In accordance the Council Procedure Rules, opportunity is provided for Members of the Council to ask the Mayor or the Chair of a Committee any question about a matter which the Council, or the Committee has powers, duties or responsibilities.
At Council meeting, there will be a maximum question time period of 30 minutes. A period of two minutes will be allowed for each Councillor wishing to ask a question. The Mayor will have the discretion to vary this requirement where they consider it appropriate.
Minutes:
Cllr B Puddicombe asked the Vice-Chair of the Economy and Growth Committee if he had any additional thoughts on the Notice of Motion proposed by Cllr O’Leary in relation to the South Macclesfield Development Area.
Cllr N Mannion, Vice-Chair of the Economy and Growth Committee, thanked Cllr O’Leary for his interest in this proposed development and reminded Members that this development was still a live matter to be considered by a future planning committee and he therefore did not want to discuss the details of the Notice of Motion. Cllr Mannion assured Cllr O’Leary that the Council, as landowner, takes seriously its responsibilities as a developer and will adhere to the Local Planning Authority and the environmental assessments.
Cllr Sewart asked the Chair of the Highways and Transport Committee if he would agree that proposals to make reductions in street lighting, due to be discussed by the committee, could increase the likelihood of criminal activity in residential areas.
Cllr L Crane, Vice-Chair of the Highways and Transport Committee, responded that the report went into detail on any issues arising from the presence or not of street lighting and that the time to debate the matter would be in the committee meeting.
Cllr A Coiley asked if the Vice-Chair of the Highways and Transport Committee could confirm that the Council had responded to the consultation in relation to ticket office closures at railway stations in Cheshire East and objected to the proposals.
In response, Cllr L Crane advised that the Council would be responding to the consultation and providing a more strategic response as part of the Transport for the North response to the consultation. Cllr Crane encouraged others to respond to the consultation to ensure that the voices of Cheshire East were heard.
Cllr H Whitaker referred to Poynton Pool and stated that such a large expenditure of taxpayers’ money needed to be based on the latest data available. Cllr Whitaker and residents wanted to work with the Council to ensure it was not overspending.
In response, Cllr Goldsmith stated that the volume of the pool was
estimated to be around 130,000 cubic metres and that residents
estimated it to be around 85,000 cubic metres. However, anything
over 25,000 cubic metres was considered to be large and the Council
had a legal obligation to make the area safe. The Council was
willing to meet with the Friends of Poynton Pool group to discuss
the matter further.
Cllr J Saunders referred to correspondence sent in error to the parents of children in 10 primary schools in the Macclesfield area advising that their children were classed as overweight. Cllr Saunders asked how this error occurred and what steps were being taken to ensure that it would not happen again.
In response, Cllr C Bulman, Chair of the Children and Families Committee, advised that this task had been outsourced to an external company and that steps were being taken to address the matter.
Cllr A Harrison referred to the discounted membership for Everybody Health and Leisure facilities for the armed forces and veterans which he had been informed had been discontinued. Cllr Harrison asked for reassurance that this would be reviewed.
In response, Cllr M Warren, Chair of the Environment and Communities Committee, advised that Everybody Health and Leisure, through the strategic leisure review, now offered discounts to serving armed forces personnel through their options scheme at 25%. The only veterans in receipt of this discount were those who were awarded a disabled pension with or without motability supplement and armed forces independent payment or severe disability allowance. Cllr Warren was aware of the concern that had been caused within the armed forces community and stated that he would discuss this with the Armed Forces Champion and officers to look at a review of the decisions that had been made. Feedback would be provided to all members.
Cllr G Smith asked why there was such a large financial override for Children’s Services and how this would be managed.
In response, Cllr S Corcoran advised that the government required the Council to put spending on SEND into this negative reserve. The accounting override would last until 2026; if at that point the override was withdrawn and nothing else changed, Cheshire East would not have the general reserve to cover that amount. Cllr Corcoran stated that this was a serious problem and Cheshire East Council was not alone in this. The additional costs were largely driven by the reforms brought in in 2014 which enabled increased parental choice and set up an adversarial system which often resulted in high-cost private placements. Those costs were increasing significantly in Cheshire East and the County Councils Network had done research to show the costs were inversely proportional to deprivation.
Cllr A Gage referred to the Council’s rebuild of the Royal Arcade in Crewe which included plans for a cinema as a ‘main anchor’ around which the rest of the rebuild would occur. Cllr Gage stated that Covid had changed habits and therefore fewer people were going to cinemas, resulting in many closing. Cllr Gage asked the Leader if, at any stage since Covid, the administration had held a review of the plan to anchor a town centre rebuild around a struggling industry, and what the current way forward was. The Leader would provide a written response to this question.
Cllr H Seddon asked if the Leader would like to comment on the use of Swift Bricks, given the recent debate in parliament and the amount of building going on in Cheshire East.
Cllr Corcoran responded that many of the houses being built in Cheshire East were granted planning permission years ago, prior to the Council having up to date planning policies and, therefore, it was too late to insert planning conditions into those. However, there were some things that could be done going forward. The local planning authority asked for Swift Bricks by condition where the Nature Conservation Officer considers that they were appropriate and would be of benefit. The Council now had up to date planning policies and a biodiversity net gain supplementary planning document which required developers to show that there was a net gain in biodiversity as a result of their plan.
Cllr C Hilliard referred to the news of facilities being provided for pupils with special educational needs at two new schools and asked how these facilities would be used and what opportunities there would be to integrate these pupils into mainstream education where possible.
Cllr Bulman responded that the policy was for integration where suitable and wanted. There was a capital programme for keeping children local, whatever their needs. If children could not access the curriculum and had a particular need, they could access the inclusion unit. Cllr Bulman acknowledged that this would not suit everyone and therefore there was a building programme for two new schools. Further information on the capital build programme would be circulated in due course.
Cllr Anderson asked if there were any updates on the results of the recently closed public consultation on library closures.
Cllr Warren responded that a paper had been published as part of the Environment and Communities Committee agenda that provided the detail of the consultation. Over 3,200 responses were received and, after consideration, the Council was now proposing to significantly revise the plans. Unlike other authorities that had undertaken similar reviews of library services, Cheshire East had never proposed any full closures of library sites. Cllr Warren stated that, although the proposals were not ideal, they were now in a more positive position. Cllr Warren thanked the officers who had worked hard to go through all responses and had been able to amend the proposals.
Cllr O’Leary referred to the number 14 bus from Macclesfield to Langley and asked whether, prior to making any cuts to this rural bus service, any consideration had been given to extending the bus route to Macclesfield Forest which would increase passenger numbers and revenue, improve accessibility and reduce car journeys and parking issues in the forest.
Cllr Crane responded that changes to the number 14 bus service were a result of Arriva Buses withdrawing their whole operation in Cheshire East at the end of April. This presented an imminent threat to the local bus network service in Macclesfield and surrounding villages as almost all of these services were operated commercially by Arriva with very little financial support from the Council. As such, the Council had only limited influence on the service patterns. Following this, D&G commenced commercial bus services in Macclesfield and assessed that service 14 was viable, albeit with a reduced timetable. There was no indication from the bus company that they considered an extension to Macclesfield Forest to be a commercial proposition at this time.
Cllr D Clark referred to two Family Hubs that had recently opened in Crewe and Wilmslow and asked when the rest of Cheshire East families would benefit from the opening of these hubs.
Cllr Bulman responded that these hubs provided a broad range of services for families and the plan was to roll out a further five hubs over the next year. This was not postcode related and there would be a virtual hub providing the same range of services.