Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence from Members.

There were no apologies for absence.

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 3 April 2025.

Councillor S Adams requested that it be noted that she had not received the Public Rights of Way Training before the last meeting so therefore abstained from the vote on those items.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2025 be approved as a correct record.

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.

Mr Newstead addressed the Committee in relation to Item 5 – Draft Active Travel Strategy and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs). He stated that Cheshire East Council (CEC) had received approximately half as much funding per capita as Cheshire West in the recent funding allocation from Active Travel England because Cheshire East had a lower Capability Rating than Cheshire West.

Mr Newstead asked if CEC had a formal strategy to improve its capability rating. If it did, was this available publicly, and when did it expect to improve its rating?

Mr Newstead also asked what specific active travel projects in Macclesfield; CEC would be funding in the 25/26 financial year?

It was agreed that a written response would be provided outside of the meeting.

Mr T Melhuish addressed the Committee in relation to Item 5 – Draft Active Travel Strategy and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs). Mr Melhuishoutlined evidence from national guidance, the impact on road safety, cost comparison, the limitations of the current Speed Management Strategy and the broader benefits. Mr Melhuish asked when the Council would be joining the growing number of placesthat have adopted the introduction of default 20mph using the cost-effective approach used in towns and cities across England.

In response officers stated that the Council had adopted a Speed Management Strategy which was formally agreed by the Highways and Transport Committee. The strategy did not endorse a blanket or unilateral approach to 20mph speed limits. Instead, it reviewed each case on an individual basis.

Mrs V Scaresbrook spoke in relation to Item 5 – Draft Active Travel Strategy and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs). Mrs Scaresbrook asked what proportion of the Consolidated Active Travel Fund of around £800K would be spent in Congleton and what on?

In respect of School Travel Plans Mrs Scaresbrook asked how many schools currently had those plans and were there proposals to increase uptake by making it easier to create them?

In respect of ‘'Making safe spaces for people of all abilities to walk, wheel and cycle.' Mrs Scaresbrook asked was 20mph proposed to help achieve that and as most pavements were in a hazardous condition were comprehensive pavement repairs and pavement parking bans also proposed to reduce damage and restore safe space for users?

In response officers stated that there were approximately twenty schools within Cheshire East who had school travel plans. Officers had been working with schools and had retained the services of a national advisory body to help schools with the plans. It was a valid expectation of schools if the Council was to invest capital funds in seeking to support active travel initiatives, aligning within the Councils Home to School Travel Policy.

In respect of the 20mph proposal officers stated that this would be reviewed on a site by site and scheme by scheme basis rather than a blanket policy.

A pavement parking ban was still under consideration. The Council was awaiting national guidance from the Secretary of State for Transport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider a report on the Draft Active Travel Strategy and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).

The Committee considered a report which provided an overview of work to date on updating the Cheshire East Active Travel Strategy and progress in developing Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) across the borough.

The report sought approval to launch a public consultation over the summer to enable local communities to comment and shape the emerging strategy and infrastructure proposals.

It was noted that those authorities performing at a higher level would have greater access to funding so developing a new strategy and infrastructure plans was a key part of demonstrating the Councils ambition and commitment.

Officers agreed to consider the suggestion of making a video or film to market the strategy as it was a powerful medium which would help get the message across quickly and would engage a wider audience.

Officers explained the difference between capital and expenditure so that it was clearer for people to see what money was available to spend and on what.

In response to a question in respect of the committee having sight of the consultation before it went live officers agreed to provide members with a briefing.

In response to a question about what the terminology ‘wheeling’ meant officers clarified that it did not refer to electric scooters. Instead, it encompassed the use of wheelchairs, prams, push chairs and non-motorised scooters, aligning with terminology recommended in national active travel guidance.

There was a request that it was made clear the nature of active travel funding when doing the publicity around the public consultation, specifically that funding for active travel was competitive, discretionary and ring fenced therefore the council would have to comply with the terms of any grant or the funding would be returned.  

Councillor Hilliard’s contribution to the Manchester road through Wilmslow scheme was acknowledged, and it was hoped that the project would be seen as a lasting part of their legacy.

The committee expressed their support for the integration of plans across towns and the political leadership being shown in this area and members were encouraged to engage with developers to advocate for the allocation of S106 contributions towards active travel infrastructure.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

The Highways & Transport Committee:

1. Approve the draft Active Travel Strategy at Appendix 1 and the LCWIPs summarised in Appendix 2 as a basis for public consultation, taking into account the desire to improve the Councils performance rating in future ATE assessments.

2. Approve the proposed approach to consultation in line with the Consultation & Engagement Plan at Appendix 3 and Communications Plan at Appendix 4.

3. Delegate authority to the Director of Transport and Infrastructure to finalise the consultation material and undertake the public consultation.

4. Approve the fully funded Supplementary Revenue and Capital Estimates for the value of revenue funding £248,273 and capital funding £565,019.

5. Delegate authority to the Director of Transport and Infrastructure to spend the Council’s Consolidated Active Travel Fund (CATF) allocation of £813,292 (£565,019 capital and £248,273 revenue) in line with our strategy and infrastructure delivery plans.

To consider a report on the Bus Service Improvement Plan – 2025/26 Delivery Programme.

The Committee considered a report on the Cheshire East Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) Delivery Plan 2025/26. The plan was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) as a draft document on 31 March 2025, in line with DfT requirements. Any amendments required by Committee would be incorporated and a final version submitted to DfT by the end of June 2025.

Cheshire East Council had been allocated £5,444,474 from the DfT as Local Bus Grant 2025/26. A summary of the proposed schemes for delivery using the revenue and/or capital funding was set out at Appendix 2 to the report.

It was noted that most bus routes were now close to the level they were at pre pandemic which was seen as a positive indicator of recovery. The use of available funding, both revenue and capital had supported a range of initiatives aimed at incentivising bus use.

Councillor H Moss addressed the committee as a visiting member and requested an amendment to the proposal for the continuation of the 16-19 Pass scheme in the draft plan. Councillor Moss stated that the incentive would do nothing to assist the younger age group in the community who used public transport to attend school and requested that the lower age restriction be removed from 16 years to include everybody under the age of 19. This would have a positive impact on the environment and every child would be able to benefit from the initiative.

The Committee asked a question in respect of what the logic was for selecting the cohort of 16–19-year-olds over a younger cohort for a £1 flat fare.

In response officers stated that the primary rationale for focusing on the 16 – 19 age group was that this cohort was typically no longer in compulsory education and at this stage in life began to acquire driving licences and access to cars. That made them a key target for interventions aimed at encouraging public transport use. The introduction of the £1 fare for that age group was a trial initiative to assess whether fare incentives could influence travel behaviour before driving became a regular option.

Affordability also remained a significant factor. Extending the £1 fare offer to all under- 16s would require substantial additional funding primarily to compensate transport operators for lost revenue. Officers had conducted an initial estimate of the current position to understand the financial implications of expanding the scheme to younger age groups and that was circa £500k.The reduced fare was likely to increase ridership and generate extra trips which would add to this cost.

In response to a question about whether alternative options could be explored in the absence of current funding – such as negotiating with operators to extend the junior season ticket – officers confirmed that related work was ongoing. They were drawing on insight from the multi-operator ticketing initiative and exploring what types of schemes could be developed for under 16s to enhance accessibility and affordability. Assurance was given that the suggestion regarding junior  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To receive a report which provides an overview of the Cheshire East Council final outturn for the financial year 2024/25.

The Committee received the report which provided an overview of the Cheshire East Council final outturn for the financial year 2024/25 and the financial performance of the Council relevant to the committee remit.

The Third Financial Review (FR3) forecast revenue outturn was an adverse variance of £18.3m (prior to the application of any Exceptional Financial Support) an improvement of £1.8m from FR2.

·       The Overall Service outturn was +£10.2m overspend compared to £22.9m forecast at FR3 which was an improvement of £12.7m.

·       Place overall outturn was -£8.6m under compared to -£4.9m at FR3 which was a £3.7m improvement.

·       Highways and Transport were £1.8m underspent as a result of vacancies, managing spend and additional income which was a £1.3m improvement.

·       The key reasons for the underspend were outlined as:

·       Car Parking: £0.3m overspend, £0.4m vacancies are offset by reduced car park income £0.7m. This represents a £0.6m worsening since FR3 from reduced income.

·       Strategic Transport is a £1.2m underspend, largely due to vacancies, which represent a £1.1m improvement from FR3, there has also been a delay in new bus contracts taking effect.

·       An underspend of £0.8m across Ansa Transport commissioning, Infrastructure, Highways and Rail Transport Integration due to vacancies.

·       Overall Cheshire East Councils position was £17.6m overspend allowing for transfers to reserves of £7.4m which would be funded from Exceptional Financial Support.

In response to a question about the current position and targets for the general fund and earmarked reserves officers reported that the MTFS projects a substantial increase in general reserves, estimated at approximately £30m.

In response to a question raised in respect of whether borrowing money to fill up reserves and lending to money to other local authorities was considered as long term or short-term borrowing It was confirmed that lending was short term and borrowing was long term. Following a request for more information on the interest rates connected to borrowing and lending officers agreed to provide further information outside of the meeting.

Officers agreed to provide a written response to a question raised in respect of the amount of funding required in the current year to prevent further deterioration of the road network.

The committee expressed frustration that despite the Highways and Transport committee operating with one of the smallest budgets any underspend was reallocated to other areas rather than retained for future use within the service.

Officers stated that they could not predict future funding allocations but aimed to position the council to be in the strongest possible position to access additional funding when available. Responsibility for managing and reallocating underspend lay with the Section 151 Officer.

Following a request to have information at the end of each year on what had been spent in each area to be able to do a comparison each year officers agreed to explore how to provide members with clear breakdowns of expenditure across categories, information on funding guidelines, restrictions and the decision-making process for revenue and capital expenditure and provide clarification on how spending is allocated on a day to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider an application to delete public footpath 19 in the Parish of Audlem.

Officers passed on the thanks of the family of the applicant to the committee for voting to defer the application at the meeting in April to the June Committee.

The Committee considered a report which outlined the investigation of an application to amend the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way by deleting Public Footpath 19 Audlem.

The investigation included a discussion of the consultations carried out in respect of the claim, the historical evidence, witness evidence and the legal tests for a Definitive Map Modification Order to be made.

The evidence consisted of the application from the landowner, supporting statements from two neighbours and documentary evidence in the form of letters, maps and photos sent to the Council.

It was noted that the submission of comments from Audlem Parish Council had been delayed due to the deferment of the report. However, the Parish Council subsequently confirmed their support for the officer’s recommendation.

Officers reported a correction to the report in respect of paragraph 30 onwards which related to a Finance Act field record and stated there was a claim for a deduction for one footpath, and it was assumed that this footpath was footpath 19. The field record acreage for the farm included other land which was also crossed by part of public footpath 18 which was not shown on the plan. It was explained the details in the field book were supplied by the landowner and were not subject to external valuation so whilst the field book says one footpath it also says in the valuation calculation rights of way in the plural.  There were no further details on the record to suggest which footpath was the valuation.

Officers acknowledged that there were some practical difficulties around the management of the farm when it was fully operational as outlined by Mrs Lawrence in earlier in the meeting. However, the officer clarified that the issues of convenience and safety could not be considered valid grounds for deleting the public path.

The Committee considered whether on the balance of probabilities the Public Footpath was registered on the Definitive Map and Statement in error.

The Committee agreed that the evidence that had been submitted with the application and that considered during the subsequent consultation and investigation was considered insufficient in showing that the details contained in the Definitive Map and Statement should be modified.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

That the Highways and Transport Committee:

 1. Decide that a Modification Order not be made under Section 53(3)(c)(iii) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the Definitive Map and Statement to delete Footpath 19 as shown on Plan No. WCA/40 at Appendix 1.

2. The application be refused on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to overturn the legal presumption that the Definitive Map and Statement are correct.

3. Note that in the event of objections being received, Cheshire East Borough Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or Public Inquiry.

To consider an application for the addition of two public footpaths between Public Footpaths 13 and 21 in the Parish of Mobberley.

The Committee considered a report which outlined an application submitted on behalf of Mobberley Parish Council, which sought to amend the Definitive Map and Statement for Cheshire East Borough Council. The application requested the addition of two public footpaths between Public Footpaths 13 and 21 in the Parish of Mobberley (“FP13” and “FP21”) under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (the “81 Act”).

The report included an analysis of the claim, comprising of a review of user evidence, an assessment of historical information and consideration of the relevant legal context. It also outlined the legal tests required for a Definitive Map Modification Order (“DMMO”) to be made.

Councillor H Moss addressed the committee as a visiting councillor in support of the application but raised concerns in respect of routes B to C on the plan in appendix 1 of the report and asked that common sense was applied. Councillor Moss explained that residents in 2014 who backed on to the route were able to purchase some of the land to extend their gardens.

The purchase of the land had meant a minor realignment of the travel route, and the route now followed the perimeter of the new gardens. The new travel route had not been in situ for the required 20 years, whereas the rest of the routes had. Councillor Moss requested that officers engage with the landowner to request that the route followed the perimeter of the gardens and not allow the route to enter the gardens for a sake of a few meters.

In response to a question in respect of what options the committee had to address the issue raised by Councillor Moss it was agreed that the application should go through due process then officers would engage with the landowner.

The Committee considered the evidence and on the balance of probabilities agreed that there was sufficient evidence that there was a reasonable allegation that public rights should be recorded and that a DMMO should be made to add the two footpaths between FP13 and FP21.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

That the Highways & Transport Committee

1. Agree that a Definitive Map Modification Order is made under Section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to modify the Definitive Map and Statement by the addition of a public footpath between Point A-C-D on Plan WCA/051 and a public footpath between Point B-C on Plan WCA/051.

2. Note that in the event of objections being received, Cheshire East Borough Council will be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or public inquiry

To consider an application to extinguish Public Footpath No. 29 in the Parish of Knutsford.

The Committee considered a report which outlined the investigation to extinguish Public Footpath No. 29 in the Parish of Knutsford following receipt of an application from Puro Property Partnership.

The report included a discussion of the consultations carried out in respect to the proposals and the legal tests to be considered for a diversion order to be made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Committee considered the evidence set out within the report and agreed that that a public path extinguishment order be made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 on the grounds that they were satisfied that it was necessary to do so as it is no longer needed for public use, based on DEFRA guidance, Government guidance on diversion or extinguishment of public rights of way that pass through private dwellings, their curtilages and gardens, farmyards and industrial or commercial premises, published in August 2023.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

That the Highways and Transport Committee

1. Agree that a public path extinguishment Order be made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 for Knutsford Public Footpath No.29 in the Parish of Knutsford, on the grounds that the Public Footpath is no longer needed for public use.

2. Agree that public notice of the making of the Order be given and in the event of there being no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said Act.

3. Note that in the event of objections being received, Cheshire East Borough Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or Public Inquiry.

To consider a report to nominate members to the bodies referred to in the report.

The Committee received the report which sought to nominate members to the bodies outlined in the report.

The proposed nominations for the Public Rights of Way Consultative Group were noted as follows: Councillors L Braithwaite and H Faddes.

The proposed nominations of the Home to School Transport Task and Finish Group (Joint T & F Group with Highways & Transport Committee) were noted as follows: Councillors M Goldsmith and H Faddes.

It was further agreed that Councillor M Muldoon would be nominated for the Home to School Transport Task and Finish Group.

The committee were also asked to note the Terms of Reference (Appendix 1 of the report) of the Home to School Transport Joint Committee Task and Finish Group.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

That the Highways and Transport Committee:

1. Appoints the sub-committees, Task and Finish Groups, working groups, panels, boards and joint committees for 2025-26, and the member appointments to them, as set out above.

2. Where appropriate, agrees to submit member nominations to the bodies below to the Head of Democratic Services. 

3. Note the Terms of Reference for the Home to School Transport Joint Committee Task and Finish Group.

To consider the Work Programme and determine any required amendments.

The Committee considered the Work Programme.

Following a request to include a standing item on the work programme for progress updates on major schemes across the borough, officers agreed to explore the most effective way to keep members informed. It was suggested that this may take the form of regular monthly briefings rather than formal update reports, to ensure the most current information was shared in a timely manner.

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.