In accordance with Procedure Rule 11, opportunity is provided for Members of the Council to ask the Mayor, the appropriate Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee any question about a matter which the Council, the Cabinet or the Committee has powers, duties or responsibilities. Questions must be sent in writing to the Monitoring Officer at least 3 clear working days before the meeting.
At Council meetings, there will be a maximum question time period of 30 minutes. Questions will be selected by the Mayor, using the criteria agreed by Council. Any questions which are accepted, but which cannot be dealt with during the allotted period will be answered in writing. Questions must be brief, clear and focussed.
Minutes:
The following questions had been submitted:-
QUESTION 1
From Councillor D Brickhill
Parking at the rear of the Municipal Buildings, Crewe
On Monday 17 September, on the occasion of a Cabinet meeting at the Municipal Buildings, Crewe, the only properly marked disabled spot, was occupied by a cone with a notice marked “Reserved for Councillor Michael Jones”. I am glad to say he is not disabled. However this contravened both the disabled space regulations and the notice that Councillors (and he is just one of 82) are not permitted to use ANY of the car parking spaces behind the Municipal building. He was not expected at the meeting and had given his apologies. Will you please explain this?
Will you please detail the steps you are taking to ensure that disabled spots are only used by disabled people displaying their disabled badge and the way you will deal with offenders to prevent them using these spots again, preferably with some kind of penalty.
If you are not able to produce such evidence, I would like to hear who gave the authority to issue the notice saying “Members be aware that they are not permitted to park at the rear of the Municipal Buildings, as parking is very restricted and they need to keep this for visitors and deliveries as well as disabled parking.”
Response from Cllr Macrae
As Members will be aware, there is minimal parking at the Municipal Buildings, in Crewe, however, there are currently three clearly marked disabled spaces. The Asset Management Service is currently reviewing this provision, with the aim of creating one further disabled parking space and improving the area as a whole.
Unfortunately, the note sent to Members was badly worded and an apology has been offered.
The Building Support Officers monitor this car park throughout the day and issue notices to offenders, this will continue in the future. Can I also encourage Members to sign in when visiting so that illegal parking can be monitored.
QUESTION 2
From Councillor S Hogben
Crewe Heritage Centre
The Council is planning to grant a 125 year lease on the Crewe Heritage Centre site for a peppercorn rent. This effectively gives away an asset valued at £1m.
Could we have an assurance that there will be adequate safeguards within the lease agreement that
1) the site will be used for the benefit of the people of Crewe and that the site will be subject always to the objective that it shall be used for railway heritage and that any other use must be ancillary to this purpose, and
2) the existing rights of the Crewe Heritage Centre Trust will be fully protected, and
3) the new lease holders shall be prevented from extracting profits derived from the rent free site by paying high salaries, management charges or by raising loans secured on the lease?
Response from Cllr Macrae
Following on from the Notice of Motion of 13/10/ 11, I would respectfully remind Councillor Hogben that the matter has received consideration by both the Cabinet Member for Prosperity on the 27th June 2011 and by the Environment and Prosperity Scrutiny Committee on the 25th July 2011, at which Cllr Hogben was present.
1. I can remind Cllr Hogben that on the 27th June 2011 it was agreed that the site of the Crewe Heritage Centre be declared surplus to the requirements of Cheshire East Council and that a 125 year lease be offered for sale on the open market with a restrictive covenant to preserve the site for the rail heritage of Crewe. The terms have of the draft lease have been offered on this basis. (We are not disposing of the freehold).
2. The existing rights of the Crewe Heritage Centre Trust will not be affected by the grant of a new Head Lease.
2. The draft lease has been offered on the basis that the Tenant will invest the profits derived from the property into the property and/or into the activities carried on at the property.
I have copies of the previous decisions and Scrutiny call-in and relevant minutes if Members require them and if Members wish to view the terms of the lease, I suggest that they make an appointment with the Borough Solicitor.
Supplementary Question
Cllr Hogben requested that the response be copied to all Members and requested an update in respect of the current situation. It was noted that the response would be included in the minutes of the Council meeting and Cllr Macrae undertook to check on the current situation and would provide an update.
QUESTION 3
From Councillor S Corcoran
East Cheshire Community Transport
1) Why didn’t Cheshire East Council act on the warnings from East Cheshire Community Transport in January 2012 that the new services they were being asked to take on by Cheshire East Council would cause them cash flow difficulties?
2) The amount Cheshire East Council is now paying for the Dial-a-Ride service is higher than if no cuts at all had been made in the grant to East Cheshire Community Transport. Why did Cheshire East Council push ahead and impose cuts to the grant for East Cheshire Community Transport for Dial-a-Ride rather than negotiate an achievable reduction with East Cheshire Community Transport?
3) Why didn’t the Council respond to requests for assistance from East Cheshire Community Transport in the weeks leading up to the cessation of trading?
4) It has been stated that Cheshire East Council was owed £139,000 by East Cheshire Community Transport. Why hasn’t Cheshire East Council submitted a claim to the liquidator for this amount?
5) Why didn’t the Council act to secure the computer system for which £39,000 had been granted less than a year previously?
6) Why didn’t the Council act to secure the buses for which £90,000 had been granted less than a year previously?
Response from Cllr Menlove
1 It is incorrect to assert that the Council has not acted, and it is also incorrect to say that the changes would result in cash flow difficulties. The Council has for many years been a strong supporter of community transport across the Borough, committing substantial amounts of funding to ensure residents with mobility difficulties can access essential local services. In helping East Cheshire Community Transport with its implementation of a revised business plan, officers worked closely with them to help mitigate the impact of funding changes. This included offering transitional funding, and reprofiling the payments that were to be made.
Unfortunately, despite regular requests, no information was forthcoming to the Council over the exact financial position facing the Charity. It is for the Charity to answer for its own specific failure to keep proper accounting records, and to make them available to the Council. The Charity had failed for a number of years to even submit its accounts to the Charity Commission. It is likely that had the true financial position been known, then funding would have ceased sooner in order to protect the taxpayers’ interests and adopt alternative approaches.
2 This statement also is simply incorrect. The funding made available now is for a service that covers the whole of the south of the Borough, whereas funding for East Cheshire Community Transport and the service they provided covered only certain areas. Also, the ongoing costs of operating this service ourselves is lower than the ongoing amounts paid to East Cheshire Community Transport would have been – again, another unsupported assertion. So, we are providing better service coverage at lower cost, which I believe all members would welcome.
3 Again, this is simply incorrect. Officers were in regular contact with Trustees and officers of the Charity, and I attended a meeting with the Chair of Trustees and the Charity’s coordinator. Requests for assistance, as they are termed, were limited to no more than demands for increased funding.
There was no recognition from the Charity that they had to change their working practices; no recognition they had to reduce costs; no recognition that there are many sources of funding other than Cheshire East’s taxpayers. The Charity did not have any volunteers – only paid staff. The Charity did no fundraising – it was in effect a contractor to the Council, with no attempts to seek grants from other bodies or fundraise within the community it served. They occupied a very high cost premises, employed a high number of management and administrative staff, and displayed a lack of commercial acumen. In such circumstances, it is right that the Council does not avoid taking difficult decisions to ensure we get maximum value from the limited taxpayer funding we have available.
4 Cheshire East Council funding was provided to the Charity, not to the company, It is inappropriate – and probably unlawful - to submit a claim to a company we have not funded.
To recover any funding from the Charity would mean submitting a claim to the Trustees, and they are considered to be without substantial assets. The prospect of recovering the funding is therefore remote, and is not considered to be worth the cost of pursuing.
5 The bailiff appointed by the company sold the computer system before the Council was invited to submit a formal offer. The data had already been secured in hard copy form, and the replacement flexible transport service is operating a satisfactory database without needing to use the previous system used by East Cheshire Community Transport.
6 The Charity had not paid its debts for some considerable period – nearly 12 months in some instances. Bailiffs were appointed by the Charity’s creditors to sell assets. This only came to light after the Charity had transferred its remaining assets and liabilities into a company against the expressed wishes of the Council. When the remaining vehicles were likely to be sequestered, the Council’s officers moved swiftly to ensure that they were surrendered to the Council, and these vehicles are currently being used to provide the service in the south of the Borough.
Supplementary Question
Cllr Corcoran questioned, that if the new contract was better than the old contract with East Cheshire Community Transport, then why did the first quarter financial report of Cheshire East Council include £500,000 provision for extra costs due to the collapse of ECCT.
Cllr Menlove undertook to provide a written response to this question.
QUESTION 4
From Councillor S Corcoran
Sustainable Housing Developments
Further to my question at the last Council meeting and the written response received:
1) Could the Cabinet Member elaborate on their comment that "it will not always be a 50% margin of tolerance that is used"? The traffic light system already has an inherent amount of flexibility. I am very concerned that allowing the margin of tolerance to be varied could lead to confusion and inconsistency. Who decides what the margin of tolerance is and on what basis do they decide?
2) Ensure that all planning officers are aware of the 'traffic light approach'? I have recently been advised by a senior member of the department that the normal procedure is to only regard a red traffic light as a failure and I have seen this interpreted at a recent Strategic Planning Board meeting where planning officers presented an application stating that it 'meets 11 out of the 15' NWDA criteria when in fact 4 were green, 7 were amber and 4 were red. At that meeting no 'traffic light' slide was presented and it was not mentioned in the officer report. As a council we need to have a clear, consistent approach to sustainability.
3) Advise when the Council is likely to have adopted documents that reflect the current NPPF guidance, so that the Council has a defensible definition of a sustainable development? I note that the Interim Planning Policy (recently consulted upon) gives criteria based on the NWDA Sustainability Toolkit distances, but this makes no mention of a traffic light system. If the acceptable distances are to be increased by 50% (or more) by use of an amber traffic light then this calls into question the validity of the consultation.
(Question and Written Response from Council 19 July 2012 - referred to in the above Question
Definition of a ‘Sustainable Development’
What is this Council’s working definition of a ‘sustainable development’?
The National Planning Policy Framework states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Cheshire East Council has intimated that it uses the North West Development Agency (NWDA) sustainability toolkit to assess sustainability. The interim planning policy that has recently been subject to consultation used the distances to local services taken from the NWDA sustainability toolkit question 34. However, I am told by Cheshire East officers that in assessing planning applications a tolerance of 50% is added to all the distances given in the NWDA sustainability toolkit. As an example the NWDA sustainability toolkit lists Primary school (1000m). When Cheshire East assesses a site, is a primary school 1,400m away a pass or a fail (or a marginal fail)?"
Written Response:
The concept of Sustainable Development lies at the heart of the planning system. In very simple terms it relates to Development which meets of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
It is often suggested that sustainable development is the harmonious interaction of three dimensions – economic factors, social considerations and environmental issues. These goals need to be pursued jointly and simultaneously to achieve sustainable development.
The National Planning Policy framework puts this more broadly – and indicates that the accumulated guidance of some 201 distinct paragraphs collectively constitutes ‘sustainable development’ within the planning system.
The new Cheshire East Local Plan will explain what we consider to be sustainable development in a Cheshire context; but currently we do not have any adopted documents that reflect the current NPPF guidance.
Sometimes in the assessment of development proposals, the term ‘sustainable’ and ‘accessible’ are used interchangeably. That is perhaps a misreading of the true concept of sustainability as spelt out in the NPPF. The NPPF adopts a broader approach to the issue.
The North west Sustainability Tool Kit as used by the Council specifically addresses sustainability in terms of accessibility – how well a residential development is related to a number of key local services. The Council has refined the tool kit on application and particularly on planning appeals by introducing a traffic light system. This is with the aim of giving a fairly simple picture of a site’s accessibility. The following approach is taken:
Green = the standard is met
Amber = the standard is not met, but by a moderate margin
Red = the standard is not met by a significant margin
The distinction between ‘moderate’ and ‘significant’ margins will vary according to the particular facility concerned. Consequently it will not always be a 50 % margin of tolerance that is used.
When making planning decisions the Council is concerned with the balancing the benefits of development with any harm it may also cause in terms of adverse impacts. Most prominence is given to those impacts which are significant; consequently it is entirely appropriate to seek to distinguish between a marginal or moderate impact and one that is much more severe. The Traffic light approach seeks to achieve this, whilst also give a quick and easy perspective on a sites suitability).
Summary of Response from Cllr Bailey
At the outset we need to make it clear that sustainable development is a much broader concept than the subjects which the traffic light matrix addresses. The Government states that sustainable development is the effective balance of economic, social and environmental factors – whereas the traffic light matrix primarily considers accessibility – which is a much more narrow aspect of development. Consequently we should be careful not to over emphasise its importance or role.
To address the specific questions:
Question 1
The matrix states that anything other than a ‘green’ fails to meet the standard. Therefore amber and red only signify the scale and extent of the standard.
Green = the standard is met
Amber = the standard is not met, but by a moderate margin
Red = the standard is not met by a significant margin
The Amber / Red categories have been devised internally by the planning teams.
(Hence, question 2 is surprising, but I assume that you are looking for consistency).
Question 2
As set out above, if the standard of accessibility is only met if it is shown green on the traffic light matrix
Question 3
The Priority of the Council is to ensure it has an up to date Local plan in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework. This will carry full statutory weight in decision making. The Next stage of the Local Plan, the Borough Development strategy will appear before Council committees later in the autumn.
The Consultation on the Interim Planning Policy took place before the publication of the NPPF and therefore could not have taken full account of the final version. We will be reporting on the Interim Policy at a forthcoming meeting of the Strategic Planning board.
Supplementary Question
Cllr Corcoran stated that he did not feel that his first question had been answered and asked when the National Planning Policy Framework guidance would be published.
Cllr Bailey responded that this would be later in the Autumn.
QUESTION 5
From Councillor D Brickhill
Proposed Development on Duchy Land
It has been reported on Twitter that the Duchy are proposing a major development on their land to the north of the A 500.
Have there been any pre-application discussions with our officers about this and precisely where is the site concerned?
Response from Cllr David Brown
During the consultation on the Crewe Town Strategy, a range of responses have been received by developers and landowners across Crewe and the surrounding area. One of these responses includes proposals for major development to the east of Crewe, north of the A500. There have been no formal pre-application discussions with Officers with regards to these proposals; however there have been meetings with developers and landowners, including the Duchy of Lancaster as part of the consultation process.
Supplementary Question
Cllr Brickhill questioned why Members had to find out about this matter via Twitter, rather then through Council officers and the Cabinet Member.
Cllr Brown stated that there had been an internal conference discussion with the Duchy and that the Duchy had informed tenants, who had posted the information on Twitter. As soon as the position was formal, notification had taken place.
QUESTION 6
From Councillor D Brickhill
Cost of Telephone Maintenance
It is reported on the Crewe Voice website that Cheshire East spends £5 million on telephone maintenance.
If this is correct can you tell us please how the figure is broken down and if it includes line rentals and calls?
Response from Cllr David Brown
Cllr Brown thanked Cllr Brickhill for his question and provided a brief response at the meeting and undertook to provide a more detailed written response.
Supplementary Question
Cllr Brickhill questioned what reliance he could have on the figures produced and stated that he did not have faith in them.
Cllr Brown responded that the problem with the web action package was being investigated, but that this was not reflected in the way the Council ran it.