Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 21^st July 2011 be approved as a correct record subject to an amendment to Minute 39, Supplementary Question to Question 11, to correct the phrase ‘reducing child poverty’ so that it reads ‘eliminating child poverty’.

To receive such announcements as may be made by the Mayor.

The Mayor

1.      Announced that on 1 September, he had been honoured to host the ‘A team Awards’ and Celebration Event at Middlewich Community Church, where the A-Team Apprentice of the year winners had been presented with their awards. The Council had welcomed over 80 apprentices in the past year working in all areas of the authority.

Three Apprentices of the Year, Nicola Hull, Kai Breton and Daniel Band, had been invited to the Council meeting where the Mayor presented them with their certificates in formal recognition by the Council of their hard work.

2.      Announced that last week he had the pleasure of launching the search for Local Heroes on Silk 106.9’s Breakfast Show in Macclesfield. Now in their 13^th Year, the Local Hero Awards recognised the unsung heroes of Cheshire East.  He was delighted that Cheshire East Council was supporting the awards again, as thousands of people across the Borough, both young and old, selflessly gave up their time to help others and it was right that their efforts are recognised. Nominations were now open and needed to be submitted by 4^th November.  Anyone wishing to nominate and to find out more about the 12 award categories should go to the Silk 106.9 website.

3.      Announced that last Sunday he had the privilege to attend the Care Awards at Tatton Park. The event celebrated the achievements of young people in the Council’s care who had worked hard in their daily life to establish friendships, develop talents and succeed in their learning. It was also a celebration of those people who supported them on a daily basis, notably their carers, social workers and teachers.The Mayor had been honoured to be invited and be a small part of these truly inspirational awards.  It had been a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to the many and varied talents, and indeed strengths, of the children and young people in the care of Cheshire East Council.

4.      Announced that his first Civic Service as Cheshire East Mayor would take place this coming Sunday at St George’s Parish Church, Poynton at 11.00am with refreshments served at the British Legion Club from 10am.  All Members of the Council should have received an invitation and he look forward to seeing them.

To provide an opportunity for Members to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda.

Councillors C Andrew, L Brown, K Edwards, M Hardy and L Roberts declared personal interests in relation to Item 7, Notice of Motion 8, as members of the Local Service Delivery Committee for Macclesfield.

Councillor D Flude declared a personal interest in relation to Item 7, Notice of Motion 9, as a Governor at Leighton Hospital, Crewe.

Councillor S Gardiner declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to Item 19 – Draft National Planning Policy Framework, as a practising planning consultant for a firm which submitted planning applications to Cheshire East Council.

Councillors W Fitzgerald and F Keegan declared personal and prejudicial interests in relation to Item 20 - Supplementary Capital Estimate for Alderley Edge Bypass.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35 and Appendix 7 to the rules, a total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to speak at Council meetings. 

Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes, but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned, where there are a number of speakers.

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given. It is not a requirement to give notice of the intention to make use of public speaking provision. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours notice is encouraged.

Mrs E Bostock, Mr P McHugh, Mr J Tittensor, Mr J Latham, Mrs G McIntyre,  Mrs L Hassall, Mr Jones and Mr Williams spoke in opposition to a proposed housing development on a Greenfield site off Gresty Lane, Shavington on the grounds that the development would blur the distinction between Shavington and Crewe, threatening the separate identities of both communities, that the local highways infrastructure could not support the development, that it would lead to increased traffic congestion and that the increased population would place additional pressures on the local doctors’ surgery. It was also claimed that existing Section 106 Agreements protected wildlife in the area and provided that a spine road should be constructed before any further development could take place.

Mrs Charlotte Peters Rock, representing Knutsford Area for Knutsford Action, referred to the deep concern of the people of Knutsford that vulnerable, disabled adults, and those suffering from dementia, were being removed from the Knutsford area. She went on to say that claims that the Stanley Centre was ‘well past its sell-by date’ and that  ‘the top two floors were empty and decaying rapidly’ were untrue, that a suggestion that the number of people using the Centre had fallen over the last year was misleading, and that this brought Cheshire East Council into disrepute.

Mr John Jones had given notice of a question regarding a proposed travellers site in Coppenhall, Crewe. Mr Jones questioned the suitability of the site, claiming that the ‘positive’ criteria used were misleading and that the differences between the site and other potential sites had been exaggerated. He then asked which planning committee would be considering the planning application, and when, and sought details of the public consultation that would take place. Finally, in the event that planning permission were granted, he asked when construction would begin, when the first residents would be expected to move in, what procedure if any would be used for selecting residents and what sanctions would be taken against those who behaved ‘in a manner inappropriate in a respectable residential neighbourhood’.

Councillor R Bailey, as the relevant Portfolio Holder, replied as follows:

“The Council has considered a range of sites within the Middlewich, Sandbach, Crewe and Nantwich Areas for the provision of a residential gypsy site. The area of search corresponded both with the area in which gypsies and travellers traditionally reside and the localities which have seen unauthorised residential sites granted via planning appeals.

The sites were assessed against physical, ecological and sustainability criteria.

The land at Parkers Road is considered to have a number of advantages:

§         It is close to the urban area – but not adjoining it;

§         Schools, shops and other facilities are within safe and easy walking distance (there is a footpath on Parkers Road itself);

§         The site is flat and relatively free from constraints;

§         Good road access;

§         It is an area which Gypsies and Travellers are known to use; and

§         Preliminary work (including a newt survey) has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

To consider the attached Notices of Motion, which have been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.

1.      Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Brickhill.

“That the Council’s decision at its meeting on 24^th February 2011 to approve an Interim Planning Policy on the Release of Housing Land (Minute 95 refers) should be rescinded.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor B Murphy.

RESOLVED

That the Motion stand referred to the Strategic Planning Board.

2.      Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Brickhill.

“In view of the Scrutiny Committee recommendation not to set up a new 125 year lease for the Crewe Heritage site being ignored, the Council has extremely grave concerns about the process which was adopted.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor P Edwards.

RESOLVED

That the Motion stand referred to Cabinet.

3.      Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Brickhill.

“That since the relocation of the Crewe Market to the Lyceum Square, market trade has dramatically declined and accordingly the outdoor market should be relocated to the position required by the residents when consulted, which was in and adjacent to the Town Square near to Marks and Spencer’s.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor B Burkhill.

RESOLVED

That the Motion stand referred to Cabinet.

4.      Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Brickhill.

“That since the introduction of the higher than RPI increase in charges for the Crewe Market, the number of traders has dropped considerably and the new charges should be reviewed and be returned to the 2009 level to encourage the regeneration of the market.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor A Moran.

RESOLVED

That the Motion stand referred to Cabinet.

5.      Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Brickhill.

“That the delegated powers to officers to alter car parking charges be rescinded and the powers returned to the Cabinet Member.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor A Moran.

RESOLVED

That the Motion stand referred to the Constitution Committee.

6.      Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Brickhill.

“That the annual target for housing in Cheshire East, set in the regional spatial strategy, already rescinded by the Government, be reduced from 1000+ to 710 per annum to give a five year requirement of 3550 which is already available.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor P Edwards.

RESOLVED

That the Motion stand referred to the Strategic Planning Board.

7.      Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Brickhill.

“That since the government is running the Photovoltaic roof panel scheme for householders to generate green electricity and have exempted this from all planning permission requirements, that this Council notify any enquirers that planning permission is not required and cease to require details, drawings or charges except for listed buildings or conservation areas for which permission is still required.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor B Burkhill.

RESOLVED

That the Motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To consider the recommendations of the Licensing Committee. 

The Licensing Committee at its meeting on 12^th September 2011 had considered a proposal to re-adopt the provisions of sections 14 - 17 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended), which related to acupuncture, tattooing, semi-permanent skin-colouring, cosmetic piercing and electrolysis within the Borough of Cheshire East.

The Committee had recommended that Council approve the proposal.

RESOLVED

That

(1)   Sections 14 to 17 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended) (‘the 1982 Act’) be adopted and shall apply to the Borough of Cheshire East with effect from 1 December 2011; and that section 15 of the 1982 Act shall apply within the Borough of Cheshire East to all of the descriptions of persons within sub-section 15(1), i.e. persons carrying on the business of tattooing, of semi-permanent skin-colouring, of cosmetic piercing, or of electrolysis; and

(2)   the Borough Solicitor, or officer acting on her behalf, be authorised to publish notice of the above resolution in accordance with statutory requirements.

To consider the recommendations of the Licensing Committee. 

The Licensing Committee at its meeting on 12^th September 2011 had considered a proposal to re-adopt the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (in relation to street trading) within the Borough of Cheshire East.

The Committee had recommended that Council approve the proposal.

RESOLVED

That Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended) be adopted and apply to the Borough of Cheshire East with effect from 1 December 2011.

To consider the recommendation of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered the recommendations of the Civic Sub-Committee in relation to conferring on former Members of the Council the title of Honorary Alderman. The Sub-Committee had recommended that the title of Honorary Alderman be conferred on the following former Members of the Council:

Mr Ainsley Arnold

Mr David Cannon

Mr Ray Westwood

Mr Andrew Knowles

Mr Tony Ranfield

Mr John Goddard

The Sub-Committee had also made recommendations regarding the ceremony.

The Committee had approved the Sub-Committee’s recommendations for recommendation to Council.

In moving the Committee’s recommendations, the Chairman, Councillor A Martin, informed Council that since the agenda papers for the Committee had been published, it had come to light that former Councillor Brian Dykes also fulfilled the criteria of ‘eminent service’ for the purpose of becoming an Honorary Alderman.

Councillor Martin also informed Council that the formal ceremony would take place at 4.15 pm on Monday, 14^th November 2011 at the Lyceum Theatre, Crewe. Arrangements for the ceremony were well in hand.

RESOLVED

That

(1)   the title of Honorary Alderman be conferred on the following former Members of the Council:

Mr Ainsley Arnold

Mr David Cannon

Mr Brian Dykes

Mr John Goddard

Mr Andrew Knowles

Mr Tony Ranfield

Mr Ray Westwood

(2)   it be noted that the formal ceremony will take place at a special meeting of the Council to be held at 4.15 pm on Monday, 14^th November 2011 at the Lyceum Theatre, Crewe; and

(3)   the ceremonial procedure set out in paragraph 6.6 of the report to the Civic Sub-Committee be approved for the special Council meeting.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered an amended version of the Planning Protocol of Conduct which had been developed by the Planning Protocol Sub-Committee. The aim had been to review the existing Planning Protocol with a view to redrafting it as short, sensible guide.         

The revised version of the Protocol had been approved by the Strategic Planning Board and the Standards Committee with one slight amendment which had been included in the version submitted to Council. The Constitution Committee had recommended that the Protocol as amended be approved by Council.

RESOLVED

That the revised Planning Protocol of Conduct be approved for adoption and inclusion in the Constitution.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered a proposal to recommend to Council that the final decision concerning the outcome of the Polling Districts and Polling Places Review be delegated to the Constitution Committee at its meeting on 17^th November 2011.

The final decision needed to be made before the 1^st December 2011 in order to meet the statutory timescale for the review. This would necessitate a special Council meeting. The most likely date for such a meeting would be 18^th November 2011. However, it was apparent that there would be no other items of business requiring decision at such a meeting.

RESOLVED

That the final decision concerning the outcome of the Polling Districts and Polling Places Review be delegated to the Constitution Committee at its meeting on 17^th November 2011.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered proposed changes to the Council’s arrangements for making urgent decisions.

The Council’s existing arrangements empowered the Chief Executive or her nominee to make urgent executive and non-executive decisions in circumstances where such decisions were required before the next meeting of the relevant decision-making body. It was suggested that consideration should be given to securing Member involvement in making urgent decisions, with appropriate officer advice and involvement.  Appendix B of the report to the Constitution Committee contained proposed urgency provisions which, if agreed, would need to be incorporated into the Constitution.

The Constitution Committee had approved the proposals for recommendation to Council subject to the following amendments:

“with regard to urgent executive decisions:

§         the relevant scrutiny chairmen be notified of the matter and invited to make representations;

§         all Opposition Group leaders be notified of the matter and invited to make representations.”

A revised version of Appendix B incorporating the amendments agreed by the Constitution Committee had been submitted to Council.

In moving the Committee’s recommendations, the Chairman, Councillor A Martin, proposed two further amendments as follows:

§         the urgency sub-committee to be appointed to consider urgent Council decisions comprise 5 Members of the Council (ratio 3:1:1) and the Mayor as a non-voting member.

§         the following provision be added to the proposed urgency provisions:

Scrutiny committees can review the reasons for the urgency of a decision and the process adopted.

RESOLVED

That

(1)   subject to the further amendments now proposed, the revised arrangements for making urgent decisions as set out in the revised version of Appendix B to the report to the Constitution Committee be approved and adopted; and

(2)   the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer be authorised to make such additions and amendments to the Constitution as she considers are necessary to give effect to the wishes of Council.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered proposed changes to the arrangements for questions at Council meetings.

The Officers had received a number of comments from Members about the current arrangements for questions at Council meetings: that question time took too long; there were to many questions being asked; that some questions could be asked of Officers or Portfolio Holders; and that primary questions sometimes contained a number of subsidiary questions.

A number of potential amendments to the question time provisions had been circulated to the Committee for consideration as set out in Appendix B to the Committee’s report. The Committee had approved the proposals for recommendation to Council subject to the following amendments:

§         a maximum period of 30 minutes be allocated for Members’ questions at Council;

§         questions be selected by the Mayor in accordance with the criteria as amended;

§         those Members submitting more than one question may indicate the priority of importance of each question;

§         criterion 2(a) be deleted;

§         criterion 2(e) be amended to include reference to executive business;

§         paragraphs 3, 5 and 10 be deleted;

§         written answers to accepted questions which cannot be dealt with at the meeting be copied to all Members of the Council and not just the questioner;

§         the current deadline of 3 clear working days for the submission of questions be retained.

The Committee had also agreed to review the arrangements after 12 months.

A revised version of Appendix B incorporating the amendments agreed by the Constitution Committee had been submitted to Council.

In moving the Committee’s recommendations, the Chairman, Councillor A Martin, proposed that the revised arrangements be reviewed after 6 months instead of 12.

The motion as set out in the resolution below was moved and seconded.

A requisition for a named vote was submitted and duly supported, in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 15.2.

The motion was put to the meeting with the following results:

The motion was declared carried, with 39 votes for, 23 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED

That

(1)   the revised arrangements for questions at Council meetings as set out in the revised version of Appendix B to the report to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered proposed changes to the Council’s policy on providing access for Members to Part 2 and confidential reports in order to address perceived problems with the current arrangements. It was proposed that all Part 2 and confidential reports could be released to Members upon request, except for reports containing the following sensitive categories, which would be excluded from automatic release: 

§         Staffing information, where the identity of Officers would be revealed; and

§         Information relating to vulnerable children or adults

Members could access documents within these categories if they were able to demonstrate a need to know. To facilitate this, a revised ‘need to know’ procedure was proposed as set out at Appendix B to the Committee’s report.

The Committee resolved to recommend to Council that the revised arrangements be approved subject to the category relating to staffing information being amended to refer to the identity of individual Officers. It was recommended that the arrangements be introduced initially for a six month trial period, after which they would be reviewed.

A revised version of Appendix B incorporating the amendment agreed by the Constitution Committee had been submitted to Council.

RESOLVED

That

(1)   the proposed approach to access to Part 2 and confidential papers, including the revised ‘need to know’ procedure set out in the revised version of Appendix B of the report to the Constitution Committee, be approved;

(2)   the Borough Solicitor be authorised to make such changes and additions to the Constitution as she considers are necessary in order to give effect to the wishes of Council; and

(3)   the arrangements be put in place for a trial period of 6 months, after which they be reviewed.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered proposed amendments to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules.

At its meeting on 14^th July 2011, the Committee had deferred consideration of a report on revised Contract Procedure Rules to enable further work to be carried out. Council at its meeting on 21^st July had noted the Committee’s decision and resolved that in the interim, the financial threshold at which the Rules require a formal tendering procedure be increased from £50,000 to £75,000. The Committee had resolved to recommend the revised Rules to Council.

The proposed amendments to the Contract Procedure Rules were outlined in the Committee’s report and highlighted in the Appendix to the report. These included making permanent the change to the financial threshold for tendering.

RESOLVED

That the amendments to the Contract Procedure Rules (as set out in the Appendix of the report to the Constitution Committee) be approved and the Constitution be amended accordingly.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered proposed interim amendments to the Council’s Officer Delegation Scheme.

The Officer Delegation Scheme had been revised to reflect the most recent changes to the senior management structure. The Scheme had also been revised at paragraph 5.2 to empower officers to deal with statutory procedures or undertake consultation exercises on the basis that in doing so they must consult appropriate members. In addition, a separate exercise had been undertaken by the Assets Team in consultation with relevant Portfolio holders to clarify responsibility for the control and management of the Council’s Assets so that day-to-day operational decisions were delegated in future to the Strategic Director (Places and Organisational Capacity).

Only interim changes shown underlined were being proposed to reflect the fact that the Officer Delegation Scheme would need to be consistent with the provisions in the Finance and Contract Procedure Rules and any changes arising from the management review of the third, fourth and fifth tiers being undertaken by the Chief Executive.

The Officer Scheme of Delegation, showing proposed amendments highlighted, was set out in the Appendix to the Committee’s report. The Committee had approved the interim arrangements for recommendation to Council, subject to the amendment of paragraph 5.2 to refer to ‘non-statutory statistically valid consultations’. In approving the arrangements, the Committee had resolved that a presentation on the Corporate Landlord Function should be made to the Corporate Scrutiny Committee.

A revised version of the Appendix incorporating the amendment agreed by the Constitution Committee had been submitted to Council.

RESOLVED

That

(1)   the interim amendments to the Officer Delegation Scheme, as set out in the Appendix to the Committee’s report (as amended), be approved and the Constitution be amended accordingly; and

(2)   in order to ensure that the Council’s documented decision-making arrangements properly reflect the emerging structure, and that existing officer delegations remain unaffected pending the completion of the senior management review, all existing delegations shall remain effective and shall accrue to the relevant post holders as appropriate.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee. 

The Constitution Committee  at its meeting on 22^nd September 2011 had considered a proposal that Council be asked at its meeting on 13^th October 2011 to delegate to the Constitution Committee the power to respond to the Boundary Commission review of Parliamentary Constituency boundaries.

The Boundary Commission had published its initial proposals on 13^th September 2011. This would be followed by a 12 week consultation period, ending on 5^th December 2011.

The Council’s response to the review would normally be agreed by Council. However, the tight timescale within which the Council’s response had to be submitted would not make this possible unless a special meeting of Council were convened.

The Committee had appointed a sub-committee to manage the process. A briefing would be arranged for all Members of the Council, at which they would have an opportunity to comment on the review. Any comments could then be reported to the review sub-committee.

RESOLVED

That the Constitution Committee be granted delegated powers to determine the Council’s final response to the Boundary Commission review of Parliamentary Constituency boundaries, and the Council’s formal response to the review be submitted in writing.

To consider the recommendations of Cabinet. 

The Cabinet at its meeting on 3^rd October 2011 had considered a report on the draft National Planning Policy Framework which would replace all current Planning Policy Statements; the report outlined some of the issues it raised for planning in Cheshire East and suggested a response to be made by the Council to the current consultation. 

The proposed response, detailed in Appendix 1 of the report, had been considered by the Strategic Planning Board at its meeting on 28^th September 2011; the Board had supported the draft response but had made the following additional comments:

§         That the response should say more about the importance of agriculture – as a producer of food and as an important business – and that the role of agricultural land should be given greater prominence in the debate over the development of land.

§         That wherever possible officers will suggest new wording to accompany our comments of concern. It is considered that comments will carry more weight if positive wording is put forward in some cases.

Cabinet had agreed that these comments should be incorporated into the response and, in addition, that the section in the covering response entitled ‘The Favourable Presumption and Plans under preparation’ should be expanded to include:

§         That local plans remain protected until such time as the new National Planning Policy Framework is in place, and

§         That information be included on the number of plans currently approved and in the pipeline awaiting implementation.

The following additional amendments to Appendix 1 were now proposed:

§         The deletion of paragraph 2; and

§         ‘Natural Environment’ paragraph 3, line 2 be amended to replace the word ‘will’ with the phrase ‘may as a last resort’.

RESOLVED

That the consultation response detailed in Appendix 1 of the report be approved, subject to the amendments proposed by the Strategic Planning Board and Cabinet, and to the additional amendments now proposed.

To approve a Supplementary Capital Estimate request of £3,062,498, for Alderley Edge By Pass, as detailed in the Appendix to the report.     

Council considered a request for approval of a supplementary capital estimate for the Alderley Edge Bypass Scheme.

The Capital Programme included a major scheme for the A34 Alderley Edge and Nether Alderley Bypass. The estimated costs of the scheme now exceeded approvals by over £3m, largely as a result of forecast increased land and compensation claims. Council approval was therefore sought to meet these additional costs. It was proposed that potential income arising from the sale of land and property holdings acquired for the scheme could be used to finance the costs. Further details were set out in the Appendix to the report.

RESOLVED

That a supplementary capital estimate of £3,062,498 be approved for Alderley Edge By Pass as detailed in the Appendix to the report.

[Note: having earlier declared personal and prejudicial interests in relation to this matter, Councillors W Fitzgerald and F Keegan were not present during its consideration.]

The Leader to report changes to the Cabinet.

The Leader of the Council announced the following changes to the Cabinet since the previous meeting:

Councillor Michael Jones had been appointed as Resources Portfolio Holder with effect from 1 September 2011.

Councillor Peter Groves had been appointed as Resources Cabinet Support Member with effect from 1 September 2011.

Councillor Peter Raynes had been appointed as Environment Cabinet Support Member with effect from 22 September 2011.

RESOLVED

That the appointments be noted.

In accordance with Procedure Rules 11, opportunity is provided for Members of the Council to ask the Chairman, the appropriate Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee any question about a matter which the Council, the Cabinet or the Committee has powers, duties or responsibilities.

Questions must be sent in writing to the Monitoring Officer at least 3 clear working days before the meeting.

The Mayor ruled that in view of the lateness of the hour, Members’ questions would not be dealt with at the meeting and that the answers to questions would be sent to all Members of the Council.