Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Burton, R Chadwick, and M Goldsmith.

Councillors B Wye, D Brown and G Marshall were present 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.

In relation to Item 5 – Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 s53 - DMMO Application MA-5-253 - For the Upgrade part of Footpath No.6 in the Parish of Ashley between Ashley Road and Ashley Road, Councillor R Fletcher declared in the interest of openness and transparency that he had a historic personal connection to the estate referenced but confirmed he retained an open mind.

In relation to Item 6- Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s257 Proposed extinguishment of Public Footpath Basford No 2 and Public Footpath West and Crewe Green No 17 (part), Councillor H Faddes declared in the interest of openness and transparency that she had met with the developers but had not discussed the item being considered at the meeting today.

In relation to Item 8 – Decision to Let a Construction Contract for the Middlewich Eastern Bypass, Councillor G. Marshall declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that he was a Ward Councillor for Middlewich. He stated that he wished to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor but would not take part in any debate or vote on the item.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20 November 2025.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2025 be approved 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.

There were no public speakers.

To consider a report on the DMMO investigation – MA-5-253 upgrade of Ashley FP6 (part).

It was noted that Councillors G. Marshall and B. Wye had not completed the required Public Rights of Way training and therefore were permitted to observe the item but were not able to take part in the debate or vote on it.

The committee considered a report which outlined an application made in October 2017 for an order to part upgrade Footpath No.6 Ashley to a Bridleway shown between points A-B on Plan WCA/056 (“the Plan”) (Appendix 1 to the report).

The report assessed the submitted evidence and made a recommendation in accordance with the duty set out under Section 53 (2) (b) of the 1981 Act, following the occurrence of an event under Section 53(3)(c)(ii), namely that a highway shown in the map and statement as a highway of a particular description ought to be there shown as a highway of a different description. This was set out in detail at Appendix 2 to the report.

The evidence in support of the application consisted primarily of user evidence forms from 10 people. Route A-B on the Plan was alleged to have been used by the public during periods between 1996 – 2016 on foot and by bicycle. This could meet the test for a reasonable allegation of public rights under Section 53 (3)(c)(ii).

The investigation also considered maps and plans from the nineteenth century and the records of the DM. The documents were not conclusive in establishing additional rights of way.

The evidence was assessed against the statutory tests set out under the 1981 Act and the “the 1980 Act. Submissions from landowners relate to a later period than the claimed use. Based on the user evidence covering a twenty-year period prior to 1996 and 2016, it was considered on the balance of probabilities, that a public bridleway did not subsist between points A-B on the Plan.

The committee agreed to refuse the application on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to overturn the legal presumption that the Definitive Map and Statement were correct.

RESOLVED: (By majority)

That the Highways and Transport Committee

1.    Refuse to make a Definitive Map Modification Order for the route A - B on Plan WCA/056 at Appendix 1 to the report.

To consider a report on the Proposed extinguishment of Public Footpath Basford No 2 and Public Footpath West and Crewe Green No 17 (part).

Prior to presenting the report the officer clarified for the committee that, following recent changes to parish boundaries, the public footpath referred to in the report as Basford Footpath 1 was now designated as Weston Crewe Green Footpath 31. For the purposes of the meeting, it would continue to be referred to by the name used in the report, Basford Footpath 2. Any order subsequently made to extinguish the paths, as set out in the recommendations, would use the updated official footpath names.

The committee considered a report which outlined the investigation into a proposed extinguishment of Public Footpath Basford No.2 and Public Footpath Weston and Crewe Green No. 17 (part) in the Parish of Weston and Crewe Green (“Basford FP2; Weston & Crewe Green 17 (part)”) following receipt of an application from Taylor Wimpey Homes North West under the provisions of Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The report summarised the consultations undertaken, including any objections received and considered the relevant legal tests. The report addressed both the public interest and the interests of affected landowners and described the proposed new route with reference to accompanying plans.

It was recommended that a Public Path Order was made under Section 257 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the grounds that Cheshire East Borough Council (“the Council”) was satisfied that the extinguishment was necessary to enable the approved development to be constructed.

The ward members, Weston and Crewe Green Parish Council, user groups, statutory undertakers, and the councils Nature Conservation Officer had been consulted, with four responses received.

Two of the four responses made (The Peak & Northern Footpath society and Cadent Gas) had raised objections to the proposal. Both objections were withdrawn and there were currently no objections to the proposal.

Members sought clarification on future connectivity and crossing points.  In response officers reported that Network Rail discussions were noted but fell outside the red line of the specific application being considered.

The committee considered the evidence set out within the report and agreed that a Public Path Extinguishment Order is made under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for Basford FP2; Weston & Crewe Green 17 (part) as shown on Plan No. TCPA082 in the report on the grounds that Cheshire East Borough Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to enable the construction of an approved development.

RESOLVED: (By Majority)

That the Highways and Transport Committee

1. Approve that a Public Path Extinguishment Order is made under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for Basford FP2; Weston & Crewe Green 17 (part) as shown on Plan No. TCPA082 to the report on the grounds that Cheshire East Borough Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to enable the construction of an approved development.

2. Approve that public notice of the making of the Order be given and that, in the event no objections are received within the statutory notice period, the Order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To consider the Work Programme and determine any required amendments.

The committee considered the Work Programme.

The following additional items requested by members would be handled as briefings rather than committee items unless there was a decision to be made.

·       Updates on specific road conditions (B5470, B6101).

·       Pothole data following recent Government report.

·       Update on work on pavement parking powers being devolved.

·       Clarification on lane rental schemes and future application.

·       Issues relating to private contractor road closures.

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.

To consider a report in respect of the Decision to Let a Construction Contract for the Middlewich Eastern Bypass.

The committee considered a report on the Decision to Let a Construction Contract for the Middlewich Eastern Bypass.

The Middlewich Eastern Bypass scheme would improve the highway network in Middlewich by relieving congestion and road safety concerns in Middlewich town centre, improving journey times in mid Cheshire and enabling the full development of Strategic Location LPS 44 (Midpoint 18) in the adopted Local Plan Strategy. The Scheme, which was partly in Cheshire West and Chester, will support the economic growth of the Cheshire and Warrington sub-region.

A Target Cost for the construction phase of the scheme had been agreed with the Contractor at £53.8M. This included the full scope of the Cledford Lane element and would take advantage of a shorter programme taking account of new information on ground conditions and starting as early in the Spring as possible.

The Target cost programme and cost assumes that certain time sensitive elements are undertaken in February and March in advance of the formal construction contract being entered into.

The updated total cost estimate, inclusive of risk, property and sunk costs was contained in restricted Appendix C.

Whilst it remained within the MTFS budget envelope, to maximise the available risk allowance at the start of the project a decision to proceed with the full scope of the Cledford Lane element of the scheme would be deferred until later in the construction phase. The potential savings associated with the value engineering option were set out in restricted Appendix C.

Councillor G Marshall, speaking in his role as the ward councillor for Middlewich, asked what impact the opening of the Bypass would have on Lewin Street and Leadsmithy Street.

Officers confirmed that reduced traffic flows were anticipated. There would be post?implementation checks required and complimentary measures planned.

Councillor G Marshall left the meeting and did not return.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

That the Highways and Transport Committee

1. Delegate authority to the Executive Director of Place in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee or appropriate Cabinet Member(s) to:

(a) enter Stage 2 of the construction contract under the SCAPE framework

(b) attend to any matters ancillary to entering Stage 2 as noted above

(c) agree any variations to the Construction Contract in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of this committee or appropriate Cabinet Member(s)

2. Agree that the Head of Infrastructure to be appointed as the Project Manager under the Contract.

3. Authorise the Head of Infrastructure to instruct the Contractor to bring forward the works set out in Appendix A into Stage 1 of the Contract to allow delivery prior to a formal award of contract.

4. Authorise the initial Cledford Lane Value engineering design is incorporated into the project programme for initial delivery – as shown in Appendix B of the report.

5. Delegate to the Executive Director of Place in consultation, with the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee or appropriate Cabinet Member(s) the timing and contractual arrangements for the further Cledford Lane elements of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.