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.
Minutes:
Ms Cathy Bruderer attended the meeting to speak in relation to item 9 – Green Spaces Maintenance Review. Ms Bruderer stated that the land on the Co-op estate in Elworth had been maintained by the local authority since the 1970s. Three plots were adopted at the start of the estate being built and residents had been told by a former Cheshire East Councillor that it was human error that the rest of the land was not adopted. Ms Bruderer felt that this was negligence and that the Council had a duty of care to the residents. Ms Bruderer stated that there were a number of anomalies and that the consultation should not take place until the facts were correct. Ms Bruderer raised a number of queries including:
- The land at Manifold Close/Lawton Way and Richmond Close was highway land, therefore why was land on Pickmere Close not
- Whether a report provided by Highways in May 2022 in respect of visibility splays had been considered
- Why the land at the Co-op estate was not classed as rural open space, as the Tatton Estate and others in Sandbach were
- Why the amenity level was classed as ‘N/A’ despite planning applications referring to it as designated amenity land
- Why other land in Sandbach was classed as category 2 when this estate was category 3
- Why the footpaths on this estate were the only footpaths in Sandbach being excluded
- Whether the impact on residents’ wellbeing had been considered
- Why maintenance was continuing in other areas of the town where the land was owned by the Duchy of Lancaster
Officers undertook to provide a written response to the questions raised.
Mr Steve McDermott addressed the committee in relation to item 9 – Green Spaces Maintenance Review. Mr McDermott stated that the review was flawed and the Grange Way estate in Elworth was being treated differently to other privately owned plots by having its maintenance stopped, for example by Cheshire East intending to continue maintaining privately owned plots on the Tatton Drive estate in Sandbach which was land owned through the Crown Estates. The residents wanted equality and felt that if maintenance was to be stopped then it should be stopped on all private plots in the borough at the same time. Mr McDermott stated that Cheshire East had failed to adopt all the open spaces on the Grange Way estate despite requests from the Town Council and felt that the fact that the land had been maintained for more than 50 years meant Cheshire East had adopted the land without ownership. A previous Cheshire East Councillor had confirmed in writing that maintenance of land on this estate was paid for from the residents’ community charge. The Grange Way estate had a primary school and supermarket so high volumes of people visited the estate. Residents felt that stopping maintenance would impact on house prices.
Cllr Robert Douglas from Congleton Town Council spoke in relation to item 10 – Household Waste Recycling Centres Update and referred to other local authorities which had built new recycling sites and had lower costs than those estimated by Cheshire East for a replacement site in Congleton. Cllr Douglas felt that the estimate within the report was unrealistic and was disregarding the interests of Congleton and surrounding areas. Cllr Douglas urged the committee to pass an amendment rejecting this estimate and requiring officers to provide a realistic estimate together with fully detailed calculations and evidence at the next meeting.
Cllr Laurence Clarke from Poynton Town Council addressed the committee in relation to item 10 – Household Waste Recycling Centres Update. Cllr Clarke raised a number of queries in relation to the following:
- Why Poynton was the only waste site suggested for closure in ‘Option Do Something 1’ within the report
- Why the matter was being discussed before the results of the recent survey of usage at Poynton and other waste sites had been analysed or reviewed
- Whether any estimate had been made of the additional car journeys that would be made if the Poynton site closed, and the air pollution and congestion that would result
- Why Poynton had been singled out for closure. Cllr Clarke stated that it was 7 miles from the Poynton site to the Bollington site and 10.4 miles to the Macclesfield site. However, it was only 5 miles from the Bollington site to the Macclesfield site and the population of Poynton was almost twice that of Bollington
- Whether the Council agreed that the access to the Bollington waste site along Albert Road, past two schools, a day nursery, fire station, several factories and numerous houses, and which is blocked with parked cars 24/7, was unsuitable
- Whether Cheshire East had made any provision for legal costs in the event of the decision being challenged
Cllr Clarke also stated that the introduction of the green waste subscription charge was likely to have an impact on the use of household waste sites and that any review of the household waste sites should be delayed until after the impact of the green waste charge is known. Cllr Clarke urged the committee to withdraw the item.