A period of 20 minutes is allocated for questions to be put to Cabinet Members by members of the Council. A maximum period of two minutes will be allowed for each member wishing to ask a question. The Leader will have discretion to vary this requirement where he considers it appropriate. Members wishing to ask a question at the meeting should register to do so in writing by not later than 4.00 pm on the Friday in the week preceding the meeting. Members should include the general topic their question will relate to and indicate if it relates to an item on the agenda. Questions must relate to the powers, duties or responsibilities of the Cabinet. Questions put to Cabinet Members must relate to their portfolio responsibilities.
Where a question relates to a matter which appears on the agenda, the Leader may allow the question to be asked at the beginning of consideration of that item.
Minutes:
Councillor R Bailey referred to the Council’s active travel scheme and asked for confirmation that Audlem Parish Council, as one of the first to respond to the consultation, was being considered for active travel interventions. She also sought clarification on the timetable for the measures to be introduced, having regard to the school holiday period.
The Portfolio Holder for Highways and Waste responded that numerous town and parish councils had submitted recommendations in response to the Council’s consultation and that the first tranche of measures would be released by the end of the month. Further information would be available shortly.
Councillor M Beanland asked for a detailed explanation of the figure of £70M quoted as the additional expenditure incurred by the Council in relation to the Covid pandemic.
The Portfolio Holder for Finance, IT and Communication responded that overview and scrutiny committees, and the shadow cabinet, had received regular briefings on the matter and that the Council was working well given the uncertainty involved and a lack of clarity on government funding. The Leader added that schools were to return from September and that the need for social distancing would have a significant impact on the cost of school transport. He also suggested that the returns submitted by local councils to the government on Covid-related expenditure should be made public.
Councillor J Buckley asked why 114 businesses had not been successful in their applications for business rate support grant.
The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regeneration replied that the businesses in question fell outside the eligibility criteria under phase 1 of the scheme. Those businesses would be carried forward to phase 2 for review without their having to re-apply.
Councillor J Clowes referred to the recommendations of the Council’s overview and scrutiny committees and the Audit and Governance Committee that a sub-group of the Corporate Scrutiny and Audit Committees be established to examine Council finances during the Covid-19 crisis in order to provide a sound evidence-base for the effective lobbying of Central Government. Councillor Clowes commented that the Council had not acted on the recommendations. She asked that her comments be minuted in full to place on record that Members had sought to fulfil their audit and scrutiny functions in the matter but had been denied the opportunity to do so.
The Leader responded that the meeting was being recorded and therefore all questions were on the record. At the Leader’s invitation, the Chief Executive referred to a request she had received from Councillor Clowes for an additional body to be set up to review Covid-related expenditure. The Chief Executive had reluctantly declined the request in view of the significant pressures officers were already facing at this time. She had also suggested alternative routes for providing information to help inform the Covid-related reports coming to Cabinet.
Councillor L Gilbert asked why the police could not be provided with copies of the traffic regulation orders for 129 locations across the Borough. He also referred to the Government’s proposal to relax some planning controls and asked if the Council had considered the implications of this and had made representations to the Government.
With regard to the question on traffic regulation orders, the Portfolio Holder for Highways and Waste undertook to provide a written response. The Deputy Leader added that many of the orders had been served under predecessor authorities and were held in archives that were either unknown to or unavailable to the Council.
With regard to the question on planning controls, the Portfolio Holder for Planning replied that further details were awaited and the Council was monitoring the situation closely.
Councillor J Saunders referred to an additional £10M of Covid-related expenditure ostensibly to cover the cost of providing home to school transport. She asked for details of the original budget for home to school transport and an explanation for the increase in costs.
The Portfolio Holder for Children and Families responded that this was a projection and that the Council was undertaking parental surveys to establish the likely demand for the service. There was also work underway to try to mitigate some of the costs. She undertook to provide a more detailed response.
Councillor M Simon asked if the Council’s policy on not allowing mirrors to be placed on the highway could be reviewed and for each request for a mirror to be considered on its merits.
The Portfolio Holder for Highways and Waste responded that the Council was reviewing all of its highways policies and that she would give Councillor Simon an update when a firm date had been established.
Councillor D Stockton commented that it appeared that the Handforth Garden Village now had a larger footprint than was previously the case. He asked if the Council was proposing a reduction in the public open space to support the further provision of homes and, if so, what the effect would be on local infrastructure and whether there were plans to put this in place before development.
The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regeneration responded that there were no proposals to use open space in the Council’s or any other ownership to provide social or affordable housing. In addition, any housing proposals relating to Council-owned land would have to go through the usual planning process and were subject to the Local Plan.
Councillor P Williams referred to an unadopted path in the vicinity of the level crossing on Sandbach Road South/Audley Road, Alsager which had been used by residents following the recent closure of the crossing due to an accident. Councillor Williams asked if it would be possible for Cheshire East to adopt and maintain the path and other pathways in that area to bring about improvements. He also referred to a number of recent notifications of significant planning applications in the Alsager area which had been either not been delivered or been misdirected. He asked if in future such notifications could be given by email as well as by post.
The Portfolio Holder for Highways and Waste advised that members could progress the adoption of footpaths through the Members Enquiry Service.
The Portfolio Holder for Planning advised that a weekly list of planning applications was produced and that members should inspect this to ensure that they were being notified of planning applications in their area for which they should have received separate notification as a matter of course.
Councillor N Wylie referred to the return to school of Year 6 primary school children with effect from 29th June and asked what percentage of children had actually attended school. She also asked if the Council was providing assistance to those unable to attend.
The Portfolio Holder for Children and Families responded that 2,364 Year 6 children had returned to school and the Council was offering assistance where social distancing requirements had made this difficult for schools. She undertook to provide further details in writing. The Leader added that the Government’s rules currently prevented nearby buildings such as church halls from being used by schools to alleviate the problem and he urged members to make representations to the Government.
Councillor D Brown expressed disappointment that the Nantwich Show had lost its cheese stand to Staffordshire. He asked what action had been taken to try to prevent this loss of tourism in Cheshire and what further action was now being considered.
The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regeneration agreed that this was disappointing and he undertook to provide a written response.
Councillor T Dean referred to the chaotic situation with Cheshire East Council car parks in Knutsford and elsewhere as a result of the re-introduction of charges. Many of the pay machines were not working. Where machines were working, massive queues were forming due to the slowness of the card payment system. Councillor Dean asked that the charges be removed for a further period to help local businesses and to give officers time to bring all the pay machines back into operation, if possible with a cash payment option to prevent queues. Councillor Dean did not wish to receive an answer at the meeting as he felt it required careful thought.
Councillor D Marren commented that shoppers and shop owners in Nantwich were unhappy with the banning of cash in car parking machines. Many people did not have contactless cards for payment and others did not understand how the machines worked. Fewer people were therefore visiting the town and this was damaging business income. Councillor Marren asked if the equality impact assessment that accompanied the decision to go cashless could be published. He also asked if the Council would consider re-introducing cash payments as he felt that the cashless policy was discriminatory.
The Portfolio Holder for Highways and Waste responded that the equality impact assessment did not find that any particular group was discriminated against. Cash handling by staff had also been a consideration. However, the situation was under constant review. The Deputy Leader added that this was a policy that had been forced upon the Council by Covid and the safety of staff handling cash had to be considered. The Council would seek to rescind the policy when it was able to do so.