Agenda item

In accordance the Council Procedure Rules, opportunity is provided for Members of the Council to ask the Mayor or the Chair of a Committee any question about a matter which the Council, or the Committee has powers, duties or responsibilities.

At Council meeting, there will be a maximum question time period of 30 minutes. A period of two minutes will be allowed for each Councillor wishing to ask a question.  The Mayor will have the discretion to vary this requirement where they consider it appropriate.

Cllr M Brooks noted that Cheshire East was in the top 10 areas for the number of puppy breeding farms and stated that there were concerns nationally around the practice of some of those establishments. She asked whether the Council was confident that sufficient resources were allocated to ensure that licensing conditions were being robustly monitored and strictly enforced.

In response Cllr D Jefferay, Chair of Environment and Communities Committee, stated that Cllr Brooks was referring to a 2023 report and at that time the Council was reported as having 36 licensed dog breeding businesses. As of today, there were 26 licensed premises. Two larger sites had closed in the past two years, both as the result of business decisions. The Council’s enforcement action was underpinned by the corporate and service specific enforcement policies and the Animal Welfare Licensing Policy.

Cllr R Chadwick asked that given the mobile waste recycling centres serving Bollington, Poynton and Middlewich were currently providing only an emergency service, covering a combined population of around 39,000 residents, could the administration confirm what the long-term plan was for restoring full recycling provisions in those communities, and if they would commit to reinstating permanent, fully functional recycling centres, or should residents now assume that those temporary, arrangements were the new normal under the Council’s financial strategy.

In response Cllr D Jefferay, Chair of Environment and Communities Committee stated that a briefing was being arranged for members of the Environment and Communities Committee regarding the Mobile Household Waste Recycling Centre. The briefing would also be extended to all other Members who expressed an interest in attending.

Cllr S Bennett-Wake stated that residents from Bollington and Macclesfield and Crewe were delighted with the new Sunday bus service enabling them to meet with family and friends. She asked the Chair of Highways and Transport Committee if, with the power and finances that come with devolution, was it envisaged that there would be easier access for residents with disabilities and also could an Under 16 travel card, similar to the IGO card in Greater Manchester, be introduced. She stated that in Macclesfield it cost children more to travel to school than it did for adults who could buy a weekly £12 Silk town bus ticket.

Cllr M Goldsmith, Chair of Highways and Transport Committee, responded by stating that Mayoral combined authorities, otherwise known as strategic authorities, had various powers in relation to local transport, including bus services, fares, and ticketing across their region. Although, the three constituent authorities had agreed to set up a Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, it was not anticipated to be established until 2026 and Mayoral Elections planned for 2027. It would be up to the Combined Authority itself to consider future bus services and ticketing as part of a strategic planning process and therefore, the Council was not able to determine at this stage, what future operations or ticketing regimes would be delivered through the combined authority, once established. 

Cllr M Beanland asked if the Council supported the New Towns Taskforce Adlington application, who knew details of what and when regarding the Expression of Interest, and who decided it should be embargoed following the email to officers. He further asked if the Combined Mayoral Authority would be ruling on this application and who residents should raise objections with.

In a separate question Cllr Beanland referred to the closure of Westfields and asked if the current cost of closure and expected future costs of the Westfields conversion be provided, along with the costs of refurbishing the Macclesfield and Crewe rooms.

Cllr M Gorman, Chair of Economy and Growth Committee, undertook to provide a written response.

Cllr L Braithwaite referred to the proposed sale of the Grosvenor Centre in Macclesfield and asked if there would be any impact on the operation of the council-owned refurbished Indoor Market, toilet facilities, and the multi-story car park? 

In response Cllr M Gorman, Chair of Economy and Growth Committee, confirmed that the Council was near to completing a refurbishment project at the Market Hall, designed to attract more traders, reduce vacancies, and improve the offer for its residents. He stated that the Council would work with the new owners, once identified, and it was hoped more traders would come as works were completed. The sale of the Centre was by no means necessarily bad news. The Centre was being sold as a going concern with many existing leases in place and therefore there was unlikely to be any immediate impact as far as the public was concerned or on the Indoor Market. A new owner could bring a fresh outlook and creativity in terms of the tenant mix to fill vacant units. It was understood that potential purchasers had been invited to place bids by 5th November; bids would then be considered, and best and final offers may be called. Council officers would be ready to reach out to the new owners to understand their aspirations for the Centre and would of course want to work to support them in bringing forward any plans, to benefit the town centre offer for residents as well as to protect the value of the Council’s adjoining asset. 

Cllr L Smetham noted that there were several planning applications approved with certain amounts of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) approved at sites elsewhere, due to the planning site being unable to accommodate land for BNG provision. She raised a query in respect of a site at Adlington, which was currently in the news for up to 20,000 new homes, but had previously been designated / agreed to provide this BNG, and asked how the BNG would be achieved instead.

In response Cllr D Jefferay, Chair of Environment and Communities Committee, stated that there were three legal agreements which specifically identify sites for BNG on areas of land which was part of the Adlington Estate. The current landowners were aware that these obligations run with the land for 30 years so would need to be safeguarded in the future. There were other sites available for BNG. 

Cllr J Clowes stated that in 2019 the conservative group prepared MTFS Proposals for Adult Social Care Assets including Bexton Court, Stanley House, and Mountview. Those proposals provided alternative supported living options for LD Adults and Young People with additional needs entering Adult Social Care. The proposals were fully costed with oversight by the S151 Team, approved by Cabinet, and approved for inclusion in the MTFS by full Council in February 2020. These plans offered a return on expenditure within five years and associated social care saving thereafter. Even after Covid and inflated construction costs, the corresponding rise in that area of care costs had meant that those proposals were still valid in principle. However, despite repeated requests for information about the future of those assets and bearing in mind the importance of Council assets to our Transformation Planning, no definitive information had yet been provided. Cllr Clowes asked how much Cheshire East Council had spent on maintenance and security costs for each of those empty assets since the MTFS decision was made in February 2020, and when would Councillors be provided with a definitive timeline for the effective disposal or re-use of these assets and for the information to be presented to members of the Adults and Health Committee at the earliest opportunity.

Cllr J Rhodes, Chair of Adults and Health Committee, undertook to provide a written response.

Cllr M Muldoon referred to the letter sent by the Leader and Deputy Leader in response to the Notice of Motion on Housing Targets to Rt Hon Angela Rayner on 29 August 2025. He asked the Leader to explain the apparent redirection away from the Motion that was agreed in July, and why did they not see fit to carefully and accurately reflect not only the Motions put forward by Cllrs Gardiner supported by Cllr Edgar and Cllr Browne, but also the further amendment put forward themselves regarding affordable housing.  He asked that a more clear and consistently accurate letter be sent to Steve Reed MP, the new Secretary of State, making it perfectly clear that a period of grace, rather than a ramping up, was what was requested, and the wording of the letter be accurately and carefully in line with the Motions and amendment previously agreed by the Council in July 2025.  He also requested that a copy of the letter be sent to local Members of Parliament.

In response Cllr N Mannion, Leader of the Council, said that the letter clearly stated that an uplift of 166% was incredibly challenging to the Counciland called upon the Government to meet and agree tangible and realistic housing targets and provide assurances they would work with the Council on all the issues that had been pointed out.  The issue was not that the Council had not got allocated sites, it was that some of those sites were outside the current local plan, and therefore greater control was needed on how and when they were presented to the Council and came forward as the Council prepared the new local plan, with assurances from the Government on their commitment to deliver the infrastructure that was required to meet the targets the Council would negotiate with them in dialogue. This would include what would be considered as green belt sites that currently sat outside the local plan and may come forward if the Council could demonstrate land supply sufficiently and quickly enough – hence the purpose of the letter, and the ask for a leading in period to the Council’s Local Plan.   Cllr Mannion stated that affordable housing was just one element of the wider failures in the entire housing market system which the administration would seek to address – some of which would be social, others would be starter homes, and specialist housing for the eldest and youngest. Affordable housing alone was highlighting just one small aspect, where the council’s strategies would be inclusive. Additionally, the Council had requested a named senior civil servant through whom it would work with. All of which would go much further than what was proposed at Full Council in July through the original motion. 

Cllr S Corcoran asked if the Leader of the Council had written to the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, to ask for a grace period for Cheshire East before new housing targets applied and would the Leader also write asking that any new town in Cheshire East should, at least in part, count towards Cheshire East’s housing land supply.

In response Cllr N Mannion, Leader of the Council, stated that the Council did not have clarification if the Adlington new town proposal would contribute towards Cheshire East’s housing land supply targets, but it was seeking clarification, and a response would be shared with Members.

Cllr R Bailey stated that she had concerns regarding delays in the development of the Cheshire Road Safety Strategy due to the consideration of devolution and sought assurance that the Council would actively contribute to the delivery of the updated strategy. She stressed the importance of progressing a modern and responsive road safety strategy, particularly considering changing demographics and increased road usage within the borough.

Cllr M Goldsmith, Chair of Highways and Transport Committee, undertook to provide a written response.

Cllr J Bratherton raised concerns regarding the lack of effective inter-agency cooperation and delays in enforcement in animal welfare cases and recent incidents in Crewe where animals were left in distressing conditions due to slow or absent responses from relevant authorities, including the police, housing associations, and the RSPCA. She asked Cllr D Jefferay, Animal Welfare Champion, what actions would be taken to strength enforcement, what steps would be taken to speed up the removal of an animal from an abusive situation and how would he fight for those who had no voice.

Cllr D Jefferay, Animal Welfare Champion, expressed a desire to establish collaborative links with external organisations not currently engaged with the Council, in order to expedite action on shared concerns. He referred to a recent discussion with a representative from Cheshire Police, specialising in wildlife crime, which had highlighted opportunities for increased engagement. He emphasised the importance of broadening engagement beyond commercial animal welfare issues, recognising that the Council’s remit was limited to welfare in commercial settings and does not extend to domestic cases and, despite these limitations, committed to encouraging public involvement by inviting residents to act as the Council’s “eyes and ears” and welcomed direct contact from individuals with concerns outside the Council’s formal responsibilities, pledging to assist where possible.

Cllr S Gardiner asked under what authority, did the Council as a corporate body, respond to consultations from government departments or affiliated organisations such as QWANGOs and specifically asked whether such responses were issued under the authority of the full Council, an appropriate committee of the council, or under officer delegation.   Cllr Gardiner referred to a letter sent in June to the New Towns Board, which expressed views on the generic issue of new towns and additional development in northern England and expressed concern that this correspondence may have been issued without prior discussion or approval by the Council or its relevant committee.

Cllr N Mannion, Leader of the Council,acknowledged concerns regarding correspondence and clarified that the pathway the correspondence was allocated to was determined by the nature of the inquiry and may involve multiple factors, including local authority responsibilities and political considerations. Cllr Mannion confirmed that a substantive reply would be provided following consultation with the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Executive.