Venue: Committee Suite 1,2 & 3, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach CW11 1HZ. View directions
Contact: James Morley Scrutiny Officer
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on the 25th July 2011
RESOLVED: That subject to the following amendments the minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2011 be approved as a correct record.
That Councillor R Fletcher’s apologies for absence be
(b) That Councillor H Davenport’s apologies for absence be recorded.
Declarations of Interest/Whipping Declarations
To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda
There were no members of the Committee present who wished to declare any interests.
Public Speaking Time/ Open Session
A total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to make a statement(s) on any matter that falls within the remit of the Committee.
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
There were no members of the public present who wished to address the Committee
To receive a presentation on the Waste Needs Assessment Report produced by Urban Mines on behalf of Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester.
The Committee received a presentation on the Waste Needs Assessment Report produced by Urban Mines on behalf of Cheshire East and Cheshire West & Chester.
The Planning Officer explained that the report was to be used as an evidence base in the formulation of planning policy concerning waste and determining the range of facilities needed to deal with waste arising in Cheshire East up to 2030.
Peter Greifenburg, representing Urban Mines, presented the report and answered questions. The following points were made:
A Microsoft Access based database had been produced that gave
details of waste needs and facilities and could model aspirations
for the future. This could be used to produce an analysis of the
waste provision needed in future and the gap in current
The Assessment did not take into account Silver Recycling Bins that
had just been introduced to Cheshire East’s waste and
Although the data used in producing the database wasn’t
perfect, the data was the best available and most useful for
informing planning at the time.
2009 figures were used to create the report in 2011 however
officers would be able to update figures when required. Policy
makers would use the information to plan for gaps in waste
· Officers were satisfied that the report would enable them to move forward with the formulation of planning policy.
(a) That the Officers be thanked and the report be noted.
The Spatial Planning Manager, Planning Officer and Urban Mines representative left the meeting.
To received a briefing and provide comments on proposed amendments to the highways policies currently being reviewed
List of Streets Policy
Mirrors on the Highway Policy
Pedestrian Crossing Policy
(iv) Repairs to Private Streets Policy
The Committee received a briefing on the proposed amendments to four highways policies that were currently being reviewed by the Council.
The Highways Manager presented a report on each policy to the Committee in turn and asked for comments on the proposed policies prior to them being submitted to the Portfolio Holder for Environment for full approval. The Senior Technician and the Borough Traffic Engineer were also present to assist with answering the Committee’s questions on each policy.
The following points were made on the Amendments to List of Streets Policy:
Any street being considered for adoption must be up to an adoptable
standard. If residents wished for a street to be adopted they
had to be willing to bring it up to the
The policy formally sets out the procedure for bringing streets to
the attention of the Council. Requests for the adoption of streets
could be received from either internal or external person or
The Environment Portfolio Holder had authority to make decisions on
adoption of streets.
Committee Members commented that Local Councils were in a prominent
position to support officers and the Portfolio Holder in the
gathering of evidence and decision making due to their local
expertise and connection to the residents.
The following points
were made on the Mirrors on the Highway Policy:
Sometimes a “blind exit” from a property or side road
was dangerous – for both the driver emerging and those
travelling along the main road. Whilst a mirror located on the main
road might have helped those joining the road a mirror was legally
an obstruction on the highway so could not be put up without the
express permission of the Highway Authority and Department for
The applicant would be liable for the Council’s costs in
dealing with the application from submission through to outcome. It
was considered prudent that the Council require a deposit of
£400 to cover the initial review. This was to ensure that the
Council recovered its costs.
Committee Members commented that if a mirror was needed in the
wider interests of safety for the community then the Council should
pay for the installation and maintenance of a mirror. The Council
needed to safe guard against abortive preliminary work by putting a
charge on the initial review. Requests that were not considered
necessary for public safety would need to be paid for by the
The following points were made on the Pedestrian Crossing Policy:
The policy provided a process for handling requests and the
assessment procedure for determining the most appropriate form of
crossing. The Council did not have a policy on the assessment of
locations for pedestrian crossings at the time of the
The policy was flexible allowing officers to give regard to local
interest and member involvement however evidence was always
required for the request to meet the criteria.
· The decision as to whether to install a crossing and the model of installation depended on the following factors: ... view the full minutes text for item 133.
Macclesfield Economic Master Plan Update
To receive a presentation on the current proposals for the Macclesfield Economic Master Plan
The Committee received a presentation on the Macclesfield Economic Master Plan from the Head of Regeneration.
The following points were made:
There was a master plan which was necessary to ensure a cohesive
vision for Macclesfield. Projects were being implemented in
relation to the master plan to ensure they contributed to the
vision for Macclesfield.
Feedback from public consultation about Macclesfield was mainly
positive but some suggested the town was tired and in need of
improvements to its retail and leisure provision. There was also
strong support for arts and culture.
The cultural heart of the Town should be maintained around the
civic and town hall areas. Any developments should not draw focus
away from the heart of the town.
· Balancing heritage and modern developments would be important to ensure that heritage was maintained but improvements were made to Macclesfield.
That the Head of Regeneration be thanked and the presentation be
(b) That the Committee Members be provided with a copy of the presentation.
Councillor P Hoyland left the meeting
Sustainable Towns Update
To receive a presentation on the progress of major projects in some of Cheshire East’s Town centres
The Committee received a presentation from the Economic Development Manager on the progress of major projects in some of Cheshire East’s town centres which updated Members on the progress of projects in Cheshire East’s town centres, in particular Congleton, Nantwich and Wilmslow.
The presentation also provided information on the “Love Local Life” scheme which was designed to support independent local businesses. The scheme had worked well and was being expanded across all towns in Cheshire East.
(a) That the Economic Development Manager be thanked and the presentation be noted.
Councillor Fletcher left the meeting
Scrutiny Member Training
To consider the Committee’s training requirements for the 2011/12 civic year
The Committee was asked to give consideration to any training requirements they felt would be necessary to help them with their duties on the Scrutiny Committee.
There were no specific requirements identified by Members of the Committee.
To give consideration to the Work Programme
The Committee gave consideration to the Work Programme.
That the Committee appoint a Task and Finish Group to conduct a
review of Community Transport provision.
(b) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to contact Members of the Committee asking for volunteers to be part of the Task and Finish Group.
To note the current Forward Plan and Service Plans, identify new items and to determine whether any further examinations of new issues is appropriate
The Committee was asked to consider the Forward Plan and Services Plans to determine whether any further examination of new issues is appropriate.
(a) That the Forward Plan and Service Plans be noted.