The Committee considered the joint report of the
Director of Finance and Business Services and the Head of
Performance, Customer Services and Capacity together with
appendices, which provided detailed information to support
the costs associated with the list of assets that could potentially
form the calculation for a special expense levy for 2012/13.
This information was intended to assist Members in making an
informed decision on those existing services that they wish to see
provided in the currently unparished
area of Macclesfield (consistent with those transferring to
parished areas) and the associated
budgets that related to those services.
The Committee was requested to make a recommendation
to Cabinet on the level of service and related budgets it wished to
see continue to be provided in the unparished area of Macclesfield, potentially
leading to the levying a relevant charge. It was noted that the
process would be for Cabinet to then make a recommendation to
Council.
Officers explained the need to be fair and consistent in the
provision of discretionary services across Cheshire East. Members
sought clarification in respect of a number of issues and made a
number of comments. They expressed views about the concept of a
special expenses levy and some Members felt it would lead to double
taxation on the people of Macclesfield and that, as there was not a
Town Council for Macclesfield, there was no legal body for the
services to be transferred to. Officers explained the thinking in
terms of consistency with the parished
areas relating to the assets approved for transfer in the
5th September cabinet report. In addition officers
clarified that no assets would transfer as the Committee is a body
of the Council and not a separate entity.
Officers in attendance provided a summary of each of the areas
under consideration and Members asked a number of detailed
questions and raised the following issues
:-
Allotments
Members commented that miscellaneous expenses appeared to be
high and requested further detailed information for the next
meeting, in respect of the following -:
-
How many individual
plot holders were there in the Macclesfield area and where do they
live.
-
What was the current
waiting list for each site and a breakdown of where those on the
waiting list lived.
-
What percentage of the allotments were currently
unoccupied, where were the vacant allotments and what was the
consequent loss in income.
-
To what extent was the
Council complying with its legal duty, in terms of statutory
provision.
-
What formal
relationship did the Council have with the local Allotment
Associations, in terms of legal agreements and what annual return
did they make to the Council.
-
Detailed and accurate
draft budget figures, with a line by line focus for each item, to
enable Members to compare the various costs.
-
A general tidying up
of the generic titles for the budget figures.
Senior
Citizens Hall
·
It was questioned whether this item should be
considered when the hall fell within the Macclesfield Town Centre
Development area.
Weston
Community Centre
·
It was felt that the Centre needed to be brought up
to a reasonable standard
·
It was considered that responsibility for the Centre
should not be transferred to the Committee, when there were other
community facilities being used within the centre, including a well
used library. Officers explained that no assets were being
transferred to the Committee. The issue to be debated was as to
whether a special expense levy should be charged to cover the cost
of running these assets to be consistent with parished areas.
·
It was suggested that a proviso should be included,
to say that the Committee was not in a position to transfer the
asset, legally.
Markets
- Members queried the high cost of
overtime and felt that paying staff on a permanent rate was
unacceptable. However, this was an issue for the Council to
resolve.
- Members noted the cost of insurance
and queried whether any future Town Council would be able to obtain
its own insurance, rather than using Cheshire East Council’s.
(It was noted that the information had been presented in order to
be consistent with that provided for the existing Town and Parish
Councils and it was confirmed that a Town Council would be free to
obtain its own insurance if it wished to do so).
- It was suggested that responsibility
for markets should not be transferred to the Committee, but that
the Committee should monitor the cost structure, with a view to
improving the facilities for the people of Macclesfield.
- Clarification was sought in respect
of the figures for car parking charges.
- Members
requested a breakdown of all the costs and explanation as to where
all the figures came from. (These details would be included in the
comments box for consideration at the next meeting).
- It was requested that there be
separate accounts for the indoor market and outdoor market.
Town Centre
Management
- Further details were requested as to
what was meant by Town Centre Management and what would be the
benefits to Macclesfield.
- It was considered that it should be
emphasised that Macclesfield was a strategic/lead town in the North
of the Borough and was a major shopping centre.
- It was suggested that it seemed
reasonable for town centre management to be the responsibility of
the Council and that it should not result in an additional tax on
the people of Macclesfield.
- It was considered that town centre
management and car parking could not be separated and as the
Committee had not been offered the opportunity to take on
responsibility for car parking this was not equitable.
- The Committee requested further
details as to how the role of the Town Centre Manager was perceived
and how this reflected the requirements of the people of
Macclesfield. It was noted that the current Town Centre Manager
worked with other communities, such as Bollington and concern was expressed that costs
would be passed onto these communities.
Christmas Lights
- It was noted that the Macclesfield
Charter Trustees had budgeted £16,000 for new Christmas
lights, in addition to the Council’s budget provision of
£20,000 and that the £20,000 was not just for lights
but also for events in the town.
- It was suggested that it would be
appropriate for Christmas lights to be the responsibility of a
Committee such as this and for the Charter Trustee budget to be
transferred. However, there was a counter argument that, unless the
Committee was given total budgetary control, then they should
remain the responsibility of the Council.
- Concern was expressed that currently
there were no additional costs for the management of the money held
by the Charter Trustee’s and if the Council was responsible
for the lights there would be a charge for managing the costs and
the Charter Trustees would lose control as the how the money should
be best spent.
- It was suggested that that, as the
lights benefited local trade, then the cost should be shared
between the Council and local businesses. (It was reported that
local businesses already made a contribution).
Toilets
- Clarification was sought regarding
overtime costs and it was agreed that information would be provided
at the next meeting regarding this and other reallocated costs,
which were held centrally.
- It was suggested that there were two
options, that either the transfer of the
public conveniences should be accepted or that consideration should
be given to closing them and paying an amount of money to suitable
local shops, to enable use of their toilets by the public. However,
this would be for the Council to consider and not the
Committee.
- It was suggested that the cost of
the Churchill Way Public conveniences should be offset against car
parking income.
- Additional information, including
figures for the maintenance and refurbishment were requested for
the next meeting.
- Information was also requested, for
consideration at the next meeting, in respect of the status of the
Public Conveniences on Churchill Way and whether it was proposed
that they would be taken over, as part of the town centre
redevelopment and whether they had originally been provided by way
of a Section 106 Agreement and what the legal position would be in
respect of any transfer.
- Information in respect of the
condition of the Public Conveniences was also requested for the
next meeting.
RESOLVED
That the additional information requested by
Members be provided, for consideration at the next meeting, to
enable the Committee to make a recommendation to Cabinet.
(Councillor Edwards voted against the
motion).