Agenda item

In accordance with the Council’s Committee Procedure Rules and Appendix on Public Speaking, 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.

Mike Ellison, Poynton Pool petition organiser, stated that the Friends of Poynton Pool had collected 5000 signatures in a period of 8 weeks and that it had been their expectation that this would trigger a meeting of Full Council to consider the petition.  He stated that the dam was constructed, in part, from permeable sand and gravel which allowed flood events to percolate through the dam which would explain why there was no record of the Pool ever overflowing.  He stated that there were significant errors in the engineer’s report which had been brought to the Council’s attention and led to the Council correcting their position relating to risk, but the spillway proposals remained unchanged. He stated that the project’s cost benefit analysis was contrary to central government guidance and did not take into account the of loss to amenity, loss to ecology and of other benefits. He requested that the Council put the proposals on hold to allow for appropriate investigation and a more credible risk assessment and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council.

Elaine Adams stated that Poynton Park was gifted to the people of Poynton in the mid-1700s, and that Cheshire East Council acted as custodian.  She stated that to her knowledge the Pool, which had an average depth of 1.2metres, had never overflowed or breached the dam since it was built. She referred to the engineers cost benefit analysis and stated that it was inconsistent with the Green Book methodology and asked why the scheme did not take account of the £3m CAVAT value of the trees and asked if costs had been allocated for the 30-year Landscape Management Plan as the contactor only managed the first year for defects and liability?

Gwenda Mayers stated that about half of the Poynton adult population had signed the Petition, the numbers could have been higher, but they had stopped collecting once it exceeded the 5000 thresholds in order to submit prior to the planning application being registered.  She stated that it was disappointing that the Petition was not being debated at a full Council meeting.  She stated that the Petition was organised to request that the proposals be reviewed as the work was not mandatory.  The Friends of Poynton Pool had consulted with specialists who had clarified this.  The risk of the dam breaching, and therefore the risk to life and property was overstated as it was within the tolerable zone for risk.  She asked why it had taken four months for the Petition to be heard, which she believed contravened statutory legislation.  She asked if the Council could provide a rationale for submitting a related planning application on 3 November without considering the objections and wishes of the residents.

John Borthwick referred to the proposed work scheduled for Poynton Pool and stated that the information should be checked as there were a number of documents which provided different data on the same matter. He stated that an alternative water engineer, not associated with the project, should re-assess the project. He referencedtheFloods and Reservoir Safety book by the Institute of Civil Engineers which referred to waves, overtopping and dam freeboards and asked if any site investigation has been carried out to identify the composition of the dam, and if not, how was it possible to set the parameters for an engineered or risk-based solution.  He stated to proceed without this information could lead to the destruction of the public amenity. He asked if the Council would share the data for the tested alternative solutions.

Lynn Sullivan stated that since the Economy and Growth Committee had considered the report in June 2023, the engineer’s report had been identified as being inaccurate, which the Friends of Poynton Pool had evidence to support.  She asked if it was not incumbent for the Council to ensure that the accuracy of the information was re-assessed and the original decision scrutinised to ensure the public funds were correctly used.

Mike Sullivan asked why the Council was proceeding with the proposals given in his view there were errors in the original engineer’s report relating to the overstatement of the pool volume, the pool catchment area and lack of understanding of the pool dam structure and that the scheme was not mandatory.

Stewart Tennant stated that he had visited the site and reviewed the section 10 inspection report, flood study and options report.  He stated that the Pool was a statutory reservoir and whilst it was mandatory that it was managed and operated in accordance with the Reservoir Act, it was not mandatory in his view that option 3C should be implemented. He stated that the work would result in the loss of social value, loss of habitat, loss of acoustic screening and loss of carbon capture. He stated that the removal of mature trees on the existing embankments could carry the risk of root dieback and future seepage which could bring the burden of further obligations and remediation for the Council.  He asked if the Council would consider a new S10 inspection and if not, why not.  He asked if the Council would consider working with the expertise and local knowledge in the community to explore further options which were more sympathetic, cost effective and provide a good outcome to the project.