Decisions

The Sub-Committee considered a report on the first review of the Cheshire East Council forecast outturn for the financial year 2024/25.

Performance against the 2024/25 Budget within each service committee, and the Finance Sub-Committee was outlined in Table 1 of the report. The Council was forecasting an additional in-year pressure of £26.5m - this was before the application of any exceptional financial support.

It was noted that the report format had been changed so that one finance report with a single set of information would go to each service committee to enable them to consider and see the full financial position.

The Sub Committee asked about the funding of capital programme and in response it was stated that these schemes were funded through several ways, with some grant funded and others by borrowing. Costs would also occur in the revenue account as interest would need to be paid on the money borrowed.  Table 2 in the report provided an update on the capital programme cost against those set in the budget and the estimate costs for the next four years.  A full review of the capital programme was being undertaken as part of the actions to reduce the overspend.  Table 4 in the report set out the forecast borrowing included in the capital programme set out the interest charges on the borrowing and the impact on the revenue budget.

Members sought clarification on the reasons for the overspends in the Children Services and Adults budgets. It was stated that the overspends forecast were the expected overspends at the end of the year if nothing changed. The overspends arose from a number of factors as these services were demand led and more people than anticipated had come to the Council for support. This included an increase in the number of former self-funders seeking local authority funding to meet their care costs. Other factors included the increase in costs of providing care due to increases in the National Living Wag, an increase in the discharge activities from hospitals which affected the pricing and demand of adult social care, and a reduction in acute care beds which meant having to provide care for those with more complex care needs.

The Sub Committee, whilst noting that the Adults and Health Committee and the Children and Families Committee would be considering the first financial review for their areas, were concerned about the overspends and proposed that this be referred up to the Corporate Policy Committee to look at in more details, as these overspends were largely outside the remits of the MTFS.

It was noted that mitigation for the overspending included the selling assets, and it was stated that the Council had an asset disposal programme. The disposal of an asset resulted in a capital receipt, however the Council had to achieve best value for any sold.  The market value achieved may be less than the valuation of the asset.

RESOLVED:  That the Sub Committee

1               note the factors leading to a forecast adverse Net Revenue financial pressure of £26.5m against a revised budget of £387.6m (6.8%), the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 and the progress on the delivery of the MTFS approved budget policy change items, the RAG ratings and latest forecasts, and the actions taken to address any adverse variances from the approved budget.

2               note the in-year forecast capital spending of £164.5m 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               note the Capital Virements above £500,000 and up to an including £5,000,000 as per Annex1, Section 4, Table 3 will be approved in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

5               note that Council will be asked to approve Supplementary Revenue Estimate Requests for Allocation of Additional Grant Funding over £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 3. Table 1.

6               note that the Adults and Health Committee will be asked to 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.

7               note that the Highways and Transport Committee will be asked to approve the Supplementary Capital Estimate above £500,000 up to and including £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 4, Table 3.

8               the Finance Sub Committee recommend to the Corporate Policy Committee the examination of children services and adults as areas for consideration as their performance lies outside the parameters of the MTFS.

The meeting adjourned for a 5-minute break.

The Sub Committee considered the update report on the development of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2025 to 2029.

The budget assumptions had been reviewed on a line-by-line basis by the Sub Committee’s Working Group session in August 2024.  No specific changes to the assumptions had been identified at the session but it was agreed that additional sessions could be used for further review as more information and certainty came to light.  The Working Group had also considered a set of draft budget principles that could be followed to assist focus and clarity when making financial decisions.

The Medium-Term Financial Strategy would need to fully reflect the impact of proposals emerging from the Council’s Transformation Programme.  The preparation of proposals for the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the consultation period in order to support Member consideration and the setting of the budget were now mor likely to be later than originally planned, with the formal public consultation period more likely to begin in November.

RESOLVED (unanimously):  That the Sub Committee

1               note the updated information contained in the report in relation to potential improvements in the central funding assumptions.

2        note the change in timeline for preparation of the MTFS 2025-29 and the public consultation period, as described in the report, as relating to the consideration of in-year financial pressures and the development of proposals from the Council’s Transformation Programme.

The Sub Committee considered the update report on the progress in implementing the Charted Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA) Financial Management Code.

The 2023/24 self-assessment and draft action plan had been developed following two informal briefings with Sub Committee members in June 2024 at which each Principle and Standard of the Code were discussed in detail. 

A further report would be brought to the Sub Committee in January 2025 to update on the latest 2024/25 in year progress against the Action Plan and also provide an updated self-assessment position against the Financial Management Code.

RESOLVED (unanimously):  That the Sub Committee

1               note the contents of the report and the 2023/24 self-assessment against the principles of the Charted Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy Financial Management Code and the action plan.

2               approve the 2023/24 self-assessment position (as at March 2024) in Appendix 2 to the report - Cheshire East Council’s current level of compliance with the Charted Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy Financial Management Code Framework.

3        approve the Action Plan, as presented in Appendix 3 to the report.

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 July 2024. It also identified actions that were being taken to address adverse variances to urgently address the Council’s financial sustainability.

The Council was forecasting an additional in-year pressure of £26.5m - this was before the application of any exceptional financial support. The overall reasons for the £26.5m pressure were outlined in the report.  

The Economy and Growth were reporting an underspend of £2.6m against a net budget of £28.1m. The key reasons for the underspend were outlined in the report and included savings on gas and electricity costs, business rates underspend and vacancy management.

It was noted that the report format had been changed so that one finance report with a single set of information would go to each service committee to enable them to consider and see the full financial position.

Reference was made to the review of the capital programme and that £70m capital spending was being moved into next year and future years.  It was explained that there were many reasons why projects slipped back into the following year.  Each capital project had been re-evaluated against actual spend on the project and any uncertain elements defrayed to the following years.  Where projects had external funding, this money would be spent first with the Council’s money being spent in the following years.

In relation to the Facilities Management area, it was explained that Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme grant money was being used to help decarbonise Delamere House, Macclesfield Town Hall, and schools in Cheshire East.  The relocation of teams from Westfields to Delamere House and Macclesfield Town Hall was underway and would be completed by the end of the year.  An update report on the future use of Westfields was due to come to the January 2025 committee meeting.    Savings had been made due to a decrease in the price of gas and electricity, however these prices were expected to rise in October and costs would be monitored to see what impact they had.

RESOLVED:  That the Committee

1               note the factors leading to a forecast adverse/(positive) Net Revenue financial variance of:

Council: £26.5m against a revised budget of £387.6m (6.8%)

Economy and Growth: (£2.6m) against a revised budget of £28.1m (9.3%)

note the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 relevant to services within the committee’s remit, 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               note the in-year forecast capital sending of:

Council: £164.5m against an approved MTFS budget of £215.8m

Economy and Growth: £48.9m against an approved MTFS budget of £80.3m

due to slippage that has been re-profiled into future years.

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

4               note that Council will be asked to approve Supplementary Revenue Estimate Requests for Allocation of Additional Grant funding over £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section, Table 1.

5               note the Capital Virements above £500,000 up to and including £5,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 4, Table 3 will be approved in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee considered the report on the reallocation of Crewe Town Fund budget and the future use of the former Flagg Lane Baths.

The Flagg Lane Baths had closed in 2016 and the building had remained vacant since then.  The site had been marketed for sale twice with the only tangible interest expressed by a local charity Always Ahead who proposed to remodel the building for a range of community uses.  

Always Ahead had developed a business case which secured £3.9m support from the Crewe Town Board as part of the Crewe Towns Fund programme. Planning consent for the scheme was obtained in 2022.  However, since then the project had experienced significant delays mainly due to the structure of the building and escalating costs.  In July 2024, Always Ahead indicated that the cost of Phase 1 alone had escalated from £3.9m to £5.9m.  The charity had been unable to secure the additional funding so that the project could be completed by March 2026, when the Towns Fund grant expired.

The Crewe Town Board at its meeting in September 2024 had recommended withdrawal of the financial support for the project and reallocation of the funding to other Town Funds projects.  The Board was keen to ensure a future use of the former Flagg Lane Baths.  Alternative uses for the site had been suggested with the proposal for a new Alternative Provision School being the preferred approach, the details of which were set out in the report.

The Committee asked about the additional money being allocated to the Cumberland Arena project and it was explained that all the projects had business cases projecting costs against the details.  The Cumberland Arena project had seen the removal of the improvements to the changing room facilities early in the project because of the budget so the expectation was that this would not be done.  The reallocation of the Towns Fund would allow for this element to be put back into the project along with critical funding for the required new substation for power provision.

Reference was made to the cost of demolition, and it was explained that different quotes had been obtained for both the retention of the facade and demolition of the entire site and that it would cost more to retain the façade.  It was not yet known what the design of the school would be, but it was hoped that the façade could be incorporated into the design.  It was suggested if the old façade could not be kept that an element of the design be incorporated into the new plans, which would be subject to planning approval. 

It was noted that Flagg Lane Baths were a local listed building, and it was explained that local listing was a building or structure of architectural or historic interest which made a valuable contribution to the character of an area but did not qualify for inclusion on the statutory list.

RESOLVED (unanimously):  That the Committee

1.          following the recommendations of Crewe Town Board, and in accordance with the Council’s role as accountable body for the Town Board and the Towns Fund grant funding, approve:

a)         the withdrawal of further funding for the Flag Lane Baths project that was proposed by the Always Ahead charity and delegate authority to the Director of Growth & Enterprise to take all steps necessary to terminate the grant funding agreement between Always Ahead charity and the Council;

b)         that following the approval of a Project Adjustment Request by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government the remaining £3,319,583 Towns Fund grant from the Flag Lane Baths project be reallocated to other projects in the Crewe Towns Fund programme, with up to the following amounts:

YouthZone (Oak Street)                              £1,353,000

YouthZone (Mirion Street)                               £458,000

Mill Street Corridor                                         £407,583

History Centre Public Realm                           £200,000

Pocket Parks                                                 £200,000

Cumberland Arena                                         £701,000

2.             delegate authority to the Director of Growth & Enterprise to explore other options for the former Flag Lane Baths noting the preference for its use as a new Alternative Provision School and develop a business case to be reported back to the Committee in due course.

3.             in support of alternative plans for the former Flag Lane Baths, approve the reallocation of £1,353,000 Cheshire East Council funding from the Crewe Youth Zone (Oak St) budget to the Flag Lane Baths budget.

Following the Community Governance Review in 2023, the boundary of the Parish of Congleton was amended.  The revised neighbourhood area will now follow the political and administrative boundary for the Parish of Congleton and not include land in any adjoining Parish.

To revoke the original Congleton neighbourhood area (as set out in Appendix 1 to the ODR) designation that was made on 6th of December 2014 and make the Congleton neighbourhood area modification (as set out in Appendix 2 to the ODR), for the purpose of preparing the Congleton Neighbourhood Plan.

On the 19 September 2024 the Over Alderley Neighbourhood Plan was subject to a local referendum, which returned a vote in favour of using the Over Alderley Neighbourhood Plan to decide planning applications within the Over Alderley neighbourhood area. The neighbourhood plan became part of the Development Plan for Cheshire East at declaration of a referendum result supporting the plan. This decision to make the neighbourhood plan confirms that status.

To make the Over Alderley Neighbourhood Plan, confirming its status as part of the Development Plan for Cheshire East.

The Economy and Growth Committee at its meeting on 26 January 2024 on considered the report on the Handforth Garden Village Business Case and delegated authority to the Executive Director Place to carry out the necessary work to progress the scheme in advance of further decisions.

Agenda for Economy and Growth Committee on Friday, 26th January, 2024, 10.00 am

To commission a company via the Council’s Highways Services Contract to provide three further packages of work:

• ongoing project management of the initial preparation and infrastructure works

• specialist quantity surveying and valuation support.

• provide inputs into the technical approval process on behalf of Cheshire East Council.

The committee considered the report which provided the current forecast outturn for the financial year 2024/25 based on income, expenditure and known commitments as at the end of July 2024. It also identified actions that were being taken to address adverse variances to urgently address financial sustainability.

Officers advised that two further recommendations were being put forward in addition to those published in the report which would read:

4.    Approve the award of a grant to Nether Alderley Parish Council in the sum of £164,540 in order to carry out agreed improvement works to Nether Alderley Parish Hall as a means to discharge an obligation under a s106 agreement between Cheshire East Council and Bruntwood Limited, dated June 2016, namely to provide funds to undertake refurbishment works to Nether Alderley Grade II listed Parish Hall and;

5.    Delegate authority to the Interim Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services to take all necessary steps to enter into a funding agreement with Nether Alderley Parish Council for the purposes of providing the grant and evidencing use of the monies, and in doing so evidencing of the discharge of the obligation under the s.106 agreement.

Officers advised that the transferral of reserves to mitigate overspend would be addresses in the FR2 report, and that the council collected business rates under the Business Rate Retention Scheme, which only allowed local authorities to retain a portion of the monies, however there was an ongoing review into this process.

Officers undertook to provide a written response in respect to the following questions:

CCTV efficiencies

1.    Members were advised previously that CCTV was a non-statutory service. Would the removal of the CCTV service be looked at and would it be included in future consultations for budgeting or cost savings?

2.    Although the CCTV service generated around £220k income for the council, there were associated costs, of around £480k to the council. What was being done to address this gap?

3.    Could officers confirm that the Council were given a Safer Cheshire Partnership grant from the police, and how much this was?

S106 Monies

Could officers confirm that the refurbishment of a parish hall was considered as an appropriate use of section 106 funding under current policy?

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Environment and Communities Committee:

1.    Review the factors leading to a forecast adverse Net Revenue financial pressure of:

Council: £26.5m against a revised budget of £387.6m (6.8%) Environment and Communities: £0.6m against a revised budget of £48.4m (1.2%)

To scrutinise the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 relevant to services within the committee’s remit, 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.    Consider the in-year forecast capital spending:

Council: £164.5m against an approved MTFS budget of £215.8m, due to slippage that has been re-profiled into future years. Environment and Communities: £19.5m against an approved MTFS budget of £19.0m;

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

4.    Approve the award of a grant to Nether Alderley Parish Council in the sum of £164,540 in order to carry out agreed improvement works to Nether Alderley Parish Hall as a means to discharge an obligation under a s106 agreement between Cheshire East Council and Bruntwood Limited, dated June 2016, namely, to provide funds to undertake refurbishment works to Nether Alderley Grade II listed Parish Hall and;

5.    Delegate authority to the Interim Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services to take all necessary steps to enter into a funding agreement with Nether Alderley Parish Council for the purposes of providing the grant and evidencing use of the monies, and in doing so evidencing of the discharge of the obligation under the s.106 agreement.

The Committee considered the report which detailed the final proposals for future permanent Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) service provision following an update of previously collated review and feasibility study information, public consultation, and the commencement of a procurement for a new operating contract provider.

The Committee was being asked to agree levels of service for the contract period of 7 years (with optional up to 3-year extension period) due to commence provisionally in September 2025 to allow continuity of service provision and to achieve best value for the Council through this procurement.

Cllr K Edwards attended to speak as a visiting member and stated that Cheshire East was operating in a difficult scenario with intense pressures on the budget. HWRC’s were a great use for waste repurposing and education. Closing 3 of 7 sites would leave a minimum provision across the borough and those in rural areas would face much longer journeys and additional pollution – none of which was mentioned in the report. Cllr Edwards asked for negotiations, to take place with Bollington Town Council who were open to ideas to find financial support to keep the site open and urged serious consideration for the recommendation to be deferred back to officers to negotiate with Bollington Town Council to ensure that one HWRC was left in the north of borough.

Cllr Sewart attended to speak as a visiting member and stated that there was a need for a site north east of the borough as the drive from Poynton to Macclesfield took 34 minutes, meaning that it would take Disley residents even longer and then there would be significant queues to get in to the Macclesfield site. Cllr Sewart said that the credibility of Cheshire East Council would be questioned, and that the decision to temporarily close the Poynton site was “double speak”. Cllr Sewart said that there would be extra costs to the council for additional material in bins and asked the committee to consider keeping, one or both, sites in the north open either fully or on a part time basis.

Cllr Marshall attended to speak as a visiting member and asked members to reject the plan to close HWRCs. Cllr Marshall said that Middlewich was a unique site as all waste comes to Middlewich to be processed as it was where the waste transfer site was located, and several residents would have to drive past this site to go to another HWRC. Cllr Marshall asked the committee to be mindful of the statistics in the report which in his view were not accurate.

Cllr Snowball attended to speak as a visiting member and stated that on 10 May 2024 Bollington Town Council received a notice to keep the HWRC open. The Town Council had already set the budget for the year, and had only 7 days for a response, however they responded and were determined to do everything reasonable within their power to keep the site open. Cllr Snowball said that she understood that savings needed to be made, and the council must meet statutory obligations. Bollington Town Council were willing to negotiate with the CEC to keep the HWRC open and asked the committee for this opportunity.

Cllr Adams provided a statement which was read out by Cllr Clowes which stated that she had received many complaints about the closure of Poynton HWRC from Disley residents, which related to the closure itself, the quality of the consultation and the lack of meaningful engagement on the proposed closure.  Cllr Adams said that Disley residents would face a 28-mile round trip, outside the WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) recommendation of 20 minutes to the nearest site and that the many extra miles that would be driven was not ‘green’ and did not support the Council’s net zero aspirations. Cllr Adams stated that proposed mobile facilities did not meet the demand from residents and she had received complaints about being unable to book a slot during the trial which marginalised the digitally excluded. Cllr Adams said that Disley Parish Council had suggested that Cheshire East talks to Stockport MBC to agree use of the Marple HWRC which was 4 miles from Disley and had made this suggestion to Cheshire East, and it had been dismissed. Cllr Adams requested that a written response be provided to confirm the dates and details of any discussions with Stockport MBC on this matter be provided. If the proposed closures were agreed it would result in a considerable increase in fly tipping, which would lead to substantial extra costs for Cheshire East Council.

Cllr Moreton provided a statement which was read out by Cllr Jefferay which stated that he understood the Councils' financial situation but he, alongside other Congleton Councillors, had been fighting for a new recycling centre since the Congleton site was closed down. Cllr Moreton said that he would carry on this fight for the residents of Congleton as they are one of the biggest towns in the Borough and asked why Congleton was being overlooked as a site for the mobile HWRC service.

During consideration of the item, the committee resolved to move into part 2 to consider the confidential report and appendix. The committee moved back into part 1 for questions and debate.

In response to Members questions, Members were advised that if the decision was deferred, it could cause financial issues to the current procurement timeline, and that the emergency closures currently in place would produce a one off additional pro-rata saving until August 2025, which would be considered as part of the update to the MTFS. Members were advised that the new contract procurement includes the provision of ANPR, and there was a substantial “reuse” element in the specification. Members were advised that the ANSA site at Middlewich had not been designed as a household waste recycling centre, was an operational facility with a large number of HGV movements and was not suitable for the public to access. Rural areas were defined as those outside of a 20-minute drive of a HWRC, and that the mobile service would set to address areas which were outside of this boundary, along with areas which data has evidenced an elevated fly tipping incident rate. Officers advised that the council has statutory fly tipping obligations and must report in a standard way to central government and fly tipping on council-maintained land where the council has the obligation to clear land. It does not report or clean up fly tipping on private land.

In the debate the following points were raised:

-       It was acknowledged that the Council was in a difficult financial situation.

-       Nobody wanted to make cuts, but they needed to be made and, if this was not agreed, other services would have to be reduced further

-       The consultation evidenced that most residents did not use HWRCs on a frequent basis.

-       It was highlighted that there could be significant technical and local issues if Town and Parish Councils were to run the sites independently.

-       It was felt that the stated drive times were not accurate so needed to be looked at when looking at mobile recycling centres, nor were the environmental issues related to additional travel time taken into account.

-       It was stated that the data collection relating to out of borough use of Cheshire East’s HWRCs was only taken on a single day.

-       Similar decisions were being made across the country.

-       Some members felt that the savings from this proposal were insignificant in the context of the Council’s financial position, however other members felt that any saving made would contribute to reducing the risk of a S114 notice having to be issued.

-       It was felt that there were issues with the mobile service, booking system and queueing but this could be reviewed and refined

-       There were opportunities for monetising cross border tonnage coming into the borough via ANPR, although that had not been appraised in an appropriate way. Officers clarified however that we cannot charge the public for use of HWRC services, as private residents.

Some members felt that they could not support the recommendations; others felt that, while they would not wish to make this decision, they could understand the need and that difficult decisions would have to be made.

It was noted that paragraph 64 of the report outlined that in order to achieve the deadlines set out in the procurement timeline (which is a live process) such that the contract can be awarded, and business disruption avoided, it was appropriate that the decision be made urgently, and referral waived.

It was proposed and seconded a recorded vote was carried out in respect to this item, with the following results:

FOR

Councillors L Braithwaite, M Brooks, D Clark, A Farrell, D Jefferay, H Moss, H Seddon and M Warren.

AGAINST

Councillors J Clowes, T Dean, C O’ Leary, B Posnett and L Smetham.

The motion was declared carried with 8 votes for and 5 against.

RESOLVED: That the Environment and Communities Committee

1. Note the outputs of the updated independent review of current site provision and the outcomes of the recent public consultation.

2. Approve:

a. The permanent household waste recycling centre service provision for the borough, namely four sites located at Knutsford, Macclesfield, Alsager and Crewe,

b. The permanent closure of the HWRC sites at Bollington, Middlewich and Poynton, and

c. A mobile HWRC service serving rural and areas where the collected data indicates that incidents of fly tipping are at an increased level

d. Retention of a booking system to be used as described in this report.

3. Delegate authority to the Interim Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods to

a. Take all necessary steps to implement the approved permanent household waste recycling centre service provision,

b. Permanent close the HWRC sites at Bollington, Middlewich and Poynton,

c. Continue with the trial mobile household waste centre mitigation measures, until commencement of the new permanent service levels, targeted for September 2025.

d. Take all necessary steps to complete the procurement and award of a new contract to a service provider in consultation with the Director of Governance and Compliance,

e. Undertake the associated capital site improvement works, and

f. Develop and implement a robust operating process for the mobile HWRC service, as part of the future permanent provision in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee

Councillor J Clowes left the meeting after consideration of this item and did not return.

The Economy and Growth Committee at its meeting on 14th March 2023 resolved to:

1.        delegate to the Executive Director Place to take all necessary actions to enable the delivery stage of the ‘Cheshire Archives – A Story Shared’ project.

2.       delegate authority to the Executive Director Place, in consultation with the Director of Governance and Compliance, to enter into or approve any contracts or agreements (including professional consultants and building contracts etc.) required for the delivery phase.

Agenda for Economy and Growth Committee on Tuesday, 14th March, 2023

That a contractor be appointed for the main construction contract for the Crewe centre of Cheshire Archives Service.

During consideration of this item Councillor A Kolker declared that he was the Chair of Trustees of Everybody Health and Leisure.

The Committee received an overview of the recent work stemming from the fall’s prevention strategy in Cheshire East. The strategy aimed to reduce risk of falls amongst residents aged 65 and over, thus supporting people to live independently.

Highlights of the work undertaken included.

-       The recommissioning of ‘One You Cheshire East’

-       An increase in capacity of places on the fall’s prevention programme

-       An annual falls awareness week

-       Over 10,000 leaflets on falls prevention had been distributed through partners.

In response to ensuring advertising the strategy was appropriate for all audience’s officers reported that various mediums were being used such as posters, radio, attendance at older people’s groups and leaflets.

In response to concerns over duplication within care communities officers reported that there would be a specific session held for care communities in the next few weeks which would aim to be prevent duplication.

Officers would take into consideration the suggestion that all over 65’s should be receiving a leaflet on falls prevention to prevent longer term issues.

RESOLVED:  That the Adult and Health Committee:

1. Endorse continuing work on the strategy and action plan to help reduce falls amongst older people in Cheshire East.

The Committee considered a report which sought approval to enter into a new Section 75 Agreement for one year, between Cheshire East Council and Cheshire and Merseyside ICB from 1 April 2024 until 31 March 2025. With the possibility of an extension for the period of an additional year from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026.

Members queried why Cheshire East Council would be entering into a Section 75 agreement with the Cheshire Integrated Care Board (ICB), and how Cheshire East Council could guarantee that it received a fair share of the Better Care Fund (BCF). Officers reported that it was necessary to enter into a Section 75 agreement with the ICB because it was the statutory organisation; there is no longer a statutory organisation at Cheshire East Place level However, the BCF grant is delineated by local authorities, so there is a sum of money in the national guidance identified for Cheshire East which is identified for pooling in the BCF.

Members were updated that officers were looking to ensure that money is spent on programmes which have the greatest impact; the amount of money is increasing and a significant proportion of it will be spent on reablement.

RESOLVED: Unanimously

That the Adults and Health Committee

1. Authorises the Council to enter into a new Section 75 Agreement with Cheshire and Merseyside ICB for a period of one year from 1 April 2024, for the council’s minimum required budget, together with the option to extend that agreement for a further period of one year (subject to there being a national requirement to operate the Better Care Fund as a Section 75 pooled budget agreement until 31 March 2025).

2. Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Adults, Health and Integration (in consultation with the Director of Governance and Compliance) to agree the terms of the Section 75 Agreement.

3. Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Adults, Health and Integration (in consultation with the Director of Governance and Compliance) to extend the Agreement for 2025/26.

4. Authorises the Director of Finance and Customer Services to continue with pooled budget arrangements for 2024/25 for the council’s revised minimum requirement.

5. Approves that the services identified in the appendix 2 can be considered and reviewed with the potential that they are included in the Better Care Fund Section 75 Agreement.

The Committee considered a report which sought approval to uplift the direct payment personal assistant (PA) hourly rate paid to those recipients who employ a personal assistant through a direct payment arrangement and continue to align the hourly rate for adults and children direct payments. It also sought approval to delegate authority to the Executive Director of Adults, Health and Integration to undertake annual reviews of direct payment personal assistant (PA) hourly fees that would track annual increases to the National Living Wage (NLW) as part of the council’s financial planning cycle including authority to make decisions to implement the financial uplifts.

Members were updated that the Council has a contract to support those who would be acting as employers. The money to fund the uplift had been built into the budget, and financial modelling had taken place factoring in the increase to the National Living Wage. The increased rates would be backdated to the beginning of the financial year.

When asked about the scrutiny of the direct payments, Members were advised that as part of the new policy, Cheshire East Council was implementing new technology to record and monitor how recipients of direct payments were spending the money. Recipients would be given a card to be used to make payments, which is reported to the Council. An exercise is undertaken twice a year to check and see if there has been any underspend, and why. Underspends are clawed back by Cheshire East Council. This information was also monitored via annual National Statutory Returns. Members were advised that direct payments would be incorporated into the MTFS in the future when carrying out the budget setting process, which will come back to the committee for scrutiny.

Officers committed to providing a response regarding how many people would be in receipt of direct payments.

RESOLVED: By Majority

That the Adults Health and Integration Committee:

1. Approve to set the direct payment personal assistant hourly rate fee for those residents who employ a personal assistant at £15.31 based on the current NLW.

2. Delegate authority to the Executive Director of Adults, Health and Integration to undertake annual reviews of direct payment personal assistant hourly rates, tracking increases to the NLW and to approve and implement uplifts to the rates alongside the MTFS budget setting process.

The Committee considered a report on 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 July 2024. It also identified actions that were being taken to address adverse variances to urgently address the Council’s financial sustainability.

Performance against the 2024/25 Budget within each service committee, and the Finance Sub-Committee was outlined in Table 1 of the report. The Council was forecasting an additional in-year pressure of £26.5m - this was before the application of any exceptional financial support.

Members sought clarification on the reasons for the overspend of £20.7m in the Adults budget. It was stated that the overspends forecast were the expected overspends at the end of the year if nothing changed. The overspends arose from a number of factors including more people than anticipated seeking Council support. This included an increase in the number of former self-funders seeking local authority funding to meet their care costs. Other factors included the increase in costs of providing care due to increases in the National Living Wage, an increase in the discharge activities from hospitals.

Officers reported that it would be very unlikely that the department would be able to balance its budget this year. However, the £20.4m forecast was a worst-case scenario and assumed a level of growth in the second half of the year similar to the level of growth seen in the first half of the year. If the activity in growth and price could be prevented in the second half of the year that should bring the overspend down by £4m.

Officers advised Members that the needs of those with most significant social care needs and disabilities, are factored into projections. Officers had commissioned modelling to be undertaken on the demand on Adults and Children’s to the end of the decade, in order to get a better understanding of what will happen year-on-year. A key driver of demand and expenditure in adult social care is the proportion of the population over the age of 85, which has increased in Cheshire East over the last 5 years, at a faster rate than the English average and will continue to the end of the decade.

Members were advised that work around the Better Care Fund (BCF) was conducted in a way to support all parties who were dealing with discharge and significant investment in reablement services from the BCF is taking place and will need to be expanded to reduce the number of people going into hospital.

Members asked whether difficult conversations were being had with partners, such as the NHS. Officers informed members that NHS colleagues were clear of the consequences of Cheshire East Council’s financial situation and that if it were to deteriorate, it would have a detrimental effect on the local NHS provision. However, the NHS were themselves facing deficit of £160m and were seeking how to minimise expenditure. Cheshire East Council has made clear to the Ministry of Housing, Local Government and Comminates, the impact of the NHS national policy on local authorities.

Members were advised that the £500k Public Health Grant could not be used to offset a reduction in expenditure but would be for an overall increase in substance misuse support. 

In response to a question raised as to whether officers could tell if the mitigations put in place were working, officers reported that it was too early to tell, however, there had been some stabilisation in respect of price and a levelling off of activity.

Officers committed to providing a response to the questions raised by committee members, as summarised below:

·         The rate at which the population of those over 85 in Cheshire East was increasing.

·         Would Cheshire East Council be asking for permission to use Exceptional Financial Support funding for other means which were not initially requested for in March when we were going to draw that money down?

RESOLVED: by Majority

That the Adults and Health Committee:

1.    Review the factors leading to a forecast adverse Net Revenue financial pressure of:

Council: £26.5m against a revised budget of £387.6m (6.8%)

Adults and Health: £20.7m against a revised budget of £138.0m (15.0%)

Scrutinise the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 relevant to services within the committee’s remit, 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.    Consider the in-year forecast capital spending of:

Council: £164.5m against an approved MTFS budget of £215.8m, due to slippage that has been re-profiled into future years.

Adults and Health: £0.8m against an approved MTFS budget of £0.8m

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.

5.      That the Adults and Health Committee acknowledge the request of the Finance Sub committee at its meeting on the 12^th September 2024 for the Corporate Policy Committee to undertake an examination of children services and adults as areas for consideration as their performance lies outside the parameters of the MTFS.

Economy and Growth Committee at its meeting on 12 March 2024 resolved to authorise the Head of Economic Development to select and enter into a contract with a provider to deliver refurbishment works to Macclesfield Indoor Market, noting the value of the contract will exceed £1,000,000.

Agenda for Economy and Growth Committee on Tuesday, 12th March, 2024, 2.00 pm

1        To move to the construction phase of the Macclesfield Market Refurbishment project under the contract with F Parkinson Ltd up to a maximum contract value of £1,344, 930.08.

 2.       To also enter into contract with David Trowler Associates as Clerk of Works for the construction phase to the value of £5,120, and Currie & Brown as Cost Consultant to the value of £3,500, and David Trowler Associates as client side CDM Advisor to the value of £1,200.

3.       To draw down funding from the budget approved for this project for those contracted construction works.

The Committee considered a report which outlined an extension to the current diversion of Public Footpath No. 35 in the Parish of Nantwich.

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 parts of Public Footpath No.35 in the Parish of Nantwich by creating new sections of public footpath and extinguishing the current path as illustrated on Plan No. HA/154 within the report, on the grounds that it was expedient in the interests of the landowner.

RESOLVED: Unanimously

That the Highways and Transport Committee

1.    Agree that a Public Path Diversion Order be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981to divert parts of Public Footpath No.35 in the Parish of Nantwich by creating new sections of public footpath and extinguishing the current path as illustrated on Plan No. HA/154 within the report, on the grounds that it is expedient in the interests of the landowner.

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 considered a report which outlined the evidence submitted and researched in the application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way (“the DM”) by varying the location of a part of Public Footpath 17 Crewe.

The Committee agreed that the evidence submitted was not conclusive that the Definitive Map was incorrect.

RESOLVED: Unanimously

That The Highways and Transport committee

1.    Agree that the application for the variation of part of Public Footpath 17 Crewe be refused on the grounds that it cannot be demonstrated that the Definitive Map and Statement needs modifying

The Committee considered a report which outlined the investigation into two applications made in 2008 by the agent for the owner of land in Odd Rode. The applications sought to delete the line of Public Footpaths 34 and 36 Odd Rode and add a public footpath on a different line to the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way (the “DM”).

The Committee agreed that on the balance of probabilities of lack of evidence, the Definitive Map was not proved to require modification.

RESOLVED: By Majority

That The Highways and Transport

1.    Agree that the applications for variation of Public Footpath 34 and 36 in the parish of Odd Rode be refused on the grounds that it cannot be demonstrated that the Definitive Map and Statement needs modifying.

The Committee considered a report which presented the findings of a strategic review of the Council’s financial support for local bus services. The review was undertaken to ensure that spending provided value for money and best met the needs of passengers within prevailing budget constraints.

The Council’s existing supported bus contracts were due to expire at the end of March 2025. The process to re-procure services was scheduled to begin in October, with new contracts due to start in April 2025. The outcomes from the bus service review and associated consultation had informed the service specifications and the proposed changes to the supported bus network were outlined in the report.

Councillor R Bailey attended to speak as a visiting member. Cllr Bailey was grateful for the Go Too service but shared her concerns that it was in operation without full testing of those who rely on it.

There was no commercial bus service in Audlem and following a residents meeting it was found that a lot more people relied on the regular commercial bus service for a number of reasons.

40 residents met with the local MP, who wrote to Cheshire East raising concerns. The report has been shared as though there are services in place, when it was the Go Too service in place, along with the retention of the commercial service not being re-procured until 1st April.

The report gave an underlying feeling that no one used the bus service in Audlem, and by 1^st April next year they would have given up hope of a bus service, lost employment, or education, or will have become isolated.

In relation to the recommendations on Page 71, specifically 2a – Councillor Bailey asked that Cheshire East Council as a matter of urgency expedite the re procurement of services 72 and 73 to ensure there was a service in place for Audlem and surrounding areas.

In addition, that the performance of the Go Too bus was carefully scrutinised, which all too often was cancelled at late notice.

Councillor Bailey emphasised the priorities outlined in Cheshire East’s Corporate Plan specifically inclusivity and access to education, and without transport support, the council would fail on those priorities.

The Committee welcomed the report and asked questions and sought assurance in relation to:

-       Flexible transport – concerns around qualification, and that it would be open to travellers who have no viable public transport service available. Would those residents who are elderly or disabled continue to have access to the Flexi Link service.

-       Concerns around the reliability of the Go Too Service in the south of the borough

-       If monthly performance data on failure rates and usage in the area could be shared with members

-       Is the concessionary bus pass travel still valid on the Flexi bus?

-       Are pets allowed on the service?

In response officers reported that

-       The Flexi link service would continue for those with limited mobility/ and the elderly.

-       Officers would look to investigate the Go Too Service provision in that area as it was suggested there was spare capacity on the Go Too Service.

-       Officers agreed that they could share monthly performance data with members so that they could look at the areas of concern.

-       concessionary passes could be used on the Go Too Service after 9.30am, half an adult fare before 9.30am and free to travel on a Saturday.

-       Only assistance dogs are permitted – to accommodate those who don’t wish to travel with dogs.

In response to a question in respect of advertising the service, officers reported that some of the BCIP grant funding would be used on marketing the service, especially in those rural areas.  There would be a review on what community transport schemes were available as this had not been reviewed since before covid.

In response to concerns around the period of notice given by D & G when withdrawing its service members suggested that consideration be given to a longer clause in future contracts in respect of notice periods.

RESOLVED:  Unanimously

That the Highways and Transport Committee

1.    Note the findings of the Bus Service Review 2024 (see Appendix 1 and 2 of the report) and the associated Consultation Summary Report (see Appendix 3).

2. Approve the current proposals for a revised supported bus network, as below and in Appendix 4, whereby the Council will;

a) Cease revenue support for the 70 Nantwich to Tiverton (2 journeys daily) and replace with access to flexible transport (see below). Reconfigure the 72 and 73 Nantwich rural services (serving Wrenbury and Audlem) and provide a direct local bus service linking Nantwich to Leighton Hospital.

b) Increase frequency of service on the northern section of route 391/392 between Poynton and Stockport to hourly.

c) On a trial basis, extend FlexiLink hours of operation to include 16:30-21:00 and provision of a Saturday service (09:00-18:00) and make it available for use by all passengers who do not have access to a fixed-route bus service.

d) All other Council supported bus services are largely unchanged as a result of these recommendations (see Appendix 4).

3. Delegate authority to the Director of Highways and Infrastructure to:

a. finalise the remaining proposals for supported bus services, including any necessary service adjustments;

b. finalise supported bus service specifications for procurement;

c. identify the most cost effective delivery model for flexible transport which also meets the provision for home-to-school special educational needs & disability transport, in consultation with the Director of Education, Strong Start and Integration;

d. procure the Council’s supported bus services including flexible transport;

e. award supported bus service contracts to start in April 2025.

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 July 2024. It also identified actions that were being taken to address adverse variances to urgently address the Council’s financial sustainability.

The Council was forecasting an additional in-year pressure of £26.5m - this was before the application of any exceptional financial support. The Highways & Infrastructure were reporting an underspend of £0.5m against a net budget of £16m.

The overall reasons for the £26.5m pressure were outlined in the report.

The key reasons for the underspend were outlined in the report and included additional income. 

The Committee noted the Transport Bus Service Improvement Plan+ (BSIP+) grant, the ear marked reserves for the Committee and the planned use for those items, and the capital programme which was still under review.

The Committee welcomed the reported underspend for the Highways and Transport Service and thanked officers for their hard work. Members expressed frustration in respect of the overspend in other areas which meant that any underspend in the Highways and Transport Service as outlined in the report would contribute to the overall corporate position rather than being earmarked for the Highways budget which was clearly needed.

Members asked questions and sought assurance in relation to

-       That officers were building business cases to justify the additional capital spend.

-       Whether it was an officer decision or a contractor decision to only provide one weed spray this year.

-       Was there an opportunity to look at the weedkilling policy as part of the work programme to allow members to provide input into it rather than it being a wholly officer-based decision.

-       What facility did the committee have through the Chair to write to the Chairs of the Adults & Heath Committee and Children & Families Committees in respect of their budget overspends.

In response, officers reported that:-

-       Although weedkilling was not a statutory service, treatment for weedkilling was still underway using manual equipment rather than the spray that was previously used as this was not as effective in the inclement weather.

-       Although it was ultimately an officer decision in respect of the weedkilling policy, allocation of funding across the wider area would be something that officers could involve members in.

-       The Chair agreed to take on board the concerns in relation to the overspend in other areas impacting on the budgets of other services and explained that the Transformation Programme would be focusing on those departments to support them in providing their services but keeping within budget.

RESOLVED: - By Majority

That the Highways and Transport Committee

 1. Review the factors leading to a forecast adverse/(positive) Net Revenue financial variance of: Council: £26.5m against a revised budget of £387.6m (6.8%) Highways and Transport: (£0.5m) against a revised budget of £16.0m (3.1%) To scrutinise the contents of Annex 1, Section 2 relevant to services within the committee’s remit, 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. Consider the in-year forecast capital spending of: Council: £164.5m against an approved MTFS budget of £215.8m Highways and Transport: £45.8m against an approved MTFS budget of £66.5m 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. Note that Council will be asked to approve Supplementary Revenue Estimate Requests for Allocation of Additional Grant Funding over £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 3, Table 1 of the report.

5. That the Supplementary Capital Estimate above £500,000 up to and including £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 4, Table 3 of the report, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution be approved

The Committee considered a report which sought approval to enter into a Public Path Creation Agreement with the owner of land over which a Public Footpath runs, to change its legal status to that of Public Bridleway.

RESOLVED: Unanimously

That The Highways and Transport Committee

1. Agree that a Public Path Creation Agreement be entered into under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 to change the legal status of Public Footpath No. 2 in the Parish of Hulme Walfield, as illustrated on Plan No. HA/151 within the report, to Public Bridleway.

2. Agree that public notice of the making of the Agreement be given.

The Committee considered a report which outlined the investigation into the application that was made on the 24 August 2015 to amend the Definitive Map and Statement to add a Public Footpath between Footpath No.9 Hassall (junction with Hassall Moss, UY1177) to junction with Footpath No.8 Hassall from A-B-C Plan ref: WCA/042 (Appendix 1).

The Committee considered the evidence submitted and researched in the application to add a Public Footpath in the Parish of Hassall. The Committee agreed that the requirements of Section 53(3)(c)(i) had not been met and that there was insufficient evidence to make a Definitive Map Modification Order to record a public footpath between footpath No.9 & footpath No.8 Hassall.

RESOLVED: Unanimously

That The Highways & Transport Committee

1. Agree that the application for the addition of the footpath as shown between points A-B-C on Plan No. WCA/042 at Appendix 1 of the report, be refused on the grounds that there is not any robust evidence to overturn the legal presumption that the Definitive Map and Statement are correct

The Committee considered a report which outlined the investigation into the application to amend the Definitive Map and Statement to add a Public Footpath between Mill Lane (UY1177) to junction with Footpath No.8 Hassall from A-B-C-D-E.

The Committee considered the evidence submitted and researched in the application to add a Public Footpath in the Parish of Hassall. The Committee agreed that the balance of documentary evidence did not support the case that a public footpath subsists along the route between points A-B-C-D-E as shown on plan No. WCA/043 at Appendix 1 of the report.

RESOLVED: Unanimously

That The Highways & Transport Committee

1.    Agree that the application to add a footpath as shown between points A-B-C-D-E on Plan No. WCA/043 at Appendix 1 of the report is refused on the grounds that there is not any robust evidence to overturn the legal presumption that the Definitive Map and Statement are correct.

Councillor M Brooks left the meeting after consideration of this item and did not return.

The Committee considered a report on the Cheshire East Crossing Facilities Strategy for adoption into formal Council practice.

The proposed strategy would help the Council improve the way it managed and maintained the local highway network by providing a consistent process for considering crossing requests and determining the priority for funding.

Members were reminded that there was no statutory requirement to provide crossing facilities and the demand for crossing facilities far outweighed what the Council could build or maintain. There were additional costs incurred on top of installing a crossing facility which included the maintenance and additional infrastructure.

The Committee welcomed the report and asked questions in respect of

-       Whether it would be better to maintain the crossing facilities already in place rather than putting new ones in which would mean more maintenance issues and end up being safety issues if they are not maintained?

-       Whether consideration could be given to more economic elements for crossings be looked at rather than the expensive elements given the current financial situation.

In response officers reported that

-       The priority for the Council was safety and to maintain the assets that were already there.

-       The report outlined alternative options available that may be more viable financially and do the same job the public wanted that made crossings safer.

In response to a question in relation to whether it was national criteria that was used to assess whether a school warrants a crossing patrol, as this area came under the remit of a separate department in the Highways service, officers agreed to provide a written response.

RESOLVED: Unanimously

That the Highways and Transport Committee is recommended to:

1. Approve the adoption of the Cheshire East Crossing Facilities Strategy in Appendix 1 of the report.

2. Delegate authority to the Director of Highways and Infrastructure to make technical amendments to the Cheshire East Crossing Facilities Strategy and its Prioritisation Matrix and update the Highways and Transport Committee on any significant changes as required.

The Committee adjourned for a 10-minute break.

Councillor C Browne left the meeting after consideration of this item and did not return.

The Warm and Healthy Homes project has secured funding to repair and improve the building fabric of 65 of the last remaining Grade 2 listed Railway Cottages built by the Grand Junction Railway Company in 1841 within Crewe, including works to the associated public realm.

A provisional survey was carried out in 2022 to obtain the funding, that survey identified a range of works required to the properties.  Due to the extent and scale of those works the services, the appointment of the contractors is essential in order to complete the work and comply with the listed building stipulations.

Given the preference to commit this funding within this financial year, it is proposed to directly appoint suppliers for work packages using the Construction Related Consultancy Framework for Heritage buildings.

To approve the direct award of services for the Warm & Healthy Homes Project and enter contract with contractors for development of RIBA stages 1 through to and including stage 6, and to incur expenditure in respect of the procured services.