The budget proposals unveiled yesterday by Stoke-on-Trent City Council will inject £5m into areas including boosting private sector job creation and kick-starting the local economy.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council leader Mohammed Pervez has outlined the bold proposals in the face of stern government-imposed spending cuts. As part of the authority’s Mandate for Change the top priority is to create a great working city, to make Stoke-on-Trent the place to bring business. The council’s cabinet is implementing a raft of measures that will provide a ‘red carpet’ treatment to new businesses, improving key infrastructure links and boosting what the city has to offer. The measures come as the authority has announced it needs to find savings totalling £24m for the year 2012-13.
Councillor Pervez said
We are committed to our Mandate for Change to make our city a great place to live and bring business. But the government’s stance is forcing the way we have to make budget cuts. The government-imposed spending restrictions for the last two years have been the fiercest ever endured by this authority. Last year we were faced with making £36m worth of cuts, and this year we are faced with another huge task just to balance the books.
The way the government is imposing spending restrictions means we are no longer going to be able to sustain or create the same level of public sector jobs. Therefore it is crucial that the private sector can stimulate growth and has the ability to do this.
Our ambitious capital programme, such as the £250m Building Schools for the Future scheme, is giving the private sector confidence that we can deliver, and confidence for them to invest in Stoke-on-Trent.
Government-imposed cuts will next year reduce the council’s budget by £8m. On top of this, unavoidable costs such as inflation, legally-required staff increments, procurement and the payback for capital projects will total around £11m. This means the council needs to find £19m just to stand still.
But the council’s cabinet is proposing to invest an extra £5m in areas that will drive the city forward, redesigning the council for growth.
Key investment proposals in the budget will
- Enable the construction of new access links to further open up Etruria Valley for expansion.
- Provide small grants to give a facelift to independent retailers’ shop fronts in the city centre.
- Complete the design of the city centre ring road.
- Improve the appearance of the area in front of Stoke Station.
- Help reduce traffic congestion by investing in the current signal network and additional bus priority systems.
- Launch new business support packages to help new and growing local businesses.
- Increase the number of foster carers in the city.
- Provide training for children and young people with special educational needs to travel independently across the city.
- Launch a range of city-wide events and festivals to increase the number of visitors into the city.
- Bring forward proposals to secure the development of a comprehensive Cultural Quarter and city centre hotel.
- Hold a housing self-build competition to encourage diverse and high quality residential developments.
- Focus on getting tough on fraudulent activity, especially benefit and tenancy fraud.
During 2011/12, the city centre bus station will be completed, and site preparation and clearance for the £350m City Sentral leisure and retail development will take place. The council will improve day opportunities for adults with complex learning difficulties through a million pound redevelopment of Newstead Day Centre. The authority will also look to dispose of a number of buildings to support its investment programme.
Councillor Pervez said
In some parts of our city there is a culture of dependence, and we have to lift our residents out of this. If we can stimulate the economy and help the private sector to create jobs, they will have the means to have money in their pocket and not rely on the state. This will mean the council will then be able to focus on helping the most vulnerable.
I believe in being open and transparent, and the budget proposals are just that. Some of them are difficult and are extremely tough decisions to propose. We could simply cut and cut every year, or we could sit on our hands and do nothing. But both would be reckless and shirking our responsibilities. We are a responsible council, and take our responsibility to manage services and taxpayers’ money seriously. We need to save to invest and that is what these budget proposals are designed to do.
These are tough decisions to take, but we want to ensure that in making them we fully consider the views of local residents. That is why we are now embarking on a wide-ranging consultation process, and I urge as many people as possible to tell us their opinions. The proposals that we have put forward are just that – proposals. We need local people to contribute their views to help shape the decisions we make.
Details of the budget proposals can be found online at the link below.
The council’s budget consultation will run until 23 December. Details of a consultation roadshow, where cabinet members and officers will be able to meet residents and explain the budget proposals, will be revealed later this week. Residents can give their feedback on the proposals by emailing budget2012@stoke.gov.uk.
I think it’s positive and brave that Stoke are pushing ahead with their vision – even in these difficult times. I have a local business in Stoke and I feel encouraged to read their plans
guest: any particular section of the plans you feel will help you the most
Having read the proposals many times since release, it truely shows the wastage within the city council and spin they are using to cover it.
Page 7 of doc (graph) – “potential funding gap” to “stand still as funding rescources”. This projects the “potential” for the next 3 years 2012/13 – 2014/15, and also looking at the figures on page 14 of doc (council tax). The illustration there shows band D in Stoke to be the lowest of the 9 (named) authorities in Staffordshire.
I’ve looked at the three previous years (full years so excluded 2011/12 as no final values are available) of expenditure.
This is just one of many examples of overspend?
Public facing CCTV. (All values for 2007-2010)
Stoke on Trent £2,682,000 (17th highest spender of 336 local authorities) other notable LAs – Westminster (16th) £2,696,900 , Kensington & Chelsea (100th) £1,143,810. The nearest LA (position of cost) within the 9 named on page 14 is Tamworth (64th) £1,528,538.
It proves that there are other items of expenditure that can be reduced with a minimum of impact.
Telford & Wrekin have proposed to replace Chief Exec with a new managing director role at one third the cost, same here please.
These proposals will be used, without any meaningful consultations with the city’s residents. A whitewash just to say they have gone through the motions.
Should read ..managing director at one third less cost..
[quote=Andi]Public facing CCTV. (All values for 2007-2010)
Stoke on Trent £2,682,000 (17th highest spender of 336 local authorities) other notable LAs – Westminster (16th) £2,696,900 , Kensington & Chelsea (100th) £1,143,810. The nearest LA (position of cost) within the 9 named on page 14 is Tamworth (64th) £1,528,538.[/quote]
I’ve not had chance to read through the whole document yet, but that is very interesting, so we spend just under £15k less than Westminster”¦
So theoretically we have enough cameras and operators to look after all the MPs & Lords, associated lackeys & hangers on if they all come Christmas shopping up ‘Anley?
I can’t understand why we don’t see more of them up here.
Rather than cost cutting left, right and centre the council could try earning revenue like this…
http://dailymail.com/Business/201111220204
Earn revenue, your having a laugh, the council advertise services from local businessman directly in competition with their own service see article about Stoke on Trent city council & Mo Chaudry no hard feelings !
Two and a half million p.a. for CCTV,but requests under the Freedom of Information Act regularly turned down because it would cost more than 250 pounds to produce the figures.They say.What price paranoia?
I wonder how the CCTV costs compare with Stoke’s ‘social neighbours’ such as Sheffield?
CCTV doesn’t seem much use.The most-watched example for S-o-T on Youtube was the twins’ motorway madness a few years ago.Despite the video,they were both released within hours and one of them killed that guy in Fenton.(A domestic incident,so no CCTV.)
Part of Stoke Councils £5m save to invest pledge is
“A package of citywide public events and festivals to pull in visitors and tourists;”
while at same time proposing 10% cuts in grants to “stoke on trent music festival” and “make some noise youth festival”
left hand right hand or PR and officers not knowing what other other has planned.
The £11million cost pressure for PFI schemes, landfill tax, waste disposal, energy, vehicles and capital investment programme is that an £11million increase from last year or just the base budget for those items.
Budget consultation document really needs include Total costs for items not how much they are cutting.
I’ve had no reply from budget2012@stoke.gov.uk on some questions I’ve asked will now try Cllr Pervez, as due to short consultation period can’t wait for FOI requests to be answered(if they answer at all)
TJ
The figures are for the three years 2007-2010.
You ask for Sheffield – 35th highest spender at £1,982,509
Petition for withdrawal of Mayoral car and chauffeur savung £130,000
http://moderngov.stoke.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=92
Add to your list proposed closures of –
Ford Green Hall & Etruria Industrial Museum, and a reduction in the opening hours of Gladstone Museum.
But if these were to close / shorter opening hours or even be moved into private ownership this would then cause a loss of income from he likes of the lottery and heritage funding.
Like Mike commented on previously on another thread we don’t have much else (refering to Staffordshire Hoard / Hanley museum), and yes when these are gone we’ll have a lot less.
Last year during the Budget Consultation I raised the question[quote]Why increase adition to reserves from £0.5M to £1.5M a year increase UN-allocated reserves to £8.3M, I say alternative budget and ALLOCated some, you only need around £4M in UN-allocated reserves?[/quote]
I even sent every Councillor the Questionm did I get a reply, as to why and it need NO. The reason I received NO reply, has been revealed in this years budget proposal to “save” £1.5M by not adding to reserves.
[quote]The s151 officers professional opinion is that a further contribution to the general reserve fund in 2012/2013 and beyond would not be needed [/quote]
There WAS NO need to increase from £0.5M to £1.5M a year, as reserve fund was sufficient.
If councilors had questioned the rise and stuck with just the past £0.5M they would have had and EXTRA £1M last year plenty to have kept our services and Pools running until long term solution could be found
I follow Pitsnpots on twitter (@pitsnpots). Can I ask where the twitter conversation between this site and two MPs’ employees late Saturday night has disappeared to? It was extraordinary that what was obviously a very personal issue would be discussed in public using this sites twitter account.
Can an explaination be given?
Many Thanks
Jarrod
I have no idea what you are talking about?
@pitsnpots isn’t an account that is used for conversation, it generally tweets out as new content it published.
I was spending time with my family over the weekend so was on and off line at different times but not really paying any attention as we were dealing with the death of a close relative and the up coming funeral.
I can’t see any conversation in the E-mail notifications either.
which two MPs’ employees? any conversation would still be in their history.
It’s all very strange. I definately read a twitter exchange between pitsnpots @gareth_snell and @lloyd_m_brown. Their replies are still there but this site’s have all gone.
When I looked further into it it all seemed to be linked to an unanswered email from @mike_rawlins to @robflellomp.
Has it all been resolved now? Are our Labour MPs and the staff that they employ, crap?
Many Thanks
Jarrod
I had a brief exchange with Rob Flello MP on Twitter, I made a statement that wasn’t wholly correct and I apologised.
I can’t find anything about any other conversation.
I don’t think any staff that work for MPs are crap as I don’t really know any of them to be able to judge them.
So who from this site has access to the twitter account and password?
I didn’t make this up and the responses from @gareth_snell & @lloyd_m_brown are still there to see. Someone used this sites twitter account to make serious accusations about the 3 mps elected to serve our city. It was claimed that this site has data to back up those accusations which drew the two employees of the mps into a situation where they had to defend themselves and their employers.
From what you claim, it wasn’t you, so don’t you think you ought to investigate and contact those concerned?
I have to be honest from what i read and from what i have researched it did seem to be connected to your mike_rawlins/email.
I think it needs clearing up and given the fact that it is your site, your twitter, your mp issue, it needs to be you who finds the answers.
Many Thanks,
Jarrod
Please do share your research. I am assuming you are a police officer in the early stages of a criminal investigation I’d be delighted to assist you with your investigation.
Please mail me so we can discuss this further.