Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Gardiner and Cllr Whitaker. Cllr Clowes and Cllr O’Leary attended as substitutes.

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.

Cllr O’Leary declared in relation to item 6 – Household Waste Recycling Centres Review Final Recommendations that he had a non-registerable and non-pecuniary interest as the administrator of the Facebook group ‘Save Bollington Recycling Centre’.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 July 2024.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2024 be agreed 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.

The following members of the public attended the meeting to speak in relation to item 6 – Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) Review Final Recommendations:

Mr Trevor Priestman presented a petition to the committee relating to the potential closure of the HWRC sites in Poynton, Middlewich and Bollington. The petition had received over 7000 signatures. Mr Priestman felt that when the public consultation was announced, the decision to close the sites had already been made and that the impact on residents borough-wide was dismissed. As there was already an item on the agenda dealing with this subject matter, the committee agreed to note the petition.

Mr Brian Perkins asked a number of questions regarding the closure of the HWRCs;

• How could the Committee vote on only two preferred options when there was a high risk– Operationally Effective was amber and Acceptability was red?
• What and where in the report was the weighting and scoring criteria?
• Could all Committee members confirm they had scrutinised the proposal implementation plans and detailed costs?
• How was the success of the trial mobile HWRC being measured and by whom?
• Had the councillors seen any evidence of trial monitoring before today?
• What was the average cost in pounds per visitor and pounds per tonnage for each of the Mobile tip vs Macclesfield tip?
• What was the total cost of employing ‘Waste Education Specialists” Recruitment, training, salaries etc?
• What evidence existed that residents would be receiving value for money for such resources?
• What and where were the plans and costs for site improvements that were to remain open?
• Have all Committee members seen those plans before today’s meeting?

Mr Perkins requested confirmation or otherwise that Councillor J Snowball and Councillor K Edwards had submitted the questions asked by ‘Bollington Save Our Tip Group’ dated 14^th July as they were requested to do. And if they did, could the Chair confirm answers to them and on what date.

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

Mr Jon Park asked members not to vote on the closure of the HMRCs today and instead give the related Town Councils time to come up with alternative proposals.

Mr Greg Lisle requested that the recommendations be amended so that Bollington Town Council could work with Cheshire East Council (CEC) to look at revised HWRC services. The request was made following statistics shared with the committee on the number of slots available, uptake on those slots, no shows, and the approximate cost per user on that particular day in respect of the mobile tip which visited once a month.

Mr Stuart Redgard spoke in support of the proposal. Mr Redgard stated that, although the closures were not what he would like to see, the Council was having to make difficult decisions and the closure of HWRCs was an example of those.

Councillor Robert Douglas shared his concerns on the details in the report, relating specifically to the costs of a new site at Congleton and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To receive a report on the first financial review for Environment and Communities services for the financial year 2024/25.

The committee considered the report which provided the current forecast outturn for the financial year 2024/25 based on income, expenditure and known commitments as at the end of July 2024. It also identified actions that were being taken to address adverse variances to urgently address financial sustainability.

Officers advised that two further recommendations were being put forward in addition to those published in the report which would read:

4.    Approve the award of a grant to Nether Alderley Parish Council in the sum of £164,540 in order to carry out agreed improvement works to Nether Alderley Parish Hall as a means to discharge an obligation under a s106 agreement between Cheshire East Council and Bruntwood Limited, dated June 2016, namely to provide funds to undertake refurbishment works to Nether Alderley Grade II listed Parish Hall and;

5.    Delegate authority to the Interim Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services to take all necessary steps to enter into a funding agreement with Nether Alderley Parish Council for the purposes of providing the grant and evidencing use of the monies, and in doing so evidencing of the discharge of the obligation under the s.106 agreement.

Officers advised that the transferral of reserves to mitigate overspend would be addresses in the FR2 report, and that the council collected business rates under the Business Rate Retention Scheme, which only allowed local authorities to retain a portion of the monies, however there was an ongoing review into this process.

Officers undertook to provide a written response in respect to the following questions:

CCTV efficiencies

1.    Members were advised previously that CCTV was a non-statutory service. Would the removal of the CCTV service be looked at and would it be included in future consultations for budgeting or cost savings?

2.    Although the CCTV service generated around £220k income for the council, there were associated costs, of around £480k to the council. What was being done to address this gap?

3.    Could officers confirm that the Council were given a Safer Cheshire Partnership grant from the police, and how much this was?

S106 Monies

Could officers confirm that the refurbishment of a parish hall was considered as an appropriate use of section 106 funding under current policy?

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Environment and Communities Committee:

1.    Review the factors leading to a forecast adverse Net Revenue financial pressure of:

Council: £26.5m against a revised budget of £387.6m (6.8%) Environment and Communities: £0.6m against a revised budget of £48.4m (1.2%)

To scrutinise the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 relevant to services within the committee’s remit, and review progress on the delivery of the MTFS approved budget policy change items, the RAG ratings and latest forecasts, and to understand the actions to be taken to address any adverse variances from the approved budget.

2.    Consider the in-year forecast capital spending:

Council: £164.5m against an approved MTFS budget of £215.8m, due to slippage that has been re-profiled into future years. Environment and Communities: £19.5m against an approved MTFS budget of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider a report on the final proposals for future permanent Household Waste Recycling Centre service provision following an update of previously collated review and feasibility study information, public consultation and the commencement of a procurement for a new operating contract provider.

The Committee considered the report which detailed the final proposals for future permanent Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) service provision following an update of previously collated review and feasibility study information, public consultation, and the commencement of a procurement for a new operating contract provider.

The Committee was being asked to agree levels of service for the contract period of 7 years (with optional up to 3-year extension period) due to commence provisionally in September 2025 to allow continuity of service provision and to achieve best value for the Council through this procurement.

Cllr K Edwards attended to speak as a visiting member and stated that Cheshire East was operating in a difficult scenario with intense pressures on the budget. HWRC’s were a great use for waste repurposing and education. Closing 3 of 7 sites would leave a minimum provision across the borough and those in rural areas would face much longer journeys and additional pollution – none of which was mentioned in the report. Cllr Edwards asked for negotiations, to take place with Bollington Town Council who were open to ideas to find financial support to keep the site open and urged serious consideration for the recommendation to be deferred back to officers to negotiate with Bollington Town Council to ensure that one HWRC was left in the north of borough.

Cllr Sewart attended to speak as a visiting member and stated that there was a need for a site north east of the borough as the drive from Poynton to Macclesfield took 34 minutes, meaning that it would take Disley residents even longer and then there would be significant queues to get in to the Macclesfield site. Cllr Sewart said that the credibility of Cheshire East Council would be questioned, and that the decision to temporarily close the Poynton site was “double speak”. Cllr Sewart said that there would be extra costs to the council for additional material in bins and asked the committee to consider keeping, one or both, sites in the north open either fully or on a part time basis.

Cllr Marshall attended to speak as a visiting member and asked members to reject the plan to close HWRCs. Cllr Marshall said that Middlewich was a unique site as all waste comes to Middlewich to be processed as it was where the waste transfer site was located, and several residents would have to drive past this site to go to another HWRC. Cllr Marshall asked the committee to be mindful of the statistics in the report which in his view were not accurate.

Cllr Snowball attended to speak as a visiting member and stated that on 10 May 2024 Bollington Town Council received a notice to keep the HWRC open. The Town Council had already set the budget for the year, and had only 7 days for a response, however they responded and were determined to do everything reasonable within their power to keep the site open. Cllr Snowball said that she understood that savings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider the work programme and determine any required amendments.

The committee considered the work programme.

It was noted that the Local Plan Update report which had been scheduled for the November committee would be moved to a later date. This was due to the government announcements around planning reforms and the recent consultation which had closed on 24^th September. This would give officers time to consider what the implications would be.

The committee were asked to identify further areas of scrutiny that the committee could be involved in, such as policy development. A small group of Members would be involved in the development of any policies at an early stage through a task and finish group, with their recommendations being brought back to the committee for approval. The Chair would work with officers and bring some proposals back to the next meeting. The committee were invited to look at the work programme and contact the Chair or Democratic Services with any suggestions of areas for scrutiny following the meeting.

It was agreed, by majority, that the last meeting of the year would be held as a twilight meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.

The reports 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 Committee 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 Paragraphs 2 and 7A of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item pursuant to Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 2 and 7A of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and the public interest would not be served in publishing this information.

To consider the confidential appendices to the report.

The committee considered the confidential appendix.