Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J Macrae.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda

Key Decision CE22 - Transforming Learning Communities: Emerging Issues from Locality Review for Alsager, Congleton, Sandbach and Holmes Chapel

Councillors D Brickhill, P Findlow and P Mason declared personal interests in this item by virtue of being Members of Cheshire County Council.  In accordance with the Constitution they remained in the meeting during consideration of these items.

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a total period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the Committee on any matter relevant to the work of the Committee.

Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers.

Note: In order for officers to undertake any background research it would be helpful if questions were submitted at least one working day before the meeting.

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35, Mr J Guy of Northwich and Mrs B Walmsley of Middlewich (members of the public) addressed the meeting on the following matters relevant to the work of the Cabinet:-

Mrs B Walmsley:

1. Could the Council please tell me what impact the building of an 850,000 tonne Incinerator at Weston point in Halton will have on the waste disposal plans of the new Cheshire East authority, as Ineos Chlor who are building this plant continually assert that they will be importing waste from Cheshire?
2. Given the increase in recycling rates across Cheshire, particularly the rapid success of the recycling initiatives in Middlewich and Northwich, and the subsequent decline in waste arising, could the Council please tell how confident they are of the figures in the Cheshire Waste Local Plan which assume a growth in Muncipal Solid Waste arising of 1.5%

p.a. until 2010 and then 1.0% p.a. after that?

Mr J Guy:

 3.   If consent is given for an incinerator in Middlewich, could the Council please advise on how it plans to ensure that a continuous stream of waste is available for the plant until 2037*, as a failure to do so would inevitably lead to fines which would be paid by local ratepayers?

4.    Could the Council please tell me how many million tonnes of CO2 would be produced by a 390,000 EfW incinerator, such as the one proposed by Covanta at Middlewich, each year, and how that compares to the alternative methods of waste disposal?

5.    Of the currently available alternatives to Incineration, which of them creates the lowest CO2 output (assuming transport costs to any of the alternatives are constant), and are there any commercially viable alternatives that don’t require burning and venting to the atmosphere?

The Leader of the Council indicated that a written response would be sent to Mr Guy and Mrs Walmsley. 

.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2008.

Minutes attached.

RESOLVED

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2008 were approved as a correct record, subject to an addition being made to Minute 58 (Consolidated (Interim) Sustainable Community Strategy for Cheshire East) as follows: -

“In addition, the financial table referred to in the report requires further research to ensure that all funding streams are included; specifically ward budgets, market town funds and community staffing.”

To consider a draft Local Development Scheme for Cheshire East.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to a draft Local Development Scheme for Cheshire East, and to its submission to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. 

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report:-

That the Council be recommended to approve the draft Local Development Scheme for Cheshire East and that it be submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. 

To consider the shared service recommendations made by the Joint Liaison Committee to the Cheshire East Shadow Authority.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to the shared service recommendations made by the Joint Liaison Committee to the Cheshire East Shadow Authority.  Members sought to reassure existing staff that nothing was yet a fait accompli in respect of a shared back office and staffing groups were represented and aware of ongoing discussions by the Joint Implementation Team.    

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

1. That the recommendations of the Joint Liaison Committee held on 19 September 2008 regarding further areas of pan-Cheshire service delivery be endorsed. 

2. That approval in principle be given to the recommendation of the Deloitte report on Shared Back Office Services specifically to:

(a)       establish a Shared Back Office primarily located in West Cheshire, subject to confirmation of the governance arrangements, the detailed scope of the service, an outline Service Level Agreement, clarification of the cost-sharing arrangements, the scope for flexible and mobile working and locality-based staff.

            (b)       review the arrangements within two years and to consider further development of the service including market-testing as appropriate

(c)        engage in the necessary consultation on the details of the agreed approach.

To consider the outcomes of the informal consultations held on the options identified by the Locality Review and the subsequent recommendations.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to the outcomes of the informal consultations held on the options identified by the Locality Review and the subsequent recommendations. 

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

That the proposed actions by the County Council in respect of the Alsager, Congleton, Sandbach and Holmes Chapel Transforming Learning Communities Review, following the recommendations made by Cheshire County Council’s School Planning Select Panel on the 1 September 2008 be endorsed as follows: -

• To authorise statutory public consultation on the possible closure of Church Lawton Primary School with effect from September 2009;

• To authorise statutory public consultation on the reduction in the net capacity of Offley Primary School to 315 places located in a single building, and the alternative use of the premises of the former Offley Infant School as a centre for delivering 14-19 education for the locality to be investigated; the reduction in the net capacity of Sandbach Primary School to 105 places with the Children’s Centre for Sandbach and co-located Children’s Services in the released accommodation;

• To authorise to invite the Chester Diocesan Board of Education and the Governors of Chelford CE Primary School to develop proposals for the revision of the school’s net capacity to 60 by re-designation of the use of one classroom in such a way that future potential use of the building for an expanded Chelford CE Primary School, should this become warranted, is not compromised;

• To submit to the Cheshire East Unitary Authority information relating to pupil numbers in the Holmes Chapel area together with the proposed means for reducing capacity at Holmes Chapel Primary School should this be warranted at a future date;

• To authorise consultations and to request officers to develop proposals in respect of the group of schools identified for potential Federations, as described below:

Chelford CE VC, Peover Superior Endowed, Lower Peover CE VA, Marton and District CE VA, Brereton

CE VA, Smallwood CEVC, Astbury St Mary’s CE VA, Scholar Green, Woodcocks’ Well CE VC and Goostrey Community;

• To authorise statutory consultation as part of the admission arrangements for September 2010 in respect of changes in Published Admission Numbers:

Note: these are changes needed to align net capacity and PAN in the light of current use of accommodation

• To authoriseconsultation as part of the admission arrangements for September 2010 on reduction in the published admission number for Cranberry Primary School from 45 to 30, and to ask officers to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

To receive an update on progress so far and to consider the emerging model of Social Care.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to an update on progress so far and to the emerging model of social care.

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

1. That the emerging model of Social Care , including the high level design principles contained within this report, be accepted and endorsed as a framework for developing more detailed proposals for phased implementation by New Councils and for inclusion within 2009/10 budget setting process.

2. The principle of a formula based up front Resource Allocation System (RAS) be agreed pending a more detailed testing and a specific member sign off for the 2009/10 RAS in each authority and that this be incorporated within budget proposals.

3. That the budget headings outlined in Appendix 1 be accepted as the approach for budget setting within unitary authorities.

4. That it be noted that this report was considered by the Advisory Panel – People on 23 September 2008 at which it was resolved to set up a Task and Finish group which would develop performance indicators to monitor and evaluate the customer experience as a result of the new Social Care Model.

To consider a response to Greater Manchester’s proposals for developing a Transport Innovation Fund project with congestion charging.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to a response to Greater Manchester’s proposals for developing a Transport Innovation Fund Project, including congestion charging.  Concerns were expressed regarding the apparent trend for a reduction in the number of train services from Cheshire East into Greater Manchester.

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report and as now given: -

1. That Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund be informed that the proposals are unacceptable to Cheshire East Council on the grounds that:

·        This consultation exercise has again been largely targeted within the Manchester Boundary.  In particular, it is unsatisfactory that efforts have not been made to fully engage with residents and business in the wider Manchester travel to work area on the scale used within Manchester itself.  There is further concern that the planned referendum will only apply to Greater Manchester residents.

2. That the response should be sent to AGMA as a formal response to the Transport Innovation Fund consultation and to the Department for Trade and the Secretary of State for Transport to highlight Cheshire East Council’s concerns about implementing these proposals.

To consider the development of a model for local working across the Cheshire East authority, recognising the need for community engagement and empowerment mechanisms.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to the development of a model for local working across the Cheshire East Authority, recognising the need for community engagement and empowerment mechanisms.

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

That approval be given to: -

            (a) a set of principles to inform the development of local working, both at area and neighbourhood level;

            (b) an outline model of local working detailed in Appendix A as the basis for further work and discussion with

            Members, officers and partners;

            (c) to establish a number of Local Area Partnerships, the number and boundaries to be finalised following

            detailed debate with strategic partners (e.g. police, fire, health, etc.), local councils and third sector representatives;

            (d) draft terms of reference for the Local Area Partnerships so as to inform this detailed debate;

            (e) further work be undertaken on the potential cost of and options for supporting local working as identified

            through ongoing discussion; and

            (f) further work be undertaken on the possible functions which could be delegated to Local Area Partnerships, having regard to existing schemes of delegation across the four authorities and also the views of partners and any

            delegations they may wish to make.

To consider a report on the establishment of a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership for Cheshire East.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to a report on the establishment of a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership for East Cheshire from October 2008.

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

That approval be given to the establishment of a shadow Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership for the new authority in advance of the 1 April deadline, to ensure continuity of service, effective use of resources and the confidence of partner agencies, and other co-operating bodies such as the Youth Offending Team, Drug Action Team the Community and Voluntary sector, housing commissioners and providers and others.

To consider the strategy and proposed communications activity.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to a strategy for engaging with key external stakeholders to ensure that have a clear understanding of the vision of the new Council and how to contact and engage with it.

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

That the strategy and proposed communications activity be approved.

Report to follow.

Consideration was given to a report by the Interim Monitoring Officer and the Interim Chief Financial Officer on Section 24 Consents issued under delegated powers since the last meeting.  Details were reported of decisions in respect of works at Queens Park, Crewe and a lease of land at Goostrey Primary School.

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

That the report be noted.

To receive an update on the progress made against key milestones and to note the steps to be taken in the forthcoming months.

Report attached.

Consideration was given to an update on the programme, giving progress made against key milestones, and to the steps to be taken in the coming months.

RESOLVED

For the reasons set out in the report: -

That the report be noted.

The papers relating to the remaining items on the agenda have been withheld from public circulation and deposit pursuant to Section 100(B)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the matters may be determined with the press and public excluded.

The Cabinet may decide that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items pursuant to Section 100(A)4 of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.

Paragraph 4 concerns information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority.)

N.B: These appendices have been attached to the report being considered at item 7 on the agenda.