Agenda item

To consider further information in relation to this scrutiny topic from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Services, Environment and Culture directorate, as well as initial feedback from the ongoing SBC Ward Councillor survey.

The second evidence-gathering session for the Committee’s review of Community Participation Budget (CPB) and Ward Transport Budget (WTB) considered a further submission from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Safety, Environment and Culture directorate.  Presented by the SBC Highways Manager, and supported by the SBC Highways, Transport and Design Manager, information covered the following:

·       Project Delivery (Schemes in progress)

o   WTB: A total of 36 schemes were in progress (nearly half of which were now in the programme for delivery, with the remainder being almost evenly split between the ‘investigate / consult’, ‘further information required’, or ‘awaiting programming’ stages), totalling just over £175,000.  44% of these were in relation to parking restrictions, 42% for highway engineering, 11% for traffic calming, and 3% for resurfacing.

o   CPB: 95 schemes were currently being worked through (the vast majority of which were now in the programme for delivery, with a very small number either still being investigated / consulted upon or requiring further information), totalling just over £165,000.  57% concerned planting projects, 15% for CCTV, 8% in relation to boulders and bollards, 4% for bins, and 4% for benches.  The remaining 12% was marked ‘other’ for projects involving different themes / categories.

·       Project Delivery (Proposals not taken forward): There had been 48 proposals not taken forward in the last 14 months (covering the full 2024-2025 financial year and the 2025-2026 financial year to date).  21 were not progressed for reasons such as cost eligibility or a lack of evidence (e.g. a demonstrable safety issue), 17 had technical constraints (e.g. the proposal conflicted with another planned scheme), and 10 did not proceed due to other priorities (e.g. re-direction of funds to alternative schemes).  It was important to note that significant officer time / resource was required on an application even if a decision was subsequently made not to proceed.

·       Eligibility Criteria

o   CPB: Schemes should focus on local community and environmental improvements, must demonstrate local need and community benefit, and must be feasible and deliverable.  Decisions to proceed with proposals which created ongoing revenue or maintenance costs were limited, and some schemes required third-party maintenance arrangements.

o   WTB: This budget was restricted to transport, safety and accessibility schemes and must be supported by evidence (e.g. safety data / speed surveys).  Proposals required full technical assessment and design, and must be safe, compliant and deliverable on the highway network.  The WTB was not suitable for non-transport or revenue-based schemes.

·       Project Summary (Spend profile): As previously stated, CPB schemes costing just over £165,000 and WTB schemes totalling just over £175,000 were in development and committed, whilst the cost of those projects that were not progressed came to nearly £432,000.  It was emphasised that any underspend in relation to either budget reflected schemes that were either in development or constrained by delivery factors, not by a lack of demand / interest.

·       Revenue Implications: Proposed new schemes had the potential to create ongoing revenue costs which may in turn influence eligibility.  Examples of such projects (and associated revenue implications) included the installation of CCTV (requiring monitoring costs), planting (needing maintenance / watering), bins (to be emptied / serviced), road markings (necessitating periodic refresh and enforcement), and speed indicator devices (creating energy costs, with mobile devices needing to be rotated to different locations).

·       Benchmarking: Comparisons with other North East Local Authority Member-related budget schemes demonstrated variance in the level of funding available, along with differences in governance and control, and project eligibility / purpose.  A graphic highlighted the budget models, key features and key constraints of similar schemes operated by Hartlepool, South Tyneside, Durham, Northumberland, Doncaster and Stockton-on-Tees Councils.

Although funding models differed quite considerably between these six Local Authorities, there were common challenges around revenue and maintenance pressures, expectations versus deliverability, and officer capacity and competing priorities.  Highways-related projects were becoming increasingly evidence-led (a national trend), but Member budgets did allow for some flexibility (albeit within limits).  It was felt that the current model in Stockton-on-Tees provided a balance between project flexibility and control, but that SBC was experiencing similar challenges to other Local Authorities in terms of operating such budget schemes.

OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBER-RELATED BUDGET SCHEMES

Supplementing the latter part of the SBC Community Safety, Environment and Culture directorate presentation, a paper highlighting further Member-related budget schemes offered by Local Authorities across the country (including links for further detail) was summarised.

Again, whilst it was recognised that funding allocations and processes / governance differed from the SBC model, it was also apparent that these schemes were very transparent to the public.  Councils elsewhere provided individual Ward Councillor spend (City of Stoke-on-Trent), a breakdown of projects funded along with photographic evidence (Hillingdon), and interactive maps of projects completed through their current scheme (Royal Borough of Greenwich).

WARD COUNCILLOR SURVEY

Quantitative feedback received thus far in relation to the previously issued SBC Ward Councillor survey was tabled for information (it was noted that the survey deadline was tomorrow (Friday 29 May 2026)).  As of 22 May 2026, there had been 21 responses from SBC Elected Members – it was subsequently agreed to extend the survey deadline to Friday 12 June 2026 to provide an opportunity for further views to be submitted.

TOWN / PARISH COUNCILS AND LOCAL RESIDENT SURVEYS

Proposed survey questions for Town and Parish Councils were tabled for approval – these were subsequently agreed and would be circulated to relevant contacts after this meeting.

Proposed survey questions for local residents were tabled for approval – these were subsequently agreed and would be circulated to existing engagement mechanisms via the SBC Community Engagement Team after this meeting.

AGREED that:

1)    the information submitted by the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Safety, Environment and Culture directorate be noted.

2)    the deadline for responses to the Committee’s survey for SBC Ward Councillors be extended by two weeks (to Friday 12 June 2026).