Agenda item

To receive updates and any recommendations from the Places Advisory Panel Task Groups:-

 

Car Parking –  Report attached

Waste Collection and Disposal -  Task Group Minutes attached

Strategic Development  - Nothing to report since the last meeting

Local Development Framework- Report relating to Development Management attached

Crime and Disorder Reduction and Partnership – Report attached

Manchester Airport – Task Group Minutes attached

Consideration was given to updates in respect of the Task Groups, including reports relating to actions arising from the Task Groups as follows:-

 

Car Parking

 

Consideration was given to a report updating the Advisory Panel on discussions held at the last meeting of the Parking Task Group on 14 January 2009.

 

In considering the report it was noted that the Task Group had requested a list of all the public car parks situated in the Cheshire East area, including criteria and classification and it was urged that this information be provided to the Task group as soon as possible.

 

With regard to car parking charges, it was considered that this needed to be progressed as quickly as possible in order to satisfy budgetary requirements.

 

Waste collection and disposal

 

   It was reported that the group had met in November 2008 to consider a  number of reports but the December meeting had been cancelled.  The main output from the Group in the last couple of months has been a report to the Places Advisory Group on the collection of garden waste in the former Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council area.  As a result a report to Cabinet is being drafted to take forward recommendations on the options for implementing free garden waste collections. A meeting of the Task Group had taken place on 14 January 2009 and the minutes of the meeting were appended to the agenda.

 

Reference was made to discussions which had taken place at the meeting to consider future wheeled bin procurements, where it had been suggested that views be sought from the Advisory Panel on all future bins being purchased in a single colour, but that different colour lids attached to identify what is placed in that receptacle. It was queried whether this would provide a cost saving and this was confirmed.

 

It was noted that a report had been considered relating to approval of  a Recycling Branding for Cheshire East and the Task Group had concluded that Cheshire East should retain the “Recycle for Cheshire” branding, but to monitor usage.

 

The next meeting was scheduled to take place on 18 February.

 

Local Development Framework and Strategic Development

 

It was noted that no meetings of the above Task Groups had taken place

since the last meeting of the Panel.

 

Development Management

 

The Above Task Group had met on three occasions and two reports had been 

produced for consideration by the Panel as follows:-

 

Proposed arrangements for Governance, Planning Committees and a   

scheme of delegation for planning functions.

 

Consideration was given to a report relating to arrangements for Planning

Governance, Committees and a scheme of officer delegation across

Cheshire East, post vesting day. The Panel was recommended to propose to the Governance and Constitution Committee that the Council’s development control functions be discharged by a Strategic Planning Board, supported by two Planning Committees and a scheme of officer delegation, details of which were set out in the report.

 

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

 

1.      The Portfolio Holder suggested that the Panel might wish to consider making a recommendation to The Governance and Constitution Committee that, whilst the Committees would be politically proportionate, that minority groups, with a single representative be allowed to appoint a substitute, if required. It was suggested by Members that it might be more appropriate to increase the number of representatives from the minority groups.

 

2.      It was considered that Town and Parish Councils had a role to play in the consideration of planning applications and that provision should be made for this. However, it was noted that not all Town and Parish Councils would wish to have an enhanced role.

 

3.      It was considered that Ward Members should be consulted on any applications in their ward and that the delegation procedure should include provision for call in by Ward Members. However, it was considered that applications should be called–in for planning reasons only and that there was a need for a Protocol relating to call-in and Member training in respect of this. It was also considered that when Members call in an application they should be required to attend the meeting where it will be considered.

 

4.      Concern was expressed that the Strategic Planning Board would have the ability to reverse a decision made by the Planning Committees and it was considered that this should not be the case.

 

5.      Concern was expressed that there would be no Independent or Labour Members for Macclesfield and this would result in a lack of local knowledge.

 

           RESOLVED

 

That, subject to the above comments, a recommendation be made to the Governance and Constitution Committee that the Council’s development control functions are discharged by a Strategic Planning Board, supported by two Planning Committees and a scheme of officer delegation, as set out in the report.

 

          Planning Protocol

 

           Consideration was given to a report relating to a proposed Planning Protocol for the consideration of planning matters. The Advisory Panel was requested to review and comment on the proposed Protocol and to recommend it for adoption by the Council

 

           It was noted that a number of typographical errors and inconsistencies in terminology would be corrected in the document and that paragraph 14.3 deleted. 

 

           In considering the report members of the Panel raised the following issues:-

 

1.      It was considered that Members should be required to sign to indicate that they had received the Protocol.

 

2.      It was felt that the Protocol should only apply to those members sitting on the Strategic Planning Board and Planning Committees and not all Members.

 

3.      It was suggested that consideration be given to public speaking at the Strategic Planning Board and Planning Committees and the introduction of a Protocol for this.

 

4.      It was considered that training for members of the Strategic Planning Board and Planning Committees should be mandatory. It was noted that training had been arranged and would take place on 17 and 19^th March.

 

5.      With reference to paragraph 10.8 of the Protocol, concern was expressed that Members were advised not to enter a site without first having spoken to the Corporate Manager (Planning and Development), It was noted that this wording would be amended to refer to the Head of Planning and Policy and that Members would only be required to notify him/her and not to obtain permission. The paragraph was intended as guidance for Members.

 

6.      It was suggested that the definition of a site should be clarified within the document.

 

           RESOLVED

 

That the Planning Protocol be recommend to Council for it for adoption.

 

 

           Crime and Disorder Reduction

 

Consideration was given to a report advising the Advisory Panel of developments in the partnership and operational Community Safety field, and to seek the advice of the group on future arrangements.

 

           The Task Group had made a series of  recommendations, including that the existing Crime and Disorder Reduction Advisory Task Group increase its scope to take in the wider remit of the Safer and Stronger Communities Service and Portfolio (Wardens, CCTV, Regulatory Services and Community Development); that the Council request that the Chairman of the Council invite the new Chief Constable Mr Dave Whatton to a meeting of the full Council; that the Advisory Task Group note the agreed priorities of the new Cheshire East Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership, which was amended to the report; and that the Advisory Group seek clarification on the operational and partnership responsibility for road safety.

 

           In considering the report members of the Panel raised the following issues:-

 

1.      The Portfolio Holder reported that discussion had also taken place at the last meeting with regard to the possibility of Community Wardens and Car Parking Wardens carrying out some of the same functions and that legal advice would need to be sought to ascertain whether this would be possible. He referred to the CDRP structure chart and stated that the intention was for the CDRP to be proactive in achieving the required targets. Consideration would also be given to the operation of the CCTV  function at a future meeting. Members requested that when this matter was considered that there should be a sufficient number of operatives in order to ensure that detailed images were available,

 

2.      It was noted that the CDRP Structure Chart referred to the “top 10 priority wards” and it was considered that problems in other wards should also be addressed.

 

3.      Discussion took place with regard to whether the Task Group should be renamed and it was considered that this would not be necessary

 

          Manchester Airport Sub Task Group

 

          The minutes of a joint meeting between the former Macclesfield Borough Council Airport Panel and the Task Group were appended to the agenda. It was noted that the Task Group visit to the Airport, referred to in the minutes, which would form part of the fact finding exercise in respect of the replacements for the Section 106 Agreement had now taken place.

 

          Visitor Economy

 

            The Chairman reported that the above Task Group had met in the previous 

            week and had discussed various issues, including Terms of Reference for the

            Task Group, governance of Tatton Park, key issues, priority items, new

            management structure and the embedded visitor economy.