Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Councillors M Houston and A Moran. Councillors R Vernon and D Edwardes were present as substitutes.

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

There were no declarations of interest. 

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 29 January 2026.

RESOLVED: 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2026 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.  

In accordance with paragraph 2.24 of the Council’s Committee Procedure Rules and Appendix on Public Speaking, set out in the Constitution, a total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to put questions to the committee on any matter relating to this agenda. Each member of the public will be allowed up to two minutes each to speak, and the Chair will have discretion to vary this 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.

Petitions - To receive any petitions which have met the criteria - Petitions Scheme Criteria and falls within the remit of the Committee. Petition organisers will be allowed up to three minutes to speak.

Mrs Fiona Hall attended the meeting with her stepson Sam and explained that her late husband, Chris, had been killed on 28 August 2020 when a decayed tree fell, an incident for which Cheshire East Council was later prosecuted and fined £500,000 for systemic failings. Mrs Hall stated that since the incident she had campaigned for “Chris’s Law,” formally launched in September last year, aiming to make it a legal requirement for councils to maintain trees in public spaces. Mrs Hall reported significant public and media support, with 38,000 signatures gathered, and noted that despite the usual 100,000 signature threshold, a parliamentary debate had already taken place in November, followed by a meeting with the Minister for Nature on 8 December. Mrs Hall emphasised that she would continue campaigning until the law was passed and highlighted the wider issue of unreported tree?related deaths. Mrs Hall noted her January meeting with senior council officers, who expressed support for the proposal, and encouraged Cheshire East Council to act as a leading example in driving change. Finally, Mrs Hall referred to the recent Defra letter issued by Mary Creagh MP to all UK Local Authorities and highlighted that this had been one of the key actions agreed during her meeting with the Defra Minister.

To consider the report on the Corporate Tree Risk Management Strategy (TRMS) - 2026 Review and Implementation Plan

The committee received a report outlining the scheduled 2026 review of the Corporate Tree Risk Management Strategy and the proposed adoption which refined the strategy to focus solely on managing the risk from falling trees and branches. The updated strategy incorporated new national guidance, strengthened governance arrangements, and introduced two new policies relating to replacement planting and biodiversity considerations. Members were advised that the revised approach included the formation of a corporate Tree Risk Management Board to oversee implementation, the formal adoption of the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA) methodology, clearer competency and inspection standards, and a zoned, risk?based inspection regime across all Council land.

It was noted that earlier arrangements had been insufficient and that the 2021 strategy had been introduced following the council’s recognised failings during the prosecution process; version 1.1 presented to the committee significantly strengthened those measures.

Members asked for reassurance that tree inspections would be genuinely thorough, noting that species such as birch and ash often shown internal decay that was difficult to detect. Officers explained zoning arrangements, 18?month inspection cycles for high?priority areas, and a system of recording only trees showing defects, with more intrusive surveys undertaken where needed.

The committee queried enforcement powers under the Highways Act and asked whether action had been taken in practice; officers confirmed that enforcement was regularly used on highway?related issues and, more rarely, on private land where risks were identified or owners could not be traced. Officers confirmed that further consideration would be given as to how the council would improve engagement with large landowners, such as the NHS.

The committee welcomed and supported the strategy, emphasising the importance of maintaining inspection capacity and encouraging public reporting of concerns via the Council’s Highways reporting system.

The Chair thanked Mrs Hall, and her stepson Sam, for attending the meeting.

[Link to Chris’ Law Petition: Petition · Support Chris's Law: • A National Law for Tree Safety in Public Spaces - United Kingdom · Change.org]

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Environment and Communities Committee

1)    Approve the Corporate Tree Risk Management Strategy (Version 1.1, January 2026) as the Council’s framework for tree safety management.

2)    Delegate authority to the Director of Planning & Environment to:

i) Manage implementation of the Strategy, with governance through the Tree Risk Management Board as set out in Appendix 1 Tree Risk Management Strategy V1.1 2026 and

ii) Amend the terms of reference for the Tree Risk Management Board as appropriate, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member.

To consider the report on the Third Financial Review and Performance position of 2025/26.

The committee received the Third Financial Review for 2025/26, which reported a balanced overall council outturn, reflecting a £2.345m improvement since FR2 after the planned application of Exceptional Financial Support. Within the Committee’s remit, the Environment and Communities Directorate forecasted an underspend of £3.941m, largely driven by one?off Extended Producer Responsibility grant income, delayed food?waste rollout costs, company reserve returns, and vacancy?related savings. Leisure Commissioning reported a notable overspend due to income shortfalls and pressures on MTFS savings delivery.

The committee noted progress against approved budget change items, the forecasted capital spend of £12.147m, several supplementary capital estimates, and the directorate’s reserves position. Members were advised that financial risks remained and that continued close monitoring was required to ensure the council remained continued to improve its financial stability.

Members queried the financing of food waste collections, specifically asking whether the capital outlay for new vehicles would fall within the next financial year or the current programme, and whether the Government had fully funded the new burdens associated with food waste collection, noting reports that funding had been incomplete. It was explained that the council was working with accountants to profile expenditure across years, confirming that capital funding allocated for the current year would in practice be spent in the following year, with a request already made to bring this funding forward accordingly. It was clarified that the Government grant covered vehicle-related capital costs but did not fund the required depot extension; despite the Council petitioning Government, the extension remained excluded from national capital grant criteria, meaning the Council would fund the depot works itself to provide additional parking, staff facilities, and operational space for the expanded service.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Environment and Communities Committee 

1. Note the overall Council’s Financial position as described within the Executive Summary – Council Financial Position. 

2. Note the latest revenue forecast for Environment and Communities Directorate, reviewed progress on the delivery of the MTFS approved budget policy change items (Table 3 of the report), the RAG ratings and to understood the actions to be taken to address any adverse variances from the approved budget. 

3. Note the overall in-year forecast capital spending for Environment and Communities Directorate of £12.147m against a revised MTFS budget of £18.606m in Tables 4 and 5 of the report.

4. Note the Delegated Decisions made for Supplementary Capital estimates up to £500,000 as per Table 6 of the report.

5. Approve the Supplementary Capital Estimate above £500,000 up to and including £1,000,000 as per Table 7 of the report.

6. Note the Capital Budget Reductions as per Table 8 of the report.

7. Note the available reserves position as per Table 9 of the report.

To consider the report on the on final draft of the Local List Supplementary Planning Document.

The committee considered the report on the final draft of the Heritage and Local List Supplementary Planning Document, which had completed public consultation and had been updated accordingly. Members were advised that the SPD provided clearer guidance on identifying and managing locally significant heritage assets, supporting planning decision?making and strengthening the council’s approach to heritage conservation.

The committee noted the purpose and scope of the document, the consultation feedback received, and the amendments incorporated into the final draft.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Environment and Communities Committee

1.    Authorise the second round of public consultation on the revised Local List SPD (appendix 1).

2.    Authorise the publication of the associated Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report (“SEA”) (appendix 2).

3.    Agree to publish the associated Equalities Impact Assessment Screening Report (“EQIA”) (appendix 3).

To consider the report on the Council's carbon neutral plan target of 2030 and the annual 2045 Action Plan summary.

The committee received an update on the council’s Carbon Neutral Programme and the refreshed Action Plan for 2045. Members were advised on progress toward the Council’s 2030 carbon?neutral target, including reductions achieved to date, ongoing challenges, and areas where further action was required.

The refreshed plan set out updated priorities, revised timelines and key projects to support both organisational and borough?wide emissions reduction. The Committee noted the continued work with partners, the need for sustained investment to meet statutory and strategic climate objectives, and the importance of integrating carbon considerations into service planning and decision?making.

Clarification was sought on the Goostrey tree?planting scheme, including its exact location and whether planting on Cheshire East owned farms could affect farm viability. It was explained that all council land had been surveyed to identify the most suitable areas for trees based on ecological value and land quality, ensuring that only land better suited to woodland was allocated.

Officers committed to providing a written response to the exact location within Goostrey but confirmed this was Goostrey Hall Farm.

The committee requested percentage gas reduction figures for Macclesfield Town Hall and the leisure centre and asked whether the leisure centre savings accounted for the three-month pool closure. It was also queried whether staff travel reporting included elected member travel and suggested exploring a shared minibus for visits. Officers agreed to supply the percentage reductions, confirmed that the reported savings reflected a fully?operational year, and undertook to investigate minibus options.

The committee queried if the council would support residents with plug?in solar schemes and whether the council remained open to tree?planting projects with partners, delivered at no cost. Officers confirmed both options were being explored, particularly across the sub?region, and that tree?planting partnerships would be welcomed where fully funded by external organisations.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Environment and Communities Committee

1.    Note the progress made against the council’s carbon neutral target.

2.    Approve and adopt the refreshed Carbon Action plan 2026-2030.

To consider the report on the reviewed and updated Animal Welfare Licensing Policy 2026-2029.

The committee considered the updated Animal Welfare Licensing Policy 2026–2029, which had been reviewed to reflect new legislation and current regulatory requirements. Members were advised that the revised policy incorporated updates arising from national changes to animal welfare standards and provided clearer guidance for applicants, licence holders, and enforcement officers. The policy set out the council’s approach to licensing activities involving animals, including inspection processes, compliance expectations, and enforcement arrangements.

The committee noted that the updated document aimed to strengthen consistency, transparency, and public assurance in the licensing regime. It was highlighted that the policy did not cover dog walkers, groomers, charities, animal sanctuaries, rescue centres, or similar businesses, and Members asked whether any plans existed to regulate or monitor these groups in the future. It was explained that DEFRA had intended to review the animal?related licensing regime sooner, but the review had been postponed for approximately 12-18 months.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Environment and Communities Committee

1.    Approve the updated Animal Welfare licensing Policy contained as Appendix 1 of the report.

Following conclusion of the formal business on the agenda, Cllr Whitaker raised concerns that the council had not yet held a public or formal councillor discussion on the Peak Cluster proposals, noting that Wirral Council and Derbyshire County Council had already debated the issue publicly and that around 30 Cheshire East Town and Parish councils had submitted consultation responses. Cllr Whitaker stressed that many residents were seeking clarity on Cheshire East’s position, particularly given the potential for significant disruption and environmental impact locally, with no corresponding economic benefits for the borough. It was requested that Peak Cluster be brought forward for open discussion at a future meeting, ideally full Council, to enable residents to share their views. Officers confirmed that an all?member briefing on Peak Cluster would be scheduled alongside the Local Plan update in the coming months, and that the request for consideration at full Council would be explored.