Agenda item

To recommend a Cheshire East response – Reporting Officer: Andrew Ross  

         Following Government’s approval of Greater Manchester’s TIF proposals for Programme Entry Status, a consultation exercise had been launched to test whether the plans were publicly acceptable.  The deadline for comments was 10 October 2008.  The Panel was requested to consider the report on the TIF consultation exercise and, subject to any changes as a result of comments received, recommend that Cabinet approve it as the basis for the Cheshire East Council’s response, details of which were set out in the report.

          A number of schemes which would benefit Cheshire residents, should congestion charges be introduced, had been identified and these were set out in an appendix to the report.

          It was noted that Sir Howard Burnstein had suggested, as part of the public consultation exercise, that a mobile exhibition be used to promote the TIF scheme, which could be made available for use in neighbouring authorities.  Arrangements were now being made to ensure that the exhibition was made available at a number of locations in Cheshire and it was proposed that this would include Poynton and Wilmslow.  A short newsletter had also been prepared by GMPTE and had been made available to neighbouring authorities, to distribute in libraries and information points, as well as publication on websites.  A copy of the leaflet was appended to the report.

          In considering the report Members of the Panel raised the following issues:

          (i)      Concern was expressed that no real consultation had taken place with Macclesfield Borough Council or the Cheshire East Shadow Council and it was considered that, as traffic would come from the Cheshire East area, the Greater Manchester area could not be considered in isolation.

          (ii)     It was queried why the mobile exhibition could not go to other areas, including Disley.  It was reported that the exhibition had only been offered for two days and there was no opportunity for it to go to other areas.  It was noted that GMPTE had published a list of all the exhibition dates, however, all others were within the conurbation.

          (iii)    The proposal to improve the rail service, including improvements to some stations, was welcomed.  However, it was queried how some of the small stations would cope with this.  It was reported that, whilst there were limitations as to what could be achieved, there were a number of initiatives through the community Rail Partnerships, some of which could be realised, if the proposals went ahead.  In addition, a study of the Manchester Rail Hub was taking place, which would try to achieve capacity improvements on the rail network.  The study was vital in that it set out areas of improvement to the rail service connectivity for Cheshire East.

          (iv)    Reference was made to the inadequacy and congestion on the rail service from Buxton to Manchester.

          (v)     Concern was expressed that the proposals were not supported by all AGMA authorities and that they did not accord with the work that DEFRA had been carrying out relating to economic activity, particularly in rural areas.  It was considered that the proposals would significantly disadvantage the surrounding areas of Greater Manchester, including the Cheshire East area.  It was felt that the consultation had only taken place because of public pressure and that the response to the consultation should be as strong as possible.

          (vi)    It was noted that businesses would be making decisions as to where they would be located for the next five years and the proposals would have an impact on this.  It was felt that it also needed to be recognised that people commuted out of, as well as into Greater Manchester.  The proposals would have an effect on the Council’s policies and the consequences of this needed to be understood.  However, it was felt that these issues needed to be addressed at Central Government level.

          (vii)   It was considered that there had not been enough consultation in respect of the proposals.

          (viii)  Reference was made to paragraph 7.2 of the report, which referred to improvements to the local transport networks and it was considered that these improvements should be in place before the congestion charge was implemented.

          (ix)    Reference was made to bullet point 3 of paragraph 7.10 of the report, which referred to new heavy rail rolling stock for all major routes into the regional centre cross charging routes, alongside a programme of station improvements, and it was considered that this should include Crewe.

          (x)     It was noted that a lot of people from the Congleton and Holmes Chapel areas commuted into Greater Manchester and it was felt that strong representations should be made to state that the consultation should have included these areas and that they should also be included in any future referendum.  In addition, rail links needed to be improved in these areas and not reduced, as was currently proposed.

          (xi)    It was suggested that a formal report should also be submitted to the Cheshire West Council requesting them to make representations.

          (xii)   It was also suggested that strong representations be made to the Government Minister in respect of this matter.

          (xiii)  As there were only limited numbers of the newsletter available, it was suggested that a press release should be issued and published on the various Council websites.

          (xiv)   It was considered that it needed to be accepted that there was no Authority for the sub-regional structure and if Manchester was to be the centre of the sub-region, there would have to be improvements to Public Transport Services.

          (xv)    Reference was made to the list of transport schemes/initiatives for Cheshire and the proposed rail scheme passenger improvements on the North Staffs line (Stoke to Crewe via Alsager).  It was felt that consideration needed to be given to car parking costs, where people had to drive by car to another station when travelling by rail.

          RESOLVED

          That Cabinet be recommended to approve the recommended Cheshire East Council response to the TIF proposals, as set out in paragraph 10.1 of the report, subject to the final bullet point being included as the first sentence of the response.