Agenda item

In accordance the Council Procedural Rules, a total period of 30 minutes is allocated for members of the public to speak at Council meetings. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 2 minutes, but the Chair will have discretion to vary this requirement where they consider it appropriate. 

Members of the public wishing to speak are required to provide notice of this at least three clear working days’ in advance of the meeting and should include the question with that notice.  Questions should be submitted to: katie.small@cheshireeast.gov.uk or brian.reed@cheshireeast.gov.uk.

Ms Bev Hulme spoke in respect of Poynton Pool, specifically the section 10 inspection on the Spillway Proposal. Ms Hulme asked why Cheshire EastCouncil believed that the mandatorywork differed to that stated in the inspecting engineer’s report and why any engineering work to upgrade the Spillway must be implemented by December 2023.

Ms Jen Hartshorne spoke in respect of Poynton Pool and stated that the data used to form the catchment area was incorrect and therefore the conclusions were flawed. Ms Hartshorne asked that automatic monitoring be implemented over a period of six months to provide a more accurate measure of the catchment area. Ms Hartshorne felt that this would be more likely to be accepted locally.

Mr Mike Ellison spoke in respect of Poynton Pool and stated that the justification for spillway improvements was flawed. Mr Ellison felt that the proposalwas contrary to Cheshire EastLocal PlanStrategy -Policy SE5 -Trees, Hedgerowsand Woodlandin termsof avoidableloss oftrees wherethere were alternatives, and in terms of providing a net environmental gain. Mr Ellison asked the Council to consider the proposal put forward by ‘Friends of Poynton Pool’ to achieve the same objective as the Jacobs scheme while saving the Council in excess of £1.3 million.

Mr David Massignham spoke in respect of Poynton Pool. Mr Massingham felt that the calculation of significant risk to life had been greatly exaggerated and asked why that was and how it had been justified.

In response to the questions raised in respect of Poynton Pool, Councillor M Goldsmith, Chair of Economy and Growth Committee stated that, under the Reservoirs Act 1975, Poynton Pool was classified as the largest type of reservoir and it was deemed a high risk because of its close proximity to the houses and businesses in Poynton. Therefore, regardless of its age, the pool must meet current safety standards which it currently did not. The Reservoir Act meant that the nature of any risk or its likelihood of happening were irrelevant. If the Council did not act then enforcement action could be taken. Following feedback from residents, the number of trees removed was reduced from 80 to 35. Poynton Town Council had recently commissioned their own independent expert review which confirmed that the option proposed appeared proportionate and had less environmental impact in terms of tree loss than potential alternatives. The next stage for the proposal was to apply for planning approval, where full public scrutiny could be given to the proposed works. The Council was due to meet with the Friends of Poynton Pool the following week, along with an expert engineer to answer any technical questions.

Ms Debbie Jamison spoke in respect of the item on the recommendations from Corporate Policy Committee: Annual Review of the Committee System. Ms Jamison asked what other options the Council had considered in arriving at the recommendation to reduce the number of planning committees from three to two and what other measures were in place to increase the timely assessment of planning applications since the number of applications would not reduce. Ms Jamison felt that there was a danger that large strategic applications would not be given the required focus and scrutiny. Ms Jamison also referred to paragraph 25 of the report that went to Corporate Policy Committee and asked how assessments of Council conflicts of interest would be dealt with via the revised committee scheme. Ms Jamison referred to appendix 2 paragraph 2.1.3 of the report in relation to the new terms of refence which suggest that reserved matters plans would not be brought back to committee. Ms Jamieson asked if that had been drafted correctly and whether that was how the workload efficiencies were going to be achieved.

In response, Councillor M Warren, Chair of Environment and Communities Committee, stated that the proposal to reduce from three planning committees to two was being progressed by Democratic Services as a budget saving under the heading of ‘reducing the costs of democracy’ within the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. The reduction to two committees was supported by the Planning Service as it would bring opportunities to better manage workflow and reduce deadline congestion for report writing. When considering the proposal, colleagues had considered the alternative of retaining a strategic committee with one other larger area/sub-committee, however this was not chosen as the preferred option to be taken forward. It was not proposed to include additional meetings, rather the two remaining committees would each sit once per month, ideally resulting in one meeting every two weeks.

Councillor Warren also stated that it was for individual Members to determine whether they had any conflicts of interest in respect of any decision which was proposed to be made by a committee upon which they sat.  Members had access to advice from the Monitoring Officer at any time and would take that into account when determining whether they should take part in a debate or vote upon a matter which was before their committee.

The matter was to be discussed further as part of agenda item 7.