Decisions

That a 125 year lease be entered into with the North West Academies TrustLimited for the school playing fields at St John's CofE Primary School, Heath Road, Sandbach, Cheshire, CW11 2LE.

 

To enter into a Commercial Transfer Agreement with the North West Academies Trust Limited in substantially the same standard form as required by the Department for Education on the conversion of St John's CofE Primary School, Heath Road, Sandbach, Cheshire, CW11 2LE.

That a 125 year lease be entered into with the Halliard Trustfor the premises known as Lower Park School, Hazelbadge Road, Poynton, Stockport, Cheshire, SK12 1HE.

To enter into a Commercial Transfer Agreement with the Halliard Trust in substantially the same standard form as required by the Department for Education on the conversion of Lower Park School, Hazelbadge Road, Poynton, Stockport, Cheshire, SK12 1HE.

The Committee considered a report which outlined the consideration of an application, reference MA-5- 246 (“the Application”) made in 2010 by the Disley Parish Council under the provisions of schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (the “1981 Act”). The application sought to add a public footpath to the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way (the “DM”). The route commenced on Market Road (A6) leading to the boundary of land owned by Cheshire East Borough Council (“CEC”) and currently used as the Disley Community Centre Car Park.

 

The committee considered the application and evidence as set out within the officer report.

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Highways and Transport Committee

 

1. Refuse the Application MA-5-246 on the basis that public rights are already recognised over the route shown between points A and B on plan WCA/047

 

2. Agree that a “Legal Event” Modification Order be made under section 53 (2) (a) of the 1981 Act

 

 

 

The Committee considered a report which provided the current forecast outturn for the financial year 2024/25 based on the Council’s income, expenditure and known commitments as at the end of August 2024. The report also identified actions that were being taken to address adverse variances to urgently address financial sustainability. The Second Financial review forecast revenue outturn was forecasting an adverse variance of £20.1m. This was before the application of any exceptional financial support.

 

Highways & Infrastructure were forecasting an underspend of £0.6m against a net budget of £16m. The key reasons for the underspend were due to vacancy management and increased income.

 

An exercise was being undertaken to review the capital programme and schemes were being reprofiled where possible to make them more affordable.

 

RESOLVED (Unanimously):

 

That the Highways and Transport Committee

 

1.    note the factors leading to a forecast adverse Net Revenue financial pressure of £20.1m against a revised budget of £395.4m (5.1%) and note the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 of the report on the progress of the delivery of the MTFS approved budget policy change items, the RAG ratings and latest forecasts and the actions to be taken to address any adverse variances from the approved budget.

 

2.    note the in-year forecast capital spending of £157.7m against an approved MTFS budget of £215.8m due to slippage that has been re-profiled into future years.

 

3.    note the available reserves position as per Annex 1, Section 5 of the report.

 

4.    Approve the Supplementary Capital Estimate above £500,000 up to and including £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 4, Table 4 of the report.

The sub-committee considered a report which considered the need for the Council to conduct a review of its polling districts and seeks authority for a consultation to take place in respect of the proposals which are set out in this report.

 

It was noted that the Council was not aware of any specific polling district issues which are significant enough to justify polling district changes in the context of the ongoing electoral review by the Commission.

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Electoral and Polling District Review Sub-Committee:

 

1. Authorise the commencement of a Polling District Review for the Cheshire East Borough.

 

2. Authorise Officers to undertake a consultation upon proposals for the Council’s Polling Districts, as set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this report, and to take any other associated actions.

 

3. Agree that a report will be brought back to the Sub-Committee in due course which will provide details of the consultation responses, together with any other associated matters.

The sub-committee considered a report containing the draft recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England in respect of the Council’s electoral arrangements.

 

It was noted that there were a number of minor typos, which were not substantive, in the Appendix 1 and Annex A, which would be corrected in further versions. It was noted that the Town and Parish Council boundary proposals were recommendations, and not absolute.

 

It was noted that the Commission are able to make recommendations to Parliament who in turn can order changes to parish electoral arrangements (i.e. the number of councillors for each parish ward, and the number, names and boundaries of parish wards) as part of an electoral review, but it was not common practice.

 

Councillor David Edwardes attended to speak as a visiting Member:

 

“When I saw that the Boundary Commission was recommending splitting Tytherington into two Town Council seats, one of 4596 voters and one of 223 voters I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. The whole draft recommendation for Tytherington is preposterous.

 

Cheshire East Council (CEC) debated and voted on this three times (including full council). In democratic votes they decided to leave Tytherington Ward well alone (except the addition of the area south of The Silk Road being added).

  

If Tytherington was reduced to one Councillor there would be a variance of 12%. We were advised at our CEC meetings that this variance was impossible and unacceptable.

 

The Silk Road: In (106) there is mention of The Silk Road. The Labour Party proposal believes that the area south of the road should all go to Bollington. I wish to point out that Kingsfield Park, Tytherington Business Park/Village and Mulberry Park are new builds and have no historical significance whatsoever. All look towards Macclesfield and have no desire to be classed as part of Bollington. The small children go to Marlborough Primary School, Tytherington (plus nursery) where they can safely walk or cycle on paths without touching Manchester Road. There is a private nursery on the business park. The older children will attend Tytherington High School that can be reached, again, without needing to cross a major road. This is an excellent school that I will refer to in my comments on Bollinbrook. The Boundary Commission draft proposal talks of The Springwood Estate. There simply is no such place. Springwood Way is in two halves, not joined up (an administrative error years ago). That whole area, as I say above, is Kingsfield Park (plus a little bit near the Beefeater pub/hotel, The Springwood Park), the business park (note: will this be renamed "Bollington Business Park if this proposal is successful?)  They also talk of "electors east of Tytherington Lane". As Tytherington Lane runs from The Silk Road down to Manchester Road this would include all the properties mentioned including Mulberry Park.

 

Central ward additions: They are talking of "electors south of Tytherington School" (113). Are they aware that the high school shares an entry/exit with Beech Farm Drive? Does this not make things messy administratively? There is also a new estate, The Kings Quarter, that has been built on the old Kings School playing fields. This doesn’t get a mention in your proposals that I can see? At the back of the estate, off Wightmans Avenue, there are steps up onto Northgate Avenue, which leads to Beech Lane and then the high school. This estate isn’t Bollinbrook and isn’t Central Ward. Have the boundary commission even considered this estate? All the roads north of Coare Street would definitely prefer to stay in Tytherington.

 

Bollinbrook: Perhaps the most contentious of the proposals. With respect, I do wonder which residents they spoke to in Bollinbrook. The feeling that the residents would prefer to be part of Broken Cross and Upton is certainly not the feeling I get. How did the commission decide who to ask for their opinion? The only arguments I can see mentioned in the proposals are: 1. The children of Bollinbrook Primary attend a feeder school for Fallibroome Academy. Therefore, they look towards Broken Cross and Upton. Tytherington High School, as I have said previously, is an excellent school. Many Bollinbrook parents chose to send their children there after Bollinbrook Primary (this is their freedom of choice). I just did a google map search. The Packhorse to Fallibroome, walking, 1.4 miles, The Packhorse to Tytherington High School 0.6 miles. Half the distance! 2. They mention the river Bollin and railway line. There is a footpath/cycle path from Bollinbrook across The Riverside Park, crossing the Bollin on a substantial bridge and then going under the railway beside the Park offices, car park and toilets then out onto Beechwood Mews. Across a controlled crossing and you are at the high school.

 

There are other things I’d like to mention:

 

1.    (113) "Hibel Road is not a physical barrier" (4 lane road) (107) "Community ties between the Springwood Estate (sic) and the area of Bollington north of The Silk Road" (fast 4 lane highway with no physical barrier) and yet (111) says "Chester Road and Congleton Road ...clear, identifiable boundaries" (both 2 lane roads).

2.    Bollinbrook has no places of worship, yet Tytherington has Tytherington Family Worship, a thriving church holding 2 services every Sunday, dementia groups, coffee mornings, mothers and toddlers groups and so on. By alienating Bollinbrook from the Tytherington Community it will damage the spirit engendered over the years.

3.    Tytherington has Rugby Drive playing fields (not mentioned in the recommendations) plus the football pitches on Summerlea Close, Beech Hall School and Sandwich Drive. Tytherington Juniors Football Club, the driving force of football in Tytherington has 67 junior teams. Bollinbrook has none. Again, if Bollinbrook is split off there will be an "us and them".

4.    Bollinbrook has just the Packhorse Club (rescued from bankruptcy 5 years ago), The British Flag on Coare Street (soon to close) and the Ship on Beech Lane (already closed). Tytherington has The Brocklehurst Arms, The Tytherington Club and the Beefeater. Again, I fear the alienation of Bollinbrook if it were to be no longer part of the Tytherington Community.

5.    Bollinbrook has a small parade of shops. Tytherington has a busy precinct. Tytherington business park has a thriving cafe that acts as an important social centre.

6.    West Park is just in the present Tytherington Ward and no other play areas, but the “new” Tytherington has five children's play areas.

7.    Last year we planted an orchard in Bollinbrook on behalf of the Tytherington Community.”

 

Councillor D Edwardes also read a statement from the Independent Group:

 

“I think what is important to emphasise is that the boundary commission say they do not want to separate communities yet that is exactly what they are proposing to do to Tytherington to make the numbers fit, even though they will still end up with 12% too many residents for one member ward. The houses to the north of Tytherington have no connection with Bollington which is a long-established small town with its own canal identity. Again, the only reason to include them is to try and make the numbers add up for the labour proposal.

 

The council did not seek to get direct feedback from residents as the Labour group did. However, that evidence will be provided before the end of the consultation.

 

Bollinbrook is an isolated community (it has its own shops and school) and it does not matter which ward it sits in, it doesn't have much in common with Upton Priory or Broken Cross as they each have their own shops and schools too. Tytherington and Bollinbrook do share the Bollin Valley country park which can be accessed from each side of the Bollin River on the numerous footpaths, likewise there are several underpass's that enable residents to pass under the railway on foot or cycle and is very popular with dog walkers from both communities.

 

The council proposal worked very well which is why we should support it as is but enhance it with resident's support by means of a petition against the labour proposal.”

 

Councillor Janet Clowes read a statement from Councillor Chris O’Leary:

 

“In addition to the comments previously made about Livesley Road in Tytherington, I would have made the following comments today:

 

Bolinbrook. I agree that this is very much a community in of itself. While the argument can be made that it has little in connection with Tytherington, such arguments can also be made about its connections with Broken Cross. There is some considerable distance between Bolinbrook and other similar housing in Broken Cross, and residents do not look towards Broken Cross for their shopping etc. Secondary school children from Bolinbrook go equally to Tytherington School and Falibroome.

 

On Livesley Road, I note that the Boundary Commission is recommending a new Macclesfield Town Council ward of Macclesfield Springwood, that would have some 300 voters. It is worth stressing that it is Cheshire East Council, not the LGBCE, that will need to consult on these proposals, and it is Cheshire East Council that will face accusations of gerrymandering here.

 

On Beech Farm Drive, there is no possible justification for treating this as anything but Tytherington. It is divided from Macclesfeld town by the river Bollin and open green space, the houses are of similar character to most of Tytherington (and dissimiliar to Macclesfield central), and residents there very clearly associate with Tytherington.

 

On the Hibel Road, it is indeed the case that people cross this road every day. But it is a dual carriage way that is 5 lanes wide along most of its length. It is crossed at one of two places – the junction with Jordangate/Beech Lane and an elevated footbridge that crosses near Brock Street/Pownall Road. This elevated footpath crosses the Hibel Road at a major cutting – there are very high brick walls to the north separating the road from the much higher land and housing on the northern side. The housing to the north of Hibel Road – the area that the Commission wants to be in Macclesfield Central ward – is further cut off not just by the road, but by the Toyota dealership. Jordangate multi-storey car park, the old telephone exchange, the Post Office local sorting office and delivery centre, and a range of other businesses and public buildings. While there are some residential properties along Cumberland Street for example, much of this is office and commercial space.”

 

Councillors Vernon and Wilson spoke in support of the Boundary Commission’s Macclesfield proposals, noting that it would be inappropriate for a Springwood Parish Ward, and that a 12% variation in the proposal for Tytherington had been justified by the Boundary Commission due to low levels of deprivation.

 

It was noted that Macclesfield Members submitted warding proposals for Macclesfield, which was confounded by the fact it had to reduce from 12 to 11 Members. It was noted that it would be acceptable for Bollinbrook to return to its previous Ward due to its links with that area.

 

Nick Billington provided an overview of the report and analysis of the draft recommendation changes and Members discussed the recommendations in turn, choosing to utilize their powers to resolve a number of issues, and defer others to a later meeting date, when further information would be available.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The sub-committee, in accordance with its delegated powers, resolved to fully and formally determine all draft recommendations set out in the Commission’s report, except those for Borough warding for Knutsford and Macclesfield (which also affects a section of the boundary with the would-be Bollington & Rainow Borough ward), and those for parish warding for Crewe North, Crewe Central, Knutsford, Macclesfield and Sandbach, and not to utilise its powers to refer any decisions to the Corporate Policy Committee or Council:

 

(Unanimously) ALDERLEY EDGE & CHORLEY BOROUGH WARD

 

A friendly amendment was proposed, seconded and voted on to not refer this recommendation to Corporate Policy Committee:

 

Accept the Commission’s recommended name of ‘Alderley Edge & Chorley’ and not refer the recommendation to Corporate Policy Committee.

 

(By majority) BRERETON AND DANE VALLEY BOROUGH WARDS

 

No change to the current Dane Valley Borough ward boundary (and therefore the Bluebell Green area is included in Brereton Borough ward).

 

(Unanimously) CREWE WEST AND WISTASTON BOROUGH WARDS

 

That officers continue to work with the Commission, to establish the cause of the boundary line discrepancies identified along the Crewe and Wistaston parish boundary.

 

That officers seek to reach a common understanding with the Commission on which current and future electoral areas each of the affected properties are/ would be in.

 

That the Council’s formal response to the Draft Recommendations explains that the Commission’s statutory criteria (particularly on local communities’ interests and identities) would be best met by placing the affected properties in the Borough ward that the Council’s submitted proposals envisaged, namely, 76 Dane Bank Avenue and 111 Moreton Avenue in Crewe West Borough ward (and Crewe West parish ward); and 41 Thirlmere Road, numbers 1 and 2 Wistaston Avenue and numbers 74 and 98 Wistaston Green Road in Wistaston Borough ward.

 

(Unanimously) SANDBACH/ WHEELOCK & WINTERLEY BOROUGH WARDS

 

That the Council’s formal response to the Draft Recommendations explains the historic boundary line inconsistency around 1 Mill Hill Lane; and explains that the Commission’s statutory criteria (particularly on local communities’ interests and identities) would be best met by placing this property in the Wheelock & Winterley Borough ward (and consequently in the Commission’s recommended Sandbach Wheelock parish ward).

 

(Unanimously) OTHER BOROUGH WARDS

 

That officers continue to work with the Commission, to establish the cause of the boundary line discrepancies identified along the Alsager/ Hassall, Rainow/ Macclesfield Forest & Wildboarclough and Wybunbury/ Stapeley parish boundaries.

 

That officers seek to reach a common understanding with the Commission on which current and future electoral areas each of the affected properties are/ would be in.

 

That the Council’s formal response to the Draft Recommendations explains that the Commission’s statutory criteria (particularly on local communities’ interests and identities) would be best met by placing the affected properties in the Borough ward that the Council’s submitted proposals envisaged, namely: ‘Roughwood’ in Odd Rode Borough ward; Lower Windyway Farm and Lower Windy Way Barn in Bollington & Rainow Borough ward; and ‘Moorlands’ in Wybunbury Borough ward.

 

(Unanimously) CONGLETON PARISH WARDING

 

To accept the Commission’s recommendations for parish warding for Congleton.

 

(Unanimously) CREWE PARISH WARDING

 

To accept the Commission’s recommendations for parish warding for all of Crewe, except for the Crewe Central and Crewe North parish wards.

 

(Unanimously) HULME WALFIELD & SOMERFORD BOOTHS PARISH WARDING

 

To accept the Commission’s recommendations for parish warding for Hulme Walfield & Somerford Booths.

 

(Unanimously) NANTWICH PARISH WARDING

 

To accept the Commission’s recommendations for parish warding for Nantwich.

 

(Unanimously) WILMSLOW PARISH WARDING

 

To accept the Commission’s recommendations for parish warding for Wilmslow.

 

(Unanimously)

 

The sub-committee resolved to consider the remaining draft recommendations at the sub-committee’s 15 November 2024 meeting:

 

BOLLINGTON & RAINOW AND MACCLESFIELD BOROUGH WARDS

 

KNUTSFORD BOROUGH WARD(S)

 

CREWE PARISH WARDING (FOR THE CREWE CENTRAL AND CREWE NORTH PARISH WARDS ONLY)

 

KNUTSFORD PARISH WARDING

 

MACCLESFIELD PARISH WARDING

 

SANDBACH PARISH WARDING

The Committee considered a report which outlined the investigation to divert part of Public Footpath No. 7 (part) in the Parish of Buerton.

 

It was noted that the following legal tests which had been considered had been omitted from the report.

 

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the Highways Act 1980 it was within the Council’s discretion to make the Order if it appeared to the Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or of the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path. 

 

The Public Path Orders Officer had been in regular correspondence with the landowner over the last 14 months to establish the permission to have the diversion route on their land.  This had involved regular emails and a site meeting to establish the precise route of the path and the width.  The landowners expressed a wish to provide a diversion to allow the local community and the wider public the opportunity to continue to walk in and enjoy the local environment but at the same time, wanted to continue to use the field as part of the farm business plan. It was considered that it was expedient to divert the footpath in the interests of the public.

 

Section 119 (2) of the 1980 Act also stipulates that a public path diversion order shall not alter the point of termination of the path if that point was not on a highway, or, where it was on a highway, otherwise than to another point which was on the same highway, or a highway connected with it, and which was substantially as convenient to the public.  The proposed diversion would connect the existing part of Buerton FP No. 7 from point A on the attached plan within the report, to Buerton FP No, 29 at Point B.  The length of the proposed route was 94 meters.  The proposed diversion was considered, as convenient as the current route.

Where there were no outstanding objections, it was for the Council to determine whether to confirm the Order.

Where objections to the making of an Order were made and not withdrawn, the Order would fall to be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

In considering whether or not to confirm the Order, the Secretary of State where the Order was opposed, or the Council where the Order was unopposed, must be satisfied under the provisions of Section 119 (6) of the 1980 Act that the path or way was not substantially less convenient as a consequence of the diversion having regard to the effect of the following 3 points:

1        What impact the diversion had on the public enjoyment of the path as a whole. It was considered that the diversion would provide a connected network where a natural event had made the current route impassable. However, the diverted route would still be close to the brook and would be as enjoyable as the current path if it were available.

2        What effect that the coming into operation of the Order would have as respects other land served by the existing public right of way. This had been considered and there were no impacts.

3        What effect that any new public right of way created by the Order would have as respects the land over which the rights were so created and any land held with it. This had been considered and there were no additional impacts.

In confirming an Order the Secretary of State where the Order was opposed, or the Council where the Order was unopposed, would also have regard to any material provision of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan prepared by the local highway authority and the effect of the path or way on the needs of agriculture, forestry and biodiversity.

 

The Committee considered the application and evidence as set out within the officer report. The Committee agreed that a Public Path Diversion Order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public Footpath No.7 (part) in the Parish of Buerton by creating a new section of public footpath and extinguishing the current path as illustrated on plan no. HA/155 within the report on the grounds that it was expedient in the interests of the public.

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Highways & Transport Committee

 

1. Agree that a Public Path Diversion Order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, to divert part of Public Footpath No.7 in the Parish of Buerton as illustrated on plan no. HA/155 within the report on the grounds that it is expedient in the interests of the public.

 

2. Agree that public notice of the making of the Order be given and in the event of there being no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said Act.

 

3. Note that in the event of objections being received, Cheshire East Borough Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or Public Inquiry.

 

 

 

The Committee received a report seeking approval for the new drugs and alcohol plan for Cheshire East, from Nik Darwin, Acting Programme Lead, Thriving and Prevention/ Live Well for Longer, and Professor Rod Thomson, Interim Consultant in Public Health. The report aligned with the priority within the Cheshire East Corporate Plan of: “a council which empowers and cares about people’. It also aligned with the Government’s 10-year drug strategy: “From harm to hope” and with the Cheshire East Joint Local Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2023-2028.

 

The Committee were updated that the team were working with local drug project groups and that the commissioned services provided services around needle exchange and screening for blood borne viruses. It was noted that there were instances where people used substances as a means of self-medication and the service would be supportive to them and their issues, and older people who have had long-term alcohol problems, or were habitual users would require different treatment.

 

It was noted that there were over 14,000 people classed as “high risk” with regards to alcohol consumption across Cheshire East, and 3500 who were alcohol dependent.

 

The increase in cannabis users in local areas was raised by Members. It was noted that trying to persuade users not to use drugs was a difficult process, but users hearing from those who have dealt with their own issues could be effective and tailored to individual cases.

 

It was noted that the Service would need to work together with partners to make the best us of the resources available, and Cheshire East Council would work with providers to ensure that programmes were successfully delivered and to help address issues before they become major problems.

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Adults and Health Committee:

 

1. Approve the new drugs and alcohol plan – Reducing drug and alcohol harm in Cheshire East.

The Committee received a report on the Service’s requirement to continue with the existing case management, financial systems, and online provision for Adult and Children services, from Helen Charlesworth-May, Executive Director of Adults, Health and Integration. An exercise has started to re-procure a new contract as the current system contracts would expire at the end of March 2025.

 

The Committee were updated that, due to the requirement of the department to focus on its transformation programme, balancing the finances, and the wider improvements taking place with regards to generative AI and technology in the sector, it would not be a good time for the Service to be procuring a new system. The Executive Director of Adults, Health and Integration had commissioned IT colleagues to undertake an 18-month project to plan for the future of the Service’s IT requirements, and to help determine what would be required in four years’ time.

 

It was noted that the Service has a level of ongoing improvement with the system, and it worked with its own internal IT department and System C to find solutions to issues with the current software and to ensure that it continued to be fit for purpose. It was noted that the personal information which was used in the system was held on Cheshire East’s servers, and in the last three months there had been an exercise to test what would happen in case of a cyber security attack on the system, to best inform the security which was attached to the system.

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Adults and Health Committee:

 

1. Authorise the Executive Director of Adults, Health and Integration, in consultation with Children Services and Corporate Services, to award and enter into a contract to deliver core systems for case management, financial payments, online services.

The Committee received a report requesting their support for Cheshire East to become part of the Cheshire and Merseyside work to end new HIV transmission in the sub-region by 2030, from Dr Matthew Atkinson, Public Health Consultant. In joining this sub-regional work, the Council would sign up to the HIV Fast Track Cities agenda, and therefore commit to the Paris and Sevilla declarations. All nine local authorities in Cheshire and Merseyside intended to make this pledge.

 

The Committee were updated that being part of the fast-track approach would bring an increased focus on HIV and would allow Cheshire East Council to benefit from expertise from international networks, and the Cheshire and Merseyside Public Health Collaborative.

 

It was noted that although HIV could also be contracted via intravenous drug use, this report did not cover that in detail, and Cheshire East Council would be working closely with partners in substance misuse services also.

 

It was noted that although stigma associated with HIV had decreased, there were still a number of groups of people who would be uncomfortable talking about the disease, and projects would be planned to specifically help those in groups who were not comfortable with discussing it, or did not deem themselves to be at risk. There would also be more work to protect women from contracting the disease. 

 

The report noted a significant number of those identified as having HIV were not diagnosed until a later stage of the disease. The concern regarding individuals presenting late with the disease was noted, and the Committee were informed that there could be a number of reasons for this; in localities where the risk of HIV was relatively low, the population may be less likely to consciously think of the risk, or have less access to testing. It was noted that, as HIV had been under more control, there had been a rise in sexually transmitted diseases other than HIV.

 

Education was noted as critical element to the approach. It was noted that most schools have Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education on their curriculum but it is not explicit what has to be taught and different schools will teach different aspects, however, a young person can access sexual health services and GPs confidentially.

 

It was noted that due to the remaining stigma regarding HIV, individuals may choose to get tested away from their local area. The Committee was notified that there were reciprocal health care arrangements in place in neighbouring Boroughs to encourage testing.

 

It was noted that Cheshire East Council had started a “needs assessment” which would inform the recommission of the Service in two years’ time.

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Adults and Health Committee:

 

1. Support the sign up to the HIV Fast Track Cities agenda, and therefore commit to the Paris and Sevilla declarations. All nine local authorities in Cheshire and Merseyside intend to make this pledge.

 

2. Put forward a Consultant in Public Health as a key representative from our local sexual health and HIV partnership to be the nominated ‘Key Opinion Lead’ for Cheshire East.

 

3. Support the Cheshire & Merseyside Sexual Health and HIV Commissioners Network as the main strategic group to map needs and gaps and develop a relevant regional plan, reporting to Directors of Public Health on a minimum quarterly basis.

 

4. Support the planning and delivery of an HIV Fast Track launch event for Cheshire and Merseyside (date to be confirmed).

The Committee received a report on the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) which set out how the Council would resource the achievement of the Council Plan, from Nikki Wood-Hill, Lead Finance Business Partner.

 

The Finance Sub-committee approved the financial assumptions underpinning the current MTFS at their meeting in June 2024, with a further funding update received in September 2024. It was noted the report had been published prior to the Chancellor’s budget on 30 October 2024, and the impact of increase in wages and national insurance had not been factored in.

 

The Committee were updated that, in terms of the MTFS for Adults, Health and Integration, most of the savings would be delivered via the Transformation Plan, and the details if this would be provided at Adults and Health Committee in January 2025.

 

The Committee were updated that Cheshire East Council was looking into alternative options for the provision of Extra Care and school meals. Cheshire East Council had not entered into formal consultation about this and would not be able to do so until the current provision had been withdrawn. It was noted that if the service was to be withdrawn, then an interim solution would be looked in to for the two Extra Care facilities in Cheshire East, which would cover the period from January to April 2025, following which a permanent solution would be in place. A formal consultation regarding Extra Care would take place between January and April 2025. It was noted that if any individual had a social care assessment that stated they required a meal adult social care would find alternative ways of meeting their needs assessment.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Adults and Health Committee:

 

1. Note the progress to date on the development of the MTFS for 2025-29.

 

2. Note that officers will continue to challenge draft proposals and develop further proposals in consultation with Members prior to approval by Council.

 

3. Note that Committees will be presented with the opportunity to review the full set of financial proposals, designed to achieve a balanced budget, as part of their January cycle of meetings prior to recommendations being made to Council for approval.

The Committee received a report on the current forecast outturn for the financial year 2024/25 based on income, expenditure and known commitments as at the end of August 2024, which also identified actions being taken to address adverse variances to urgently address the financial sustainability, from Nikki Wood-Hill, Lead Finance Business Partner.

 

The Committee were updated that, despite making further savings, it was unlikely that the forecast outturn for Adults would reduce significantly from £20.7m. Interventions which had been made had brought the projections down from £28m to £20.7m and the figures were being recalculated on a weekly basis.

 

It was noted that activity had largely stabilised, and had been steady for a number of years. As a result of the work which “front door” services had undertaken, the number of people receiving a social service from Cheshire East Council had not increased in the way in which would have been predicted. However, it was noted that, since the covid-19 pandemic the service had seen increases to prices as a result of a national increase to wages, inflation, and a general demand for workforce.

 

The service was proactively investing in services such as Falls Prevention and in the primary care and voluntary sector, to enable people to stay at home for as long as possible and reduce the likelihood of people being hospitalised and requiring longer term care.

 

The Committee were updated that Cheshire East Council were being rigorous on price increases from providers and as a result were starting to receive notice of ending placements from providers, but were actively working to find new placements for those who had been given notice. Cheshire East Council could not meet price increases which providers were seeking and would not fund price increases where providers could not evidence as a transparent justification, or which didn’t run ahead of costs.

 

The Committee were updated that no additional requests for exceptional financial support had been made, and that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), who had undertaken a review of Cheshire East Council as part of due diligence for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), had provided feedback on the Adults element which was positive - everything they could think of Cheshire East Council were already doing, and they acknowledged that the issues it faced were largely national factors.

 

It was noted that Cheshire East Council could assist individuals with negotiations with providers for those who self-funded their care, and would offer advice on the most appropriate facility.

 

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Adults and Health Committee:

 

1. Review the factors leading to a forecast adverse Net Revenue financial pressure of £20.1m against a revised budget of £395.4m (5.1%). To scrutinise the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 and review progress on the delivery of the MTFS approved budget policy change items, the RAG ratings and latest forecasts, and to understand the actions to be taken to address any adverse variances from the approved budget.

 

2. Review the in-year forecast capital spending of £157.7m against an approved MTFS budget of £215.8m, due to slippage that has been re-profiled into future years.

 

3. Note the available reserves position as per Annex 1, Section 5.

 

4. Approve the Supplementary Revenue Estimate Request for Allocation of Additional Grant Funding over £500,000 up to £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 3, Table 2.

The Committee received a report which set out the rationale for investing in supported employment, and the best practice approaches as the Council looked to ensure a consistent approach to the delivery of supported employment within the borough, from Mark Lobban, Interim Director of Commissioning, and Colin Jacklin, Head of External Funding, Complex Worklessness & Inclusion.

 

The Committee were updated that in 2025 there would be additional external funding to support the team, and the three main focus areas were:

 

1. Ensuring that right model for supported employment was used;
2. Emphasising the cost savings which this model can produce; and
3. Acknowledging that there would be a further report to Adults and Health committee which would detail the funding schemes for the policy – the Shared Prosperity Fund, and the “Connect to Work” scheme from the Department of Work and Pensions in 2025 which would provide up to £4.5 million to Cheshire East Council over a three year period.

 

The Committee were updated that Cheshire East Council has an active relationship with potential employers and worked closely with them on a person to person bases to ensure that the correct individual could be supported in each supported employment role. It was noted that employers were supportive of the scheme and there had been a number of instances where roles in hard to fill sectors had been filled with an individual from the supported employment scheme, and Cheshire East Council would be using its supportive apprenticeship scheme to ensure that roles were available within the Council.

 

The Committee were updated that the Cheshire East Council works with each potential employee to ensure that taking on a paid role would not impact their finances negatively in terms of any benefit entitlements.

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

 

That the Adults and Health Committee:

 

1. Note the content of the report and request a further paper comes back to Adults and Health Committee when there is a substantive decision to be made.