recognising the challenging financial climate facing local authorities at the moment.
Protect jobs and maintain service standards in so far as practicable.
So this time last year under clause 12, the council must have begun the process to assess Amey’s performance against:
Achieving value for money in its services on behalf of the council
Preparing Service Plans
Satisfying the users of services
Satisfying the council
Providing a competitive service
And the council will have engaged in a dialogue in order to determine whether it wished to exercise rights to request a Seven year options proposal very much focused within the agreement on cost reduction, so that those options will consider in order of precedence:
Reconfiguration of service delivery
Adjustment of targets and performance
Adjustment to scope
At the end of the review
As you can see the Tory contract always envisaged service degradation at this point in the agreement. It has to be said that the Tories also envisaged that Amey might not wish to comply, or they may wish to make counter proposals that the council the council would find unacceptable. Both these outcomes are provided for in the agreement along with a protocol designed to bring both parties together but with the possibility of agreement termination as the ultimate recourse.
This process must be coming to its latter stages now and the call has been made for a cross party group to come together to look at the review. I don’t have any insight into where we’re at but probably wouldn’t be able to tell you if I did have.
Politically, whatever changes are made will be Labour changes.
It’s worth pointing out then that I’m convinced the ‘Reshaping Trafford’ project, more than anything, led to the demise of the Conservatives in Trafford. A 20% reduction in funding for the only services that we all use was the most comprehensive suicide note that any council has written ever. Whatever happens at this seven year review, it’ll still be a Conservative project but increasingly we in Labour will be held to be responsible for its day to day running. It’s in our interest to make the partnership more accountable to its users and that’s something actually enshrined in the agreement.
Clause 12:13 talks about whether or not “the Service Provider has to a material extent failed to satisfy the users of the Services in relation to the Service Provider‘s performance under this Agreement.”
I think it’s fairly clear that ‘Love Old Trafford’ had their patience stretched by Amey and the council. Once the 7 year review is over, I don’t believe the distinction between Amey and the council will wash. It’ll be council services and we’ll to a much greater extent have to satisfy the users of the services.
That said, there’s real chance for Amey and senior councillors be more joined up and responsive to the public and their representatives. The prospect of another seven years of staying together just because they have to is too depressing to contemplate. This isn’t a marriage. The seven year review provides a chance to bring partnership back to the fore. I hope it goes well.
Good News: The proposal to charge for visitors has been withdrawn
As it stands today the council is having to save or draw in income amounting to over £11 million. This is after increased council tax and use of reserves is factored in. So we’re under pressure and there’s some difficult decisions to make. So far the council has identified £5.5m savings and income proposals.
We won’t know the full position until the government announces the draft local government finance settlement in December but it’s a difficult situation. We’re currently scrutinising proposals for the budget based on what we know now.
As can be seen below nearly half the proposed savings are coming from the ‘Place Directorate’ and these are being looked at tonight.
Looking at the ‘Place’ savings, the majority is coming from savings in waste. It shows how important recycling is to the council. Contaminated waste really costs us and it’s vital to keep improving recycling rates to get that waste levy down.
An area I’m having problems with and I’m keen to focus in on is the £100,000 review of resident parking permits.
I’ve learned that it contains the introduction of charges for visitors permits. Currently Gorse Hill gets a small pack of free visitor permits. This works well but it’s now proposed to charge £25 for 12 visitor permits at the start of the season.
This proposal has now been withdrawn.
The Council has got this wrong I think. The whole point of the permit scheme is to allow residents close to the ground to have normal lives as far as possible. The council shouldn’t be trying to make money out of it. I’m convinced some will pay and others won’t. It’s common under the current scheme for visiting passes to get shared when it comes to weddings, funerals or building work. That sharing ethos is put at risk and I’m not sure they’ll get as big a take-up as they’re anticipating. So I’m very much trying to get them to rethink.
We do need to raise money though and I’ve included suggestions.
We could be bringing Sundays into line with other days and start charging on the car parks etc. Currently it’s free to park on a Sunday. Given we want to charge people to have visitors on a Sunday in Gorse Hill, I don’t think it stacks up.
I also think we’re massively undercharging for match day street vending. Our top rate is just over £3000 for a prime spot. When you compare that to how much operators have to pay for a weekend’s pitch at festivals there’s a huge discrepancy. You might pay £18,000 for a few days.
I’ll report back how I get on but I’m determined to get rid of the charges for visitors.
We’ve had two very different reports this week in Trafford. Both the “Streets for All Strategy” from Andy Burnham’s team and the replacement of pop-up cycle lanes consultation got approval. Whilst the overall strategy seems clear, and there ought to be a greater focus on helping us use healthier travel options when appropriate, implementation appears elusive and the possibility of turning the clock back looks to be on the cards for Trafford.
The 10 Greater Manchester Authorities are adopting this strategy. It’s been adopted by Trafford this week. The vision is:
We will ensure that our streets are welcoming, green, and safe spaces for all people, enabling more travel by walking, cycling and using public transport while creating thriving places that support local communities and businesses.
Streets for All Vision
Valuing our streets as community assets
Streets for All recognises the value of our local places, something which Covid-19 has shone a light on. We want streets that feel part of the community, not just a route for cars to travel along. In my view it’s belatedly recognising that towns so focused and dependent on car use are neither going to be attractive nor prosper. My goodness, it’s taken Stretford a long time to appreciate that.
The strategy acknowledges that since road transport generates nearly a third of all carbon emissions, we are going to need to see significant changes in the ways people travel. This will require radical change in how people, goods and services move into and around our city-region.
Vitally, expected standards on the different road types are set out. The key is delivering these and it’s not all about huge infrastructure projects. So for instance, on our strategic and connector roads network such as the A56 and Park/Barton Roads, crossings should be provided where people need them that allow them to cross quickly and safely.
We aren’t delivering to the standard now. There’s work to be done: the Park Road/Derbyshire Lane junction is a nightmare for pedestrians and should be a priority, and equally, there still isn’t a crossing on the A56 to Gorse Hill Park main entrance where it is very much needed. Nevertheless, the strategy does at least set out priorities and expectations. And it’s down to us hold the decision makers to account as to whether they’re adhering to it.
In an entirely different report Trafford’s Executive Member for Environmental and Regulatory Services (Cllr Stephen Adshead) approved a proposal to consult with the public on the three options for the future of the popup cycle lanes along the A56:
to replace it with a shared bus/cycle lane;
to replace it with a protected cycle only lane; or
to remove it entirely and revert to pre-COVID-19 status.
Shared Bus/Cycle Lane
There’s no getting away from it that this is something of a confused and contradictory report. Whilst a bus/cycle lane is presented as an option (perhaps even a preferred option), there seems to have been very little evaluation, no mention of working with the bus companies or identification of services. There are in fact no bus services on the A56 Bridgewater Way, so either they are prepared to mix and match (something the report explicitly rules out) or they could end up with a bus lane with no buses on a significant portion of the route.
I’m not entirely comfortable with the premise that cycle lanes and bus lanes are interchangeable and have similar characteristics. How a bus lane deals with left turns is usually to simply end and allow all vehicles into the lane. That’s really hazardous for people riding bicycles. Nevertheless there are good reasons to have bus lanes and they could make a difference in places where installing a continuous cycle lane proved difficult, for instance in Gorse Hill and Sale. However, these places seem outside the scope of the report. It’s a missed opportunity.
Bus Lanes need enforcement as there’s no physical separation. Fines are the normal enforcement means. This doesn’t get a mention but will be a controversial element of any bus lane implementation.
It would have been sensible to have included consultation drafts with the report. So far bus lanes have not been mentioned in the council’s press releases with regard to the consultation. Nevertheless they form a major option in the report so, I guess we will have to wait to see the consultation material to be able to judge whether this is serious or just cover for getting rid of the pop-up lanes.
Replace with a protected cycle only lane
Again we’ll have to see. The bike lanes have not been a problem everywhere and in Stretford town centre perhaps the greatest benefit has been moving the traffic back a lane allowing bars to flourish and pedestrians to breathe.
The Bridgewater Way section has no pavement and whilst a shared-use path seems the obvious solution, the options available seem to rule it out. This would be a huge missed opportunity, the cones have made it so much safer for fans travelling to the stadium.
Remove A56 pop-up cycle lanes entirely and revert to pre-COVID-19 status
Cycle lanes have proved problematic in places particularly on Edge Lane and at Stretford Tip. In other places I would argue that they’ve regulated traffic flow; the A56 varies along its length, in places three lanes and sometimes one lane. Sometimes the lanes are generous widths other times (at Stretford Sports Centre for instance) very narrow. I’m sure some drivers would welcome the entire removal whether or not it improved their travel times but I think most accept that the main thing is to keep the traffic flowing.
I suspect overall total removal will be the popular option. Whilst the report goes out of its way to say the consultation is not a referendum, the current hostility to the cones suggests we’re unlikely to get a nuanced response.
I don’t know where it leaves the A56/Talbot Road junction improvement project as initial plans put protected cycling at the core of the new junction. There’s an argument that Trafford will be excluded from further funding as a consequence of abandoning improvements that had previously been granted so the project might be dead in the water if we take out the cycle lanes now.
Treated differently, in fact the decision now taken allows modifications to take place prior to a road safety audit.
We’ll have to see the extent to which it is included in the consultation. I would hope that they can make modifications almost straightaway as it’s causing misery to so many people and it’s regrettable it’s not been addressed more quickly. Personally, I think it’s sensible and urgent to do it in any event.
We’ll have to see where this leaves us. If we are going down the bus lanes option, it seems clear to me that we’re going to have to bring in the right skills. It’s not just a continuous white line, we ought to be thinking about bus-stops and junctions. I still don’t see sufficient adherence to the Streets for All Strategy, in fact we’re setting one set of road users against others when we don’t need to and it still delivers nothing to pedestrians who supposedly are at the top of the hierarchy.
Answer: Possibly not, but it’s not our biggest problem right now
For a long time I have been keeping a close watch of hospital admissions in the north west and also deaths. Those figures have been gently coming down for a few months. So, I must admit I hadn’t for quite a while been following the number of cases in Trafford until a week or so ago, and it was quite a shock that they’d deteriorated so quickly.
I was participating in the Covid-19 public engagement board this morning. It’s a forum for getting out key messages to support controlling the pandemic in Trafford. The Chair had some strong words in his opening that Trafford was currently suffering its highest incidence of Covid cases and was sat at the top of Greater Manchester rankings with the situation worsening. He felt that the Government were treating the pandemic as over when clearly the figures said the opposite. That’s a dilemma for me as I would argue the emphasis now should switch to repairing the damage.
Clearly the figures are striking and I can understand the consternation caused when generally we’ve never been worse than mid-table in our performance in combatting covid. That said, whilst the overall Trafford figure is high, what we appear to be seeing is a suburban surge throughout Greater Manchester particularly in the south of the conurbation. And we’re almost getting a doughnut effect. So what’s going on?
The current surge is very much focused on the age cohorts between 5 and 19 and secondly, the typical age cohort of those children’s parents. It’s those schools in the middle that have the greatest travelling around, which perhaps explains the doughnut ring effect. So lot’s of mixing, travelling and socialising.
This is not to diminish the impact of covid on these young people but we have good vaccination rates. At the same time I’m seeing so many indications of far more detrimental aspects of the 18 months of lockdown than the endemic nature of covid. This is why I’d switch the emphasis.
You might disagree with me but right now I’m more concerned with the levels of absenteeism in secondary schools across the country. That’s just one indicator but there’s many more and it’ll take years to understand the true costs of the decisions we’ve taken to combat covid but school attendance has certainly been affected.
I worry too about future levels of loneliness. That short period of adolescence into (wom)manhood between 14-18 is incredibly formative and vital and we’ve locked those young people up for long periods of lockdown, forbidden them from mixing.
People complain about the levels of anti-social behaviour but it’s remarkable to me that we’ve not seen more and worse. I worry that we’re storing up problems for years particularly when combined with damaged education delivery.
So it’s a difficult position we’re in. I do not want the Government to do more in respect of direct Covid support than they are doing. I think our job is to make the vaccine easily available. We never quite managed that in the north of the borough and there’s no longer going to be a huge return on giving easy access, but there’s booster delivery to focus on. We need to continue to provide support to care homes and those isolating. The Government should focus on providing financial more support to those who are ill or isolating but no more talk of lockdowns unless a future variant really turns this badly around.
The real thrust of our response should now be on supporting young people. We owe them restitution to enable them to build rewarding lives.
I just want to make this point. Covid has given rise to lots of wartime comparisons. My parents would have been adolescents at the start of the war. They went through a lot and lost friends and family but they came out of it proud and feeling enhanced by what they went through. This is not the same for the kids who have been through Covid. There is no wartime comparison.
My worry is that actually we’ve diminished the generations under 40, at times we’ve even blamed them, which I find incredible. I don’t expect them to ever look on lockdowns fondly or with any pride.
Lastly, I say this. Given the damage that Covid and the measures we’ve been forced into, if you’ve not been vaxxed and there’s no medical or age reason stopping you, then shame on you. I don’t particularly have a view on vaccine passports but be assured of this, any scepticism is purely practical and should in no way be interpreted as sympathy for those who choose not to be vaxxed. Jurgen Klopp is right that it should be viewed with the same contempt as drink driving.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.