Agenda item

To consider information in relation to this scrutiny topic from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Services, Environment and Culture directorate.

The first evidence-gathering session for the Committee’s review of Community Participation Budget (CPB) and Ward Transport Budget (WTB) considered an initial submission from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Safety, Environment and Culture directorate.  Presented by the SBC Highway Network & Traffic Team Leader, and supported by the SBC Highways Manager, information covered the following:

·       Origins & Evolution

o   CPB: Introduced in 2007 as the Small Environmental Improvements Budget (providing a modest, flexible funding mechanism for local environmental works that were not prioritised through core budgets), the scheme was later re-named to reflect community participation and Member input (with Ward Councillors promoting projects based on local priorities).  This annual Borough-wide pot was initially £400,000 per year (revenue-funded) and was allocated by population.  Over time, the eligibility expanded to small engineering works, and in 2019, through the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP), the scheme was reduced to £200,000 per year, with tighter eligibility introduced to reflect long-term maintenance impacts.

o   WTB: This scheme began following a Place Select Committee review of the Area Transport Strategy in 2019 which saw the budget move from an area-based pot that Members would bid into to obtain funds to ward-based allocations which made it easier for Members to access.  From April 2020, £150,000 per year was allocated, with funding ring-fenced for transport issues.  WTB operated within a structured, evidence-led framework – Members shaped priorities, while officers assessed, designed and delivered schemes to ensure they met safety, legal and affordability requirements.

·       CPB v WTB – Key Differences: CPB was revenue funding, which had been identified within the MTFP and supported broader community-focused capital works.  WTB, meanwhile, was capital funding from the Council’s annual allocation toward highway priorities from the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement, and was strictly transport-focused (spending was audited to ensure it was directed toward transport priorities).

CPB could match-fund WTB schemes where there may be a shortfall in available budget.  However, WTB funding could not be used for CPB projects as the latter were more environmentally focused (rather than transport-related).  Crucially, it was important to emphasise that both budgets remained Council funds, where Members influenced priorities and officers retained overall responsibility for determining validity and for delivery.

·       Core Funding Criteria: The Council’s core highway budgets prioritised statutory duties and road safety interventions at locations with proven casualty records (based on recorded evidence from the Cleveland Police road casualty database).  The Department for Transport (DfT) assessed how Council’s spent money, and if this was judged to have been used unwisely, funding could be withheld.

CPB and WTB budgets operated differently because they allowed flexibility and could be directed where the concerns of constituents did not meet the evidence thresholds for funding via core budgets.  The availability of the CPB / WTB therefore filled the gap between evidence thresholds and lived experience of the Borough’s residents.

·       Eligibility

o   CPB: This could be used to capital fund projects, but SBC needed to be mindful of proposals that created ongoing revenue or maintenance costs.  Eligibility was therefore refined to avoid unfunded liabilities, and some schemes would only become eligible where third-parties (e.g. Town / Parish Councils or resident groups) took on maintenance.

o   WTB: This was far stricter and operated within a tightly defined framework, where funding could only be used for transport, safety and accessibility interventions.  All schemes required evidence-based assessment to demonstrate eligibility, with projects triggering ongoing revenue costs or amenity scope being excluded.

·       CPB / WTB Examples: Several projects facilitated through the CPB and WTB schemes over the past year were highlighted, including physical traffic calming measures, village gateway features to encourage reduced speeds, and parking restrictions.

Examples were also given of carriageway and footway resurfacing where Members chose to use their budgets to bring forward schemes that were already identified as future contenders within SBCs five-year programme (this would allow delivery to be accelerated into the current financial year rather than waiting for their scheduled year).  This included a live case in Thornaby, where resurfacing on Cunningham Drive was already programmed for the 2026-2027 year – Members had requested that their budget be used to bring forward resurfacing further along the same route on Tedder Avenue, enabling a larger area of works to be completed while resources were already on site (making a bigger difference to the condition of the highway and a noticeable improvement for residents).

·       Monitoring Effectiveness: For traffic-calming schemes, speed surveys were conducted before and after implementation – this provided an objective, evidence-based measure of impact on vehicle speeds.  Results from schemes delivered this year on Wynyard Road and Wolviston Road showed significant speed reductions – this enabled SBCs enforcement resources to be targeted elsewhere and also had a positive impact on partners (particularly the police).

For parking restrictions, SBC could look at the locations Members had requested double yellow lines for to overcome parking problems.  Supporting this scrutiny review, a sample of completed CPB / WTB schemes were assessed after 12 months which focused on service requests, parking and anti-social behaviour (ASB), and repeat incidents – this showed that no service requests had been received into the SBC Civic Enforcement Team at most locations, with only low-level interventions where they did arise.  Such a positive impact allowed Civic Enforcement Officers to turn their focus to issues like ASB and other frontline priorities.

·       Scheme Delivery: Using internal SBC teams to deliver CPB and WTB schemes avoided contractor overheads and allowed for a consistent approach to standards across the Borough’s highway network.  Benefits were also highlighted in relation to long-term assurance (in-house teams could be re-directed quickly to undertake priority / emergency works), the ability to efficiently deliver smaller schemes which were aligned with wider maintenance activity, and supporting jobs / retaining skilled staff (the latter being particularly important as these same professionals were relied upon to carry out the Council’s statutory duties in maintaining the Borough’s highways, deliver winter services by gritting through the cold winter nights, and responding to emergency incidents like flooding).

·       Processes & Timescales

o   CPB: These schemes started with Members submitting project requests, supported by evidence of community need – officers then assessed feasibility, eligibility, costs and risks, and whether consultation was required.  Seasonal deadlines applied to some CPB activity (e.g. planting) to allow delivery to be completed within the financial year – late submissions may be deferred to the next year (contributing to perceptions of delay).

o   WTB: This was far more structured, with proposals initially submitted via the online Member portal which then triggered officer investigation (site visits, surveys, historic data review) – only once these were done could the detailed design begin.  Often these works required a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), therefore it was not unreasonable for such schemes to take up to nine months before they started to hit work programmes.  It was also important to highlight that delivery was reliant on workload and capacity – for both the WTB and CPB, the Council had only one dedicated officer dealing with 27 wards and 56 Members, and there was an additional need to factor in required input from other SBC departments (e.g. Design Services, Legal Services) which may result in extended timescales. 

To emphasise the timelines involved in some CPB / WTB-related projects, examples were given on the steps required (along with the approximate timescales for each) for introducing double yellow lines and traffic calming measures (both involving a stringent legal process), as well as litter bins.

·       Funding: Both CPB and WTB allocations were divided between wards based on population.  Whilst unspent funding could be carried forward into the following year, it was encouraged to be kept to a minimum as there was the possibility it could be re-absorbed or re-allocated (that decision would ultimately be taken by the Cabinet Member, depending on the Council’s financial position).  For larger projects that exceeded a single year's funding, there was the option to draw down from the following year so as not to delay delivery of good projects (with the caveat that this could not be done during election years where future budgets and memberships were undetermined).

The individual allocations for each of the Borough’s 27 wards were outlined (it was reiterated that there was only one dedicated SBC officer to manage all the enquiries, investigations and deliveries), with graphics showing that both schemes had an underspend (58% unspent for the CPB and 73% unspent for the WTB).  This situation may reflect capacity to develop and deliver rather than a lack of demand, and could be alleviated by addressing resident concerns about the condition of the Borough’s highways (reflected in the annual National Highways & Transport Survey), something which, as previously highlighted, had been undertaken in some wards via the WTB.

·       Communications: With regard Members, following an internal ‘lean’ review, an online platform was being developed to raise requests through the CPB and WTB – this case management solution would show the progress of current schemes and available budgets, with improved record-keeping and communication.

In terms of communicating the schemes to the public, Members played a role in promoting these via ward surgeries / Councillor newsletters, and SBC had historically included articles in Stockton News to highlight the availability of the budgets and the projects it had delivered.  It remained important to emphasise that schemes delivered through the CPB and WTB had often generated visible, localised benefits, and strengthened links between Members and their communities.

·       Next Steps: Improved guidance documents in relation to these schemes would be produced and circulated to Members highlighting issues raised within this presentation, including the level of detailed investigation, revised costs to reflect inflation, and available resource.  As part of this scrutiny review, a demonstration of the new online case management platform was intended.

·       Summary: These budgets allowed Members to make local improvements that complemented SBCs core budget and made a real difference to residents (providing flexibility for smaller-scale issues that were not prioritised elsewhere).  However, there were challenges to address around delivery capacity alongside the Council’s statutory duties (leading to pressures on timescales), the potential for sustainability and revenue implications, and the future communication and visibility of these schemes (particularly to / for residents).

Thanking officers for the comprehensive information provided, the Committee asked if Members were able to use allocated funds for repairing potholes (an issue which was frequently raised by residents).  It was stated that neither the CPB nor WTB was generally used for potholes and that approval of such work would have to meet the necessary intervention levels.  In terms of road re-surfacing, officers noted that there was more highway needing attention than the Council had a budget for.

With reference to the pie-charts depicting spend patterns for both the CPB and WTB, the Committee requested graphics which showed funds that had been allocated but not yet spent.  Officers agreed to provide these at the next meeting in May 2026, though cautioned that ongoing investigations in relation to a proposal could make it difficult to quantify how much a project may ultimately cost.

Reflecting on the workforce resources that the Council had to support these schemes, Members commented that whilst funding may be available to support viable projects, there was clearly a capacity issue in terms of getting proposals implemented / delivered.  In response, officers suggested that, in order to ensure the Council was prioritising the most impactful repairs to the Borough’s highway, details on what roads were listed on the maintenance programme could be shared with Members to see if these locations mirrored what residents were raising concerns about.

WARD COUNCILLOR SURVEY

An updated list of proposed Ward Councillor survey questions was tabled which reflected Member comments that were subsequently received following the circulation of the initial draft at the last Committee meeting in March 2026.  These were agreed (subject to a minor re-wording for one question) and would be issued to all SBC Elected Members in the near future.

AGREED that the information submitted by the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Safety, Environment and Culture directorate be noted, and further information be provided at the next meeting as requested.