Agenda and minutes

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in any item on the agenda.

None

To provide an opportunity for Members to declare the existence of a party whip in relation to any item on the agenda.

None

Following on from the meetings held on 1 October and 16 October 2012, to give consideration to the above Call In

Further to the meetings held on 1 October and 16 October 2012, Members gave consideration to the questions and answers previously submitted.

 With regard to question 6, it was questioned why grounds maintenance was not listed as a consultee. K Melling highlighted that the Streetscape Manager was also responsible for Grounds Maintenance and had been consulted.

With regard to question 9, clarification was sought as to why service standards would only initially be at the same standard. K Melling highlighted that this formed the basis of initial discussions, future funding could not be predicted and efficiencies were being investigated.

With regard to question 3, it was felt that this answer referred to Highways. However it was explained to Members that Ringway Jacobs were two separate companies which had merged. They had expertise in all areas of municipal works including grounds maintenance; the existing work force would also be used.

With regard to the 7% savings that could be achieved, it was highlighted that this was an initial starting point that Ringway Jacobs could commit to, however it may be possible to achieve further savings. Savings could be achieved through economies of scale, drawing on expertise and through an integrated approach. If Cheshire East was not happy then this would dictate whether or not the contract was extended.

In addition to this Members raised the following issues:

·         It was felt that the answers to the questions were not detailed enough and that the decision was premature.

·         The justification of the transfer appeared to be budget related and that service standards would be maintained, however the answers given did not support this.

·         A questionnaire had been circulated to Members on their opinion of Ringway Jacobs. It was felt appropriate that the results of this should be reviewed prior to extending the contract.

·         Town and Parish Councils may want to take responsibility of streetscape through the devolution of services.

Following consideration of the evidence received Members were of the opinion that this issue required further review by the relevant Policy Development Group. Cabinet should therefore be recommended to defer the decision until a full report had been received from that group.

RESOLVED

That Cabinet be advised to defer the decision until a full report had been received from the relevant Policy Development Group.